Whos decision is it anyway?

I was reading an article on CNN yesterday. I would link it, but I can't find it. It is not one of those things that makes first page news, maybe for the good. But it was something that I have wondered about now and then. So, the news was about this mom who wanted to have her daughter's uterus removed, so the girl would not suffer from menstruation and related problems. The child in question is a 15 year old suffering from Cerebral Palsy. The mother claims that removing the uterus would be a good idea because the girl is under immense discomfort due to the monthly cycle, and does not even understand well what happens. I remember a quote from the mother, she said that the only thing her child understands is " I am in pain". This decision however has been opposed by many charities for the disabled, who claim that it there is no need to take such a big step, and that the discomfort posed by the periods is probably not that intense to make the girl go through the trauma of surgery and such a life altering step.

Now, I should mention this right away that I do not know much about cerebral palsy. I tried to do some research on wiki and google, but due to lack of time as well, I didn't immerse myself in finding a lot about it. Also, the article did not mention how intense the disease was in this particular case (since I do not remember the names of the people involved, I guess I will have to keep referring to them as the child/girl and the mom...perhaps it Is better this way, since taking names could be sticky).

My first reaction on reading the article was some anger at the charities/non profit organizations. The reaction still is one of mild anger, but I am trying to see the other side of the story as well. Always when it comes to disabled people and when I hear non involved parties making noises I always think, what do they know about living with such people and caring about them? I cannot imagine the anguish that that child suffers. I cannot imagine the pain the parent goes through, dealing with the issues of a serious illness or disability in their child every day. And then comes another major fight every month in form of unwelcome bleeding, cramps, pain, discomfort. Does the child really need to go through this? Would this child ever make use of this function of the woman's body? Will she ever bear children? If her disease is serious enough, maybe not...

So who are those naysayers kidding? Why make an issue over this? And if you are so insistent on your views, maybe you should volunteer to take care of the kid yourself. Shouldn't, in such cases, within limit of reason (and that is where the subjective part starts) be caregivers allowed to make such decisions? If the mother has taken care of her child well within her means for the past 15 years, then surely she would not be thinking of hurting/abusing her child this way in this one thing would she? And who really are these people who are making the objections? Have they been through what this mother and child have gone through?

Who makes the decision of who will be on such a charity's board? Maybe it should be people who have faced some disabilities in their life, so they know how the medicine tastes. Some times it takes a little going through things to put life into perspective.

I am not saying there is no other side to this story. If caregivers are given free rein on what they can do and what they can, an sure many people would come up with really horrid things that they could do to their charges. Human nature never ceases to horrify. But then, every power has been abused, and you never know what is going on behind close doors anyways do you? Some times before standing on our moral and ethical soapbox, it would be better to try thinking of the situation from the other person's side. Still saying I could deal with it would be lots easier than dealing with it.