A happy mom recently told the story of how her little girl said goodbye to a birthmark on her forehead, even though they initially faced some criticism from doctors.
A very uncommon birthmark.
© viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram, © viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram, © viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram
Here’s the story of Celine Casey and her two-year-old daughter, Vienna Shaw. Vienna was born with a rare birthmark called congenital melanocytic nevus (CMN) on her forehead, which only occurs in one out of every 20,000 newborns.
When Celine learned about the birthmark, she felt worried and wondered if she had done something wrong during her pregnancy. She didn’t know what the birthmark would mean for Vienna but was determined to remove it so that her daughter could grow up without feeling different.
© viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram
Even though the birthmark didn’t affect Brookshaw’s physical health, Casey knew it could impact her daughter’s mental well-being as she grew older and interacted with other children who might be curious about her condition.
Celine shared that the family sometimes used to hide Vienna’s birthmark by covering her face when they went out. She said, “We went out daily with her and got a few stares.”
The surgery was challenging.
© viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram
When they sought help from the NHS, the family received disheartening feedback. Doctors couldn’t go ahead with the surgery to remove the birthmark, categorizing it as a cosmetic procedure.
However, the parents viewed it differently. They were genuinely worried about potential teasing from other kids, which could affect their daughter’s mental well-being at a young age. Casey was also concerned that if they didn’t remove the birthmark, her daughter might grow to resent her and her partner.
© viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram, © viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram, © viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram
The parents took matters into their own hands and privately raised the required funds. Through crowdfunding, they managed to gather $52,000 within 24 hours. However, due to increased hospital costs in 2020, they had to raise an additional $27,000. With a new funding request, they eventually reached their goal.
They encountered difficulties with doctors.
© viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram
Disagreements between the medical team and the parents have led to differing opinions. Vienna’s parents wanted the birthmark removed through surgery, but the surgeon refused to perform the procedure. The surgeon’s stance is rooted in the belief that the child should make the decision once she reaches an appropriate age.
After this controversy arose, Daniel Brookshaw, Vienna’s father, expressed his dissatisfaction with the doctor’s viewpoint. The doctor also consulted with a dermatologist who concurred with the surgeon, emphasizing that the birthmark doesn’t threaten Vienna’s health and is not cancerous.
The surgery was completed successfully.
© viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram
Vienna is now two years old, and her doctors have successfully removed her birthmark, leaving only a faint scar between her eyebrows. Casey regularly shares updates on Shaw’s scar and recovery process on her social media, and followers often comment on how beautiful her little girl looks.
Despite the birthmark being gone, Casey mentioned that they still have to travel between cities to check the healing of the scar and see if any additional procedures are needed beyond the three she has already undergone. Shaw is now enjoying the typical life of a two-year-old.
© viennarosebrookshaw / Instagram
This little girl’s case with her birthmark brings attention to the delicate balance between parental advocacy and a child’s autonomy in medical decisions. While her parents aimed to secure her social acceptance and well-being, medical professionals stressed the importance of respecting Vienna’s future autonomy over her own body.
This story serves as a reminder of the intricate ethical considerations that arise when navigating the boundaries of parental authority and individual autonomy, prompting broader reflections on the rights of minors in the medical realm.
Jim Caviezel Takes a Stand: Refuses to Work with Robert De Niro
Unexpectedly, Jim Caviezel, an actor, made news when he openly declared that he would never collaborate with Oscar winner Robert De Niro. Widely known for his performance as Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” Caviezel has called De Niro a “wretched, ungodly man.” This audacious claim has spurred a spirited discussion over the viability of personal convictions and business partnerships in Hollywood.
Devoted to Christianity and renowned for his unshakable adherence to moral values, Caviezel has been transparent about his religious beliefs. These ingrained convictions have informed his choice to keep his distance from Robert De Niro. Although Caviezel did not elaborate on their falling out, it is obvious that his decision is the result of a disagreement with his values. The actor feels that there is a difference between De Niro’s public persona and his previous actions, and he wants to work on projects that are consistent with his own moral principles.
This incident calls into question how performers manage their own convictions in the politically charged and cooperative world of Hollywood. While diversity of thought and expression has always been respected in the profession, there are increasingly more examples of actors setting boundaries based on personal principles. Caviezel’s reluctance to collaborate with De Niro is indicative of a shifting society in which people are more willing to stand by their values, even if doing so puts them in danger of losing their jobs.
The entertainment business has seen firsthand how an actor’s public remarks may help or hurt their career. Although Caviezel’s refusal to work with De Niro might win him over to supporters who share his values and respect his dedication to his convictions, it also raises questions about possible negative effects on his future partnerships and how business people view him. Some people would proceed cautiously with such public pronouncements, and it’s still unclear how this incident will affect Caviezel’s professional path.
One of the key characteristics of Caviezel’s public presence has been his strong Christian faith. He gained notoriety as an actor willing to take on parts that align with his spiritual beliefs because to his depiction of Jesus Christ in “The Passion of the Christ.” The argument with De Niro highlights the difficulties actors encounter in trying to uphold their morality in a field notorious for its complexity and moral ambiguities.
Beyond the specific performers engaged, consideration of the larger ramifications for Hollywood and the entertainment business at large is prompted by Caviezel’s refusal to collaborate with De Niro. The continuous conflict between individual convictions and the collective process of filmmaking is brought to light by this incident. There may be a change in the dynamics of the industry if more actors choose to use their platforms to voice their ideals and stand up for causes that are important to them.
The topic of how personal beliefs and professional obligations intersect in Hollywood has gained attention as a result of Jim Caviezel’s resolute refusal to work with Robert De Niro on moral reasons. The narrow line that separates personal ethics from the communal spirit that characterizes filmmaking is brought to light by this incident. The conflict between Caviezel and De Niro highlights the difficulties and complications experienced by performers who work hard to be true to their values as the entertainment business strives to negotiate these intricacies.
Leave a Reply