Sep 22, 2011
Doctors implant devil’s horns in 5-year-old to remove a birthmark
George Ashman was born in 2006 with a big birthmark on his forehead…
Naturally his mother wanted to get it removed, but the procedure to do so came as a bit of a surprise.
From The Daily Mail…
Last year doctors inserted two small inflatable sacks under his hair line at either side of his forehead.
Over four months, they gradually inflated with natural bodily fluid until they had stretched the skin enough to reach over the birthmark when it was removed.
His mother’s response…
When I first saw the implants in place I was speechless.
They were larger than I expected – and placed on either side of his tiny head looked like horns. My cute, angel-faced baby looked like the devil.
But I’m really proud of the strength he has shown through all of this.
Despite the traumatizing procedure, both mother and son are — as you can imagine — happy with the results…
(via Arbroath)
* * * * *
4 MONTHS?! O.o
This is remarkable. And man he was a cute baby, birthmark aside.
I think he was cute, birthmark included.
(Not judging the family’s choice at all, though. Kids are mean.)
Shallow, shallow people.
What? Who?
I think she means that people should just accept the lot that life gives them and never do anything to make it better. And if you try, you’re a worse person than Hannah, who reigns in judgement over such shallow people.
My thoughts exactly, Josh.
There is nothing shallow about removing a birth mark from your child’s face. Yes he is beautiful in both the before and after pictures. However, many in our culture are shallow. Yes, kids can be especially mean, but adults can be mean too. Any caring parent would save their child from having to go through unnecessary hardship.
but makes it so much easier for the lad as he matures. four months of oddness for a lifetime of increased acceptance… works for me.
I have a friend who had a similar procedure done on her baby, but it only involved one lump rather than two horns. Hannah, their primary reason for doing so was that such birthmarks have a strong chance of becoming cancerous down the line. It wasn’t just a question of cosmetics or vanity; it was about the child’s health. I suspect the same is true in the case of George’s family.
That is precisely what I was going to say! I know a couple that is having to get surgery for their daughter due to a birthmark she was born with. It looks quite a bit different than this one (i.e., larger, dark brown, hairy), but they are going through with the surgery because doctors say it could be cancerous later.
What a cute baby picture! Those eyes are beautiful! I gotta agree with Laura and Emily. Many large birthmarks can be painful or potentially dangerous. How clever to make the skin grow to cover extra space, then remove it!
I personally had a large birthmark (a large mass of blood vessels) on my leg at birth, and finally got it removed in my twenties. It was sensitive and ached almost constantly, unless something hit it… then it hurt like the dickens. I wish it had just been cut out when I was a baby, rather than having to deal with it for so long before taking care of it. Now i have a nasty scar, but it’s not nearly as painful.
Another reason the parents might make the decision to have the birthmark removed is because it would affect his self-image and self-esteem, which would be made worse by other people (both kids and adults) making fun of him, staring and pointing at him, etc. It’s hard enough to be different when you’re older. It’s worse when you’re a kid.
Yes. Really, I think this procedure would be completely justified even if there were no concerns about developing cancer. I’m no surgeon, but this looks like it wasn’t an especially technically difficult fix. Looks rather brilliant and elegant to me, in fact. Perhaps the “shallow” person would be the one who fixates on the temporary, unusual appearance it causes for a relatively brief time, especially with such a concern over something as insubstantial as an allusion to imaginary, cartoonish images of devils. And then considers that sufficient reason to choose instead to condemn this person to a lifetime of disfigurement.
As a parent, I probably wouldn’t have chosen to do this… but 4 months out of the child’s toddler years goes so quickly that I could understand the parents deciding that it would be worth it in the long-term. They probably figured that making friends for their entire school-years would be easier, and the years of more positive experiences with other people outweights 4 months the child would never remember anyway.
If they’re in a position to afford it and ensure it’s done safely, good for them.
Jon, my instinct tells me that you probably WOULD have chosen to do this, once you understood that port-wine and similar birthmarks often become cancerous.
What’s the worse scenario?
Inflatable balloons under the skin for a few months (which the child will most likely not remember) which completely take care of the problem both medically and cosmetically
–OR–
disfiguring, potentially lethal cancer at a later date?
I’m sure your adult child, sans birthmark, sans cancer, sans big ugly hole in the forehead, would thank you for having made the right decision.
I had the same procedure as an adult for medical reasons, and it was very, very painful. As a former patient and as a parent, props to parents and child for going through this. They had an excellent surgeon.