Growth Attenuation

[VoidCat]

tagging @Shadow Wolf @Guitar's Cry cuz they might be interested and @SomeRandom for the fact she might be interested and also cuz I'm scared this discussion might get heated and it'd be good to tag a mod to keep an eye on it. I've never seen anyone discuss this topic on here and it's a very controversial practice that many haven't heard of but once they do typically have very strong opinions on it. I hope folk remain civil. I don't know if they will but other places I've talked about it on it gets heated.

I did not want to put this in debates but felt it'll likely turn into one so Imma put in there. I would like folk to keep in mind that this is not about trans folk and puberty blockers. This is about accelerating the growth of nonambulatory disabled children who are expected to have severe mental and physical disabilities in adulthood. Please keep the trans kids and puberty blockers out the discussion. It's not on topic. Go make your own thread if that's what you want to talk about.

Alright. So what is growth attenuation and why am I concerned this may get so heated? Well growth attenuation is a therapy done on mostly nonambulatory and cognitively disabled children who are expected to remain that way their whole lives. From Growth attenuation - Wikipedia.

Growth attenuation is an elective medical treatment which involves administering estrogen to cause closure of the epiphyses of the bones (Epiphyseal plates), resulting in a reduced adult height. Since the 1960s this treatment has been performed primarily on children growing toward an adult height considered unacceptably excessive by their parents and doctors. The cultural consensus of what is considered an excessive height justifying treatment has differed in Europe and North America and has risen over the last 4 decades.[1]

Most of the children treated have been girls, with larger numbers treated in Europe than in North America. The height considered unacceptable by parents and doctors has become substantially taller over the last few decades. Very few boys have ever been treated for excessive tallness in North America, but this also has been done more often in Europe.[citation needed] Growth attenuation treatment has been more recently in the news as part of the controversial Ashley Treatment administered to a developmentally disabled girl.[2] This has been criticised as denying the human rights of disabled people.[3][additional citation(s) needed]

Basically it's speeding up puberty in a child and their development to keep them forever small. Why would anyone want to do this? Easy...When a disabled child becomes an adult it gets harder to move them around. As a result some parents want to make it to where the child's adult size is small so they can include them in more activities with the fam. They feel this would improve quality of life. Heres the thing...no studies have been done on nonambulatory adults to see if smaller adults have better quality of life. And no one to my knowledge knows what speeding up development on someone like this can do in the long run it's such a rare treatment. Altho it does seem to be increasing in frequency from what I've heard. Disabled folk have right to bodily autonomy as well. Should we really be denying that just because someone is more high support needs? This treatment in most cases is not done to treat a medical problem. It's just done to make things easier for the parent and hopefully improve quality of life. Even tho no studies that I know of show if it improves it or not. I will now leave you with a final thought. The Ashley treatment. Ashley Treatment - Wikipedia

Basically a severely disabled 6 year old was given this treatment. She also had her uterus and appendix removed. Along with her breast buds removed. All of this was not done to treat a medical problem. It was elective. And it was done to make things easier for the parents and according to said parents hopefully improve the quality of life of the kid in the long run. This treatment was also illegal as the family did not get a court order for the hysterectomy.

Personally I find all of this horrible. I think it's a denial of bodily autonomy, and I think most of these sorts of treatments done on disabled children are done without knowing if these kinds of treatments would in fact improve quality of life. I think in order for growth attenuation to be medically ok there would need to be more studies done first. Like does size really affect outcomes for disabled folk who are nonambulatory? And maybe some done on mice to see what potential effects this would have on humans. And someone should look into the cases that have been done and see if any problems have resulted perhaps there are some studies done about that I don't know about. So far I don't see any reason to believe denial of bodily autonomy is worth it in this case. What do y'all think? What are your thoughts on the Ashley treatment and growth attenuation? Is it ethical?

 

[VoidCat]

As a heads up to the mods to my knowledge growth attenuation is legal in the US. The Ashley case wasn't because the sterilization of a minor without a court order. It is legal in many states to sterilize a minor and it has been done on disabled kids but often a court order is needed.

edit: The Ashley treatment, versions of it have been redone on other disabled folk. So it can be done legally.

 

[fantome profane]

Incredibly hard decision to make, but it is a decision that should be made by the child's guardian with the best available medical advice from experts. I don't want the goverment to come in heavy handed and ban such a treatment.

And I am sorry, but I see little utility in topics like this being debated on the internet by people who are not medical experts.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I always wondered if playing around with a person's genetics is a good idea.

It's like saying don't try to control nature because it can harbor unforseen consequences.

It does make sense why they are doing it , but in doing so will it be a right decision?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's sick and evil. That's the end of it.

 

[VoidCat]

And I am sorry, but I see little utility in topics like this being debated on the internet by people who are not medical experts.

i feel you but felt it'd be an interesting topic to talk about

 

[VoidCat]

It's sick and evil. That's the end of it.

i was trying to be nice with how I worded things...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

i was trying to be nice with how I worded things...

Can't be nice about everything. This is about mutilating the bodies of disabled children to an extreme extent for the convenience of selfish adults. Talk about depravity. It sounds like something out of a trashy exploitation flick, meant to shock. Everyone has the right to bodily integrity, especially children and other vulnerable populations who are not able to consent. The parents and doctors should've been locked up. It's like a concentration camp medical experiment. Wtf.

 

[Revoltingest]

tagging @Shadow Wolf @Guitar's Cry cuz they might be interested and @SomeRandom for the fact she might be interested and also cuz I'm scared this discussion might get heated and it'd be good to tag a mod to keep an eye on it. I've never seen anyone discuss this topic on here and it's a very controversial practice that many haven't heard of but once they do typically have very strong opinions on it. I hope folk remain civil. I don't know if they will but other places I've talked about it on it gets heated.

I did not want to put this in debates but felt it'll likely turn into one so Imma put in in there. I would like folk to keep in mind that this is not about trans folk and puberty blockers. This is about accelerating the growth of nonambulatory disabled children who are expected to have severe mental and physical disabilities in adulthood. Please keep the trans kids and puberty blockers out the discussion. It's not on topic. Go make your own thread if that's what you want to talk about.

Alright. So what is growth attenuation and why am I concerned this may get so heated? Well growth attenuation is a therapy done on mostly nonambulatory and cognitively disabled children who are expected to remain that way their whole lives. From Growth attenuation - Wikipedia.

Basically it's speeding up puberty in a child and their development to keep them forever small. Why would anyone want to do this? Easy...When a disabled child becomes an adult it gets harder to move them around. As a result some parents want to make it to where the child's adult size is small so they can include them in more activities with the fam. They feel this would improve quality of life. Heres the thing...no studies have been done on nonambulatory adults to see if smaller adults have better quality of life. And no one to my knowledge knows what speeding up development on someone like this can do in the long run it's such a rare treatment. Altho it does seem to be increasing in frequency from what I've heard. Disabled folk have right to bodily autonomy as well. Should we really be denying that just because someone is more high support needs? This treatment in most cases is not done to treat a medical problem. It's just done to make things easier for the parent and hopefully improve quality of life. Even tho no studies that I know of show if it improves it or not. I will now leave you with a final thought. The Ashley treatment. Ashley Treatment - Wikipedia

Basically a severely disabled 6 year old was given this treatment. She also had her uterus and appendix removed. Along with her breast buds removed. All of this was not done to treat a medical problem. It was elective. And it was done to make things easier for the parents and according to said parents hopefully improve the quality of life of the kid in the long run. This treatment was also illegal as the family did not get a court order for the hysterectomy.

Personally I find all of this horrible. I think it's a denial of bodily autonomy, and I think most of these sorts of treatments done on disabled children are done without knowing if these kinds of treatments would in fact improve quality of life. I think in order for growth attenuation to be medically ok there would need to be more studies done first. Like does size really affect outcomes for disabled folk who are nonambulatory? And maybe some done on mice to see what potential effects this would have on humans. And someone should look into the cases that have been done and see if any problems have resulted perhaps there are some studies done about that I don't know about. So far I don't see any reason to believe denial of bodily autonomy is worth it in this case. What do y'all think? What are your thoughts on the Ashley treatment and growth attenuation? Is it ethical?

​

I can't take a stand on this because it requires extensive
consideration that I've not given. I see 2 issues...
1) The possibility that a kid who might never have full
agency could benefit from others imposing the curbing
of some developmental aspects.
2) But it's a radically invasive thing to do to someone,
with much potential for injustice.

 

[fantome profane]

i feel you but felt it'd be an interesting topic to talk about

Discussing other people's personal medical situation can certainly be entertaining. But forgive me if I choose not to participate any further.

I would rather debate the relative merits of Star Trek vs Star Wars. Nobody gets hurt in that debate.

 

[VoidCat]

Can't be nice about everything. This is about mutilating the bodies of disabled children to an extreme extent for the convenience of selfish adults. Talk about depravity. It sounds like something out of a trashy exploitation flick, meant to shock. Everyone has the right to bodily integrity, especially children and other vulnerable populations who are not able to consent.

which is why I wanted to discuss the issue. unfortunately if I had been rude in writing the op I would likely not have been able to talk about it

 

[VoidCat]

the reasoning I read the Ashley's breasts were removed concerns me a bit. Her parents felt that it would reduce the likelihood she would be sexually abused. As if her having breasts would be the reason shed be abused. The other reason was because large breasts ran in the family and they were worried she would with her growth being reduced have back problems. I don't think either reason was good enough to remove breast buds on a 6 year old.

 

[VoidCat]

I can't take a stand on this because it requires extensive
consideration that I've not given. I see 2 issues...
1) The possibility that a kid who might never have full
agency could benefit from others imposing the curbing
of some developmental aspects.
2) But it's a radically invasive thing to do to someone,
with much potential for injustice.

that's kinda where I am at. My first reaction is the same as @Saint Frankenstein
but I can see why the parents of Ashley chose it. I do believe they chose the treatments they did because they felt it would improve her quality of life. But...Grow attenuation is understudied for the use of this purpose. I have no clue if that actually would improve quality of life. To my knowledge Ashley was predicted to stay at the level of a 3 month old. Such a treatment to her parents seemed promising...theyd be able to take her on more trips, and hold her more, and she'd get less bed sores from being a bigger weight. But again no study that I know of if anyone finds one I'd be be glad to read it shows if it actually does improve quality of life or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a very hard decision for parents to make. Is it sometimes done out of convenience? Possibly. But I think that parents often do still have the best interest of their children in mind. Since I am in no way a medical expert or an have the experience of meeting and getting to know people suffering that way all that I can do is to try to offer what little support that I can to those that underwent this treatment.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is a very hard decision for parents to make. Is it sometimes done out of convenience?

If the parents are to care for someone no more
mature than an infant for decades, their needs
are more than mere convenience.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Incredibly hard decision to make, but it is a decision that should be made by the child's guardian with the best available medical advice from experts. I don't want the goverment to come in heavy handed and ban such a treatment.

And I am sorry, but I see little utility in topics like this being debated on the internet by people who are not medical experts.

It makes more people aware and enlarges the total.discourse of such a heinous cruelty, does it not?
We can also poke around and find there's a lack of evidence to support it, suggesting it's done entirely for the caregiver's benefit.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But I think that parents often do still have the best interest of their children in mind.

Except not always, many parents only think they do, and it sometime's ends bad for the kid. It's where we need to bugger off with the fantasy that parents are going to knows best and require such decisions to have medical authorization (even with outright overriding the parent if need be).
Amd in this case, if there can't be shown to have a clinical benefit for the person then it shouldn't happen and should be considered abusive and relegated to the annals of history along with every other torture that didn't actually help the patient but often tended to harm them and only benefit caregivers (such as with lobotomies).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can't be nice about everything. This is about mutilating the bodies of disabled children to an extreme extent for the convenience of selfish adults. Talk about depravity. It sounds like something out of a trashy exploitation flick, meant to shock. Everyone has the right to bodily integrity, especially children and other vulnerable populations who are not able to consent. The parents and doctors should've been locked up. It's like a concentration camp medical experiment. Wtf.

Yup. It only draws to my mind the horrors and nightmares inflicted upon various groups "for their own good." But it's never been for the patient's benefit, such things just don't show it helps in the research, but it sure helps staff and parents and other care takers a lot.

 

[fantome profane]

It makes more people aware and enlarges the total.discourse of such a heinous cruelty, does it not?
We can also poke around and find there's a lack of evidence to support it, suggesting it's done entirely for the caregiver's benefit.

I do not believe anyone who frequents this board has anywhere near the qualifications that would be required to do what you suggesting.

I do think we could spread misinformation and possibly make an incredibly difficult situation more difficult through our ignorance.


I really think this thread is a bad idea. I don’t think there is anything noble going on here.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm not touching this topic tonight but...

I am going to say that mice are a terrible substitute for human studies... We aren't rodents. The only benefit is how fast they reproduce (ie their replaceability).