If she is the care giver and parent I think she has the right.

I'm not in favor of any unnecessary surgery, and I don't see why having a severe disability should be a reason to stop menstruation. My aunt, who is quite noticeably retarded because she was dropped on her head as a toddler, got through the fertile years without incident. She was educable enough to know what to do when her monthly problem showed up. Now she's past the age and doesn't have to worry about it any more. So no, I don't think I'd do it.

I wouldnt know unless I was in that situation myself......however I would do all in my power to do the best for my child.

I think she should be given the hysterectomy. As a woman i know how awkward things can be when menstruating, so as a carer of a severly disabled female i think it would be a good idea. Having to wash, dress, feed and care for a disabled person is difficutl enough without having to look out for a menstrual cycle to come along too. The patient will never have children of her own so i think it would be a very good idea.

If she was mentally unwell, and it would disturb her to have periods, yes. Otherwise, no.

Hard to say... While I'm not keen on unnecessary, invasive surgery, there could be more to the story than what is covered in this brief. Menstruation/hormones affect women/girls differently. Some experience little or no pain and some, like my familial line, experience great pain and terrible mood swings. Also, endometrial cancer runs in our family and the risk is increased for women who bear no children. With these things in mind, if this were my daughter, I might consider it as well. I just don't know what I would do, but I have to believe that this mother, based on her reasons for wanting the surgery for her daughter is trying to do the right thing and give her daughter the best quality of life possible.

Lovebird spoke of a relative that was educable enough to know what to do when she was menstruating. If the disability is severe enough that this is not the case (and I don't think the question would have come up if it wasn't), then yes to both questions. This child will never know what is happening to her. At least once a month things will change. Change is not a good thing in the life of some of these children. They may even thrive with a good routine. So if we are thinking about what is best for the child, then again the answer is yes to both questions.

I don't think it is right. I consider this a slippery slope. At what point does one decide that a person is "too disabled" to have rights? It's more convenient for caregivers, but that doesn't make it right. Recently there was a similar case in the state of Washington. The parents not only authorized hysterectomy but additional procedures to prevent the child from maturing at all. It raised quite an uproar but it was too late for the child. I wonder what people would say if this was a male child and his reproductive organs were removed?

This is a difficult point. I believe, generally, in the right of people to have a family if at all possible. But the point is the rearing as well as the bearing of children. Some people say that if a woman is physically capable of bearing children, it is in infringement of their human rights to prevent it. I do not go along with this. If a woman is capable of bearing *and raising* a child, given all the aid that our society can afford, then she should be allowed, and indeed assisted, to do so. But it is no favour to a woman to give her the right to bear a child who will be take away from her as soon as it is born. If *beyond reasonable doubt* any child which a woman bore would be taken way and adopted or fostered, then it is reasonable to neuter her if it is otherwise for her own good in other matters. But you had better be sure - the judicial "beyond reasonable doubt" applies.

I don't agree with it. I would think having her tubes tied would be better. But, a hysterectomy would not be good, for the girl, for she will go into early menopause. There are many other solutions for her daughter so she would not get pregnant in the future. To cease her cycle is not one I would consider. Estrogen, natural estrogen of her own is better for her to have, then to have her placed on hormones following a hysterectomy. She should not stop her from having a menstrual cycle.

If it was my daughter I would let her choice after all it is her body. Now if she is not able to make the desicion on her own then I would maybe put her on birthcontrol of some kind.

I do agree with it. I'm sure a lot of people don't, but this girl was SEVERELY disabled. Unable to make decisions for herself. Unable to care for herself. Probably will need added care for the rest of her life because her brain doesn't work past age five, or whatever age she's stuck at. The hormone changes in her body alone could have sent her into shock, then the bleeding? It could have traumatized her. I think the parents in this case did what was in the best interest of their child. Menstruation shows that the young lady is fertile and able to get pregnant...what if, horrible thought, someone took advantage of her and she were to get pregnant? How would she respond to the pregnancy? Not well. I think that parents generally know what's best for their child, and that the doctors here should respect their wishes.

This issue has been faced before by many families before now. I used to know someone who affected it - the daughter was severely mentally disabled and would panic at the sight of her own blood coming out of her. The daughter calmed down considerably after the surgery. I think a better solution in this case (if this is the same issue and not a reproductive issue)is to use the hormonal patch or injections.

no,They should just let nature take its course and if the mother cant be bothered to help her own daughter with her hormones then she isn't a mother at all.

I have worked with all sorts of disabilities and while I have seen many who have had their periods no one ever said they wished they didn't have one.

Women have a uterus and other female parts for more than having children. It helps in their hormones and wellness in so many ways that doctors don't even understand. You just can't go around taking parts out. Long term it seems like a bad idea to me for her overall health. There are other ways to deal with periods without taking out necessary organs.

Well, sure I would. First off, I wouldn't want to find out my pillow angel was pregnant by some orderly who took advantage. Second, I don't see why the girl needs periods. She is barely conscious and it's her mother and father who would be changing her maxi pads along with her diapers. Perhaps they have hemophobia and can't handle that. It would be hard enough to change adult diapers all your life without also adding in the maxi pads and all that mess.

I definitely think its a good idea! How on earth would she be able to cope with that sort of thing. Fair enough its like, human rights. But it wont make her life any worse having a hysterectomy, so , yeah!

I think this is a logical course of action. Before you just off and DR me, read why. As stated in the article, the girl would only be confused, scared or embarrassed by having a cycle. She has enough going on without dealing with the torment of cramping. There is no point to leaving her capable of bearing children. She would not be able to care for any emotionally, or be capable of even changing a diaper properly. I have no issue with developmentally disabled people having children, as long as they can provide the emotional support, and financial support needed to have them. This girl could do neither. While it pains me to see someone in a situation like that, I think the best thing would be to make life as easy and simple as possible for the girl. Having her fixed could solve the problem.

This is a very good question!!! You would think, if she is to disabled to have and take care of children, then the parents should be have the right. BUT you would also think it's her body, and she is a female and this is what females go through. I guess I would have to say, if shes to disabled to have kids, and her parents- which did bring her into this world and are also her caregivers should have the right!

I work with the disabled!, and I can see the logic, but I actually think they should put her on the shot or something to stop the bleeding.....instead of surgery.....I used to work with an adult woman who had her regular periods, and I had to do pads, tampons, the whole 9 yards, and I was uncomfortable with it for a long time, but I don't think surgery was the answer.....the family on the other hand, didn't think the shot was either, and thought she should continue to have tampons manually placed inside her.....I disagreed with this.

Yes, I think it would be better if she did have it. Taking care of a severely disabled person is a life-time commitment. It would be easier on the girl and the parents without menstruation.

i think this is ok to do. a lot of girls have terrible periods and all teenage girls get very confused at this time, now this poor girl will already have a tough life and periods make life a hell lot harder, if its impossable to have children anyway or she will not live that long its a good idea to prevent what some girls describe as hell im surethis was a hard descion to make and was not made lightly but a lot of thought and research went into it

I would do it. There are not many good reasons to have a hysterectomy but THIS is a pretty good reason.

This is a very good question!! But, it is limited in the information it provides. It depends on the extent and nature of the disability. A hysterectomy is permanent and therefore I would question if her disability in also inhibitin in a permanenet fashion. Will she NEVER at any point be able to care for herself and potential offspring independently? If at some point in her life there carries the slightest possibly that she may be able to do so, then to deny her the right to create life is not ANY caregiver's right to temporarily ease them.

First off let me say that I am a mother of 3, 2 of em being girls, and that also I had a friend who had fallen 48 feet, which severed her spinal cord and shattered most of her back bone. While I don't have experience dealing with cerbal palsy or a hysterectomy, I did the smart thing, I looked up the information on the internet to get a better idea of what the 2 are. And by the way, my friend was paralyzed from the mid-back done and I took care of her, I slipped in the catheder so she would pass urine, and I also had to insert my finger into her anus and rotate it to the left for a couple of minutes then do the same to the left to stimulate her bowels so they would move, then changed her diaper when she was done. So knowing what I had to do for my friend, which included using a lift to get her in and out of bed and so for, I can understand alot of what a person goes thru to take care of a disabled person. The feeding, the bathing, ect. Cerbal Palsy causes a person not to have control of their muscles and can be very dibilitating. We don't know everything this mother has to go through. And she is not just a person, she is a mother. A mother who has dedicated her life to another life, instead of putting her in a home and visiting her on weekends. From another mother's and even a part time caretaker's point of view, if in the long run having a hysterectomy is going to lighten the load of all the other chores of taking care of 2 lives at one time, then go for it. While yes, some of what comes out does control functions in your body, it can be corrected for hormone therapy. Big deal, that won't last as long as what it will for when she starts her period. And should she live to be the age where she would go thru the "change", more than likely her mother will have already passed and she will be in some home with no family and will have to go thru the emotions of it then with strangers. She's never going to be able to have kids, and will probably never even have sex. So why not?? Both of their lives are already hard enough, seeing how there isn't a way to correct it, then why not do everything you can to make life easier and simpler and be doing it while being with your family.

Its like giving someone a wheelchair and cutting off their legs. Just because something seems unnessisary doesnt give anyone the right to automatically remove it. You might miss what you loose out on - I'm not speaking about babies specifically but many girls see periods as a gateway into being a woman and growing up. Should the girl be denied something normal and natural and shared by every woman? Also to give one person special treatment and allow them through the system would upset a lot of women who are able to make their own decisions and want the procedure themselves. I have a friend (recently turned 20) who assures everyone she doesn't want children and will never change her mind and if she was allowed to have an operation to remove her ovaries, she would. To be fair, I don't know much about disablities and if I was the mother I would want whats best for my child. But for social and ethical reasons its a bit of a slippery slope.

I really don't see a problem with it, as long as the girl's ovaries are left intact, so that she doesn't go through instant menopause. There's really no point in having to put up with messy menstruation, on a monthly basis .. if the girl won't be having any children.

Instead of performing a hysterectomy, why not put her on a form of birth control designed to stop periods (ie., Depo)?

No that is grossly unethical. No doctor worth the name would do such a thing.