I think so. If the extra digits weren't causing pain, weren't imperiling life or health, and weren't impeding the functionality of the kids' hands, then I think it would have been best to leave well enough alone until the kids were old enough to give informed consent.
FWIW, two of my kids really needed braces to correct their bites. As you may know, braces take months to years of treatments, sometimes involve removing teeth(one of my kids), and is somewhat painful. One of my kids accepted braces and didn’t complain. The other objected vehemently. The one who objected began treatment at about 10 years of age. In both cases, the orthodontist felt that the early treatment would result in the best final result and the best dental health overall. We’re we wrong to go ahead with the orthodontia during their childhood or should we have waited until they were adults and let them decide for themselves? Does it matter that one child really hated braces? OK they both did but one complained A LOT.
We’re we wrong to make this medical decision while they were children? Should we have waited until they were adults and let them decide for themselves, knowing that their adult teeth would have emerged in too tight a space and treatment would be longer, more expensive, and less effective—but it would be their choice?
My sister had orthodontic work done when she was in her early teens. She had an overbite so pronounced it affected her ability to bite and chew. Her oral surgery involved the removal of teeth and immobilizing her jaw for about 2 weeks, and then braces for about a year. She was old enough to understand the procedure and consent to it.
I don't think it would have been better to impose it on her while she was too young to understand why the doctor made her mouth hurt so much, even if she would have healed faster.
ETA: When she was very young she underwent eye surgery to treat strabismus that was causing lazy eye amblyopia. She was very fearful of doctors for quite a while afterwards. I'm not entirely sure she's over it. But that was a situation where parents and doctors can't wait for the patient to grow up before treating the condition. My sister was losing vision in one eye because her brain was only utilizing the other one. If the strabismus had been left untreated, she most likely would have lost vision in the affected eye entirely.
In the case of the children with the extra digits: probably the driving force behind each set of parents' decisions was how it would affect their child growing up, if they would be treated as defective or weird or deformed by other children. The young man I mentioned DID feel weird knowing that he had been born with extra digits. When he talked about it, he was on the cusp of adolescence and some days would say he wished he had the lost fingers and other days he was glad they were gone. The thing is, he is the youngest of his siblings. I'm pretty sure he only knows about the extra digits because one of his sisters told him. You know how lovely siblings can be. Oh, he also had an extra nipple which was left alone. I have no idea what, if anything he did as an adult about that issue or if it was ever an issue for him.
FWIW, I think the parents made the correct decision for their children. They eliminated one area where their children might have been made to feel quite bad about something that was not their fault. The medical risk was minimal; the extra digits provided no benefit.
For my own children's orthodontia: it wasn't a case of them healing better/faster by having orthodontia when they were younger vs. when they were in their teens. It was a case of the treatment itself being less invasive and much more effective because teeth could be properly aligned when adult teeth emerged, rather than risk having to correct the alignment of more teeth when they were older. The child who had to have teeth pulled: the mouth was quite crowded and small on the inside. The orthodontist actually delayed his orthodontia to see how the mouth and teeth grew and matured in order to do the least amount of invasive work. His younger sibling had no crowding but a significant overbite that was growing worse and worse--I was a bit shocked when they started that child on orthodontia first. No teeth needed to be pulled but treatment began before the older sibling's treatment and lasted longer by some months. THAT was the kid who objected to the procedure. FWIW, one of the potential benefits was avoiding not just future dental issues but also debilitating headaches that can be caused by dental issues. For both my kids, waiting until their teen years would have resulted in much more extensive work that lasted much longer and would have given not such good results.
My sister had the same kind of eye issue, although not as severe. My parents could not face the idea of their young daughter having eye surgery (and I am sure it would have been a financial hardship as well). My sister always felt extremely self conscious about it. I am not sure if it contributed to some of her shyness or whether she felt more self conscious because she was shy. She still mightily resents our parents for not having fixed it when she was a kid.
And FWIW, I'm pretty sure that my kid who resented orthodontia so much would have been even more upset if we had not had it taken care of when she was young, and especially before dating years came around.
When my kids were very young, one of the older boys in the neighborhood was born with a form of cerebral palsy and had lower legs which were twisted out of their sockets while he was in utero. His mother elected to have a series of surgeries performed in order to give him the best possible mobility but as he approached his teens she decided at that point, if there were to be more surgeries, he would have to decide whether it was worth it or not.
It's not always easy to decide what treatments are necessary, what are advisable and what to skip.
