Ashley Treatment - Right or Wrong?

[maxon]

I remember reading about this case a while back. Basically, the parents of a severely disabled little girl devised, with the help of her doctors, a treatment which would lock her into a childhood state for the rest of her life. This involved a hysterectomy (no periods), removal of her nipple buds (so she wouldn't develop breasts) and growth hormone treatment which would force hardening of bones and joints in the child's body so that the bones would never grow any further. This would lock her at child-sized.

It sounds horrifying (and, tbh, whatever might be said about the level of disability of the child, this is my reaction) but the parents of the child gave their reasons for doing this in two ways:

1. that keeping their daughter as, effectively, a child for her entire life would benefit her in terms of health and quality of life. Not having periods and breasts - something she would never be able to understand - would save her distress. Not getting any bigger would mean she wouldn't face some of the chronic health problems (and attendant pain) attendant on her type of disability.

2. that keeping her small in size would make it easier for people - initially the parents and later, when the parents died, presumably care workers - to care for her physically.

and now there's a new report :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/15/ashley-treatment-rise-amid-concerns

which indicates that, following the publicity of the Ashley case, a small number of parents of disabled children are also seeking this type of treatment.

What your opinion on this? For myself, it all sounds a bit Brave New World. My opinion is that making this kind of procedure possible is never a good idea. The type of reasoning given by the parents is the sort of thing in the past that has lead to all sorts of abuses and it also gets a bit close to eugenics.

[Amp_RNA]

I've heard about this before. I think another reason given was that it would keep her from being sexually abused since she wouldn't develop? Apparently she started to hit puberty early.

Hmm. On the one hand, it's incredibly creepy and would seem to be an infringement on the children's civil rights. On the other hand, I think there were reasons given for doing this in Ashley's case. Apparently there was a history of breast cancer in the family, They also said it would prevent bed sores. And Ashley is probably never going to mentally develop past an infant level.

That being said, I would generally say no, this is not a good thing. It might be slightly more justifiable in cases were the child is, like Ashley, never going to mentally age much, but I think it opens Pandora's box. If it's okay for Ashley, then we find ourselves saying its okay for kids with less severe disabilities. Its just not a safe road to go down.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

That being said, I would generally say no, this is not a good thing. It might be slightly more justifiable in cases were the child is, like Ashley, never going to mentally age much, but I think it opens Pandora's box. If it's okay for Ashley, then we find ourselves saying its okay for kids with less severe disabilities. Its just not a safe road to go down.

i would love to hear about any 100% "safe" road, anywhere, anytime. if you think there actually exists one.

[Amp_RNA]

i would love to hear about any 100% "safe" road, anywhere, anytime. if you think there actually exists one.

You make a good point. Also, bad wording on my part. What I meant really was that even if there are cases where the use of the Ashley Treatment might be justified (and I'm not sure that there are), it would be difficult to distinguish these cases from ones where the treatment is not justifiable. It's better then, in my own personal opinion, to look for other options when treating developmental disabilities.

[crocobaura]

1. that keeping their daughter as, effectively, a child for her entire life would benefit her in terms of health and quality of life. Not having periods and breasts - something she would never be able to understand - would save her distress. Not getting any bigger would mean she wouldn't face some of the chronic health problems (and attendant pain) attendant on her type of disability.


They should have just euthanised her. When they removed her ovaries, she practically entered menopause and low estrogen levels is a cause for osteoporosis among other things. According to the report she has scoliosis and the only medicine she's taking is for reflux.

http://www.womens-menopause-health.com/symptoms_of_low_estrogen_levels.htm
http://menopausetreatmentguide.org/estrogen/

[opiumgirl]

Wow this just blows my mind.

My mother spent her entire working live teaching disabled children ranging from down's syndrome, neurologically disabled, spina bifida , hydrocephalus, various types of autism and many others that I am too uneducated to name.

Yes, generally they do sterilize some of those cases at birth, because of and increased sexual drive in some cases and the inability to care for themselves let alone a family.

But my mother started a class that prepared some of those children to eventually go to more normal schools and taught a lot of others skills so that they can actually have jobs or at least cook their own food and do their own washing and generally look after themselves.

There were also a few kids like Ashley (ok, maybe a bit more developed but not much) the point is that every effort was made for these children to develop as much as they possibly can. And often they surprise you and the doctors and their teachers.

I can't say in Ashley's case if it was right or wrong. It was ultimately the decision of her parents.
But for this procedure to spread?
Yeah hello Brave new World.

[Purplepaws]

I'm going to veer from my usual safe opinion on this forum and go out on a limb here. This is a terrible, terrible idea. It sounds to me like full-on mutilation. The idea that a severely disabled person could cope with an eternal child state better than natural development is ludicrous. Besides that, and perhaps, more importantly, there are just some things that we, as humans, were not meant to take into our own hands. Deviant actions always have ramifications, and medical science is taking too many gambles.

[Mistermook]

more importantly, there are just some things that we, as humans, were not meant to take into our own hands.

Is this related to Things Mankind Was Not Meant To Know? By treating a disabled child are we risking raising Great Cthulhu from his briny depths and causing the death of civilization as we know it? Maybe it's more Indiana Jones? Open the Ark and a bunch of Nazis die?

[Purplepaws]

Is this related to Things Mankind Was Not Meant To Know? By treating a disabled child are we risking raising Great Cthulhu from his briny depths and causing the death of civilization as we know it? Maybe it's more Indiana Jones? Open the Ark and a bunch of Nazis die?

I knew someone would take that line and run with it. Fine, make fun. But my position still stands.

"Treating." You make it sound like penicillin.

[Mistermook]

Your opinion still stands, but you've still not said in any way what support you have for it. I mean, is it a "gut feeling," "religious epiphany?" How did you become the arbiter of what mankind was supposed to know or not know? What's your methodology in determining that one thing is better or worse than the other? Are Iphones also "things man was not meant to know?" Why not? What constitutes mutilation to you and what's okay, or is any surgical intervention on someone's behalf always mutilation? You're obviously a developmental adolescent physician with a strong background in children with disabilities, why do you think that your professional medical opinion is better than that of the child's physicians? Do you have any literature we could read explaining, in your medical opinion, why this is something we're not meant to know about? Presumably though, since you value your opinion, you are well versed in these things we're not meant to know about. Otherwise we'd clearly have to disregard your evaluation, right? Because if no one knows anything about "what we're meant to know" then obviously it's utter crap to say which is which thing we're supposed to know or supposed not to know.

[Purplepaws]

Do you not agree that there is a delicate balance in nature that medical science is in danger of tipping? The line must be drawn somewhere, but we keep pushing it further and further away. For the record, I never said "meant to know." I said there are things we shouldn't take into our own hands. I say that from the perspective that we can't understand all the ramifications of our actions. If you think we can, then you put way too much faith in humankind.

[ChaoticNeutral]

They should have just euthanised her.

*Sterilize, amiright?
Nice mix up of words there. :rofl:

This "fine line we cannot cross" concept has little hope of working since we are never sure where to draw the line. Isn't any medical treatment something "against nature" and against our "evolution" as a species, Darwin style?

[Mistermook]

Do you not agree that there is a delicate balance in nature that medical science is in danger of tipping?
No. It's nature. It's not a balancing act. We are not on some trapeze of morality. Morals are mores designed to promote a beneficial, orderly society.

The line must be drawn somewhere, but we keep pushing it further and further away.
From what? Albuquerque? Where is the source line that we are traveling away from in your position? To move away from something we have to have started from somewhere, right? Are you suggesting that morality was superior in the past? At what time in the past, in what place? What is the exquisite state of perfect ethics of treating children with horrific disabilities that we're moving away from?

I say that from the perspective that we can't understand all the ramifications of our actions. If you think we can, then you put way too much faith in humankind.
Do you think anyone ever knows all of the ramifications of all of their actions? Is that an excuse, a reason for inaction? When you wake up in the morning, do you evaluate the possible consequences of driving to work? Or drinking your morning coffee? You're making an evaluation of the definitive "crossing a line" of behavior that's going on, which you're now presenting as an assessment of future consequences. What are the future consequences? What do you know about the future? Why should we we trust your evaluation of the future? On what basis are you making your medical judgement of the child's treatment?

[crocobaura]

*Sterilize, amiright?
Nice mix up of words there. :rofl:

This "fine line we cannot cross" concept has little hope of working since we are never sure where to draw the line. Isn't any medical treatment something "against nature" and against our "evolution" as a species, Darwin style?


Even though English is my second language, I speak it well enough not to mix up euthanise with sterilize. They didn't carry on those procedures to make it easier for her, but to make it easier for them to "care" for her, procedures wich will do nothing but help her into an early grave. They probably didn't have the legal means to do that so they found an alternative.

[simbalena]

I can understand the argument that it would be much easier to care for her if she remained smaller and didn't have a period, but throw in mutilating her breasts and the whole thing seems way too extreme. It appears to be all about what the parents want instead of what is best for the child.

[ChaoticNeutral]

So the procedures brought her lasting damage?
If they didn't, I'd think it's acceptable - the surgery was a passing pain and she wouldn't benefit from a grown body, while being smaller makes it far easier for her caretakers. There only problem, and a huge one, would be abusing similar procedures with people with different levels of disability.


Even though English is my second language, I speak it well enough not to mix up euthanise with sterilize. They didn't carry on those procedures to make it easier for her, but to make it easier for them to "care" for her, procedures wich will do nothing but help her into an early grave. They probably didn't have the legal means to do that so they found an alternative.

Oh, I didn't mean it would be an error (if it was one) because of lack of knowledge about the meaning, but rather just a slip. Thanks for clarifying, I think I see your point now. :)

[Oaktree]

Normally, I would see this as a violation of a child's right to decide for him/herself. It's a permanent procedure with lasting effects, and any being that has the potential to make decisions should be allowed to do so. However, a child permanently stuck at the intellect of an infant is never going to have the ability to make decisions. There is no ability to wait 'til the child is older to make decisions for him/herself. The child will permanently be in a state of mind in which he/she is unable to make decisions. If the child were intellectually a handful of years older, a case could be made for allowing the child to decide. But infants don't have any rational capacity. In this case, the welfare of the child should be considered by its guardian. If the child's welfare is truly best served by performing this procedure, it should be allowed.

My gut feeling tells me that this sort of procedure is very wrong, but I think my gut feeling is attempting to empathize with a hypothetical rational being capable of understanding the consequences of the procedure. That being will never exist.

[Bodhie]

I though this post was about some actor batteling alcohol or something . But it was worse .
For me it is a big NO . If she didn't give her ok it make it wrong . If she can't give her ok and they do it , it is very wrong .
Like some said above , it is a permanent thing! you can't go back if it doesn't work !
And add to that , it doesn't come out as 'we cannot watch her suffer with her illness' but it come out as 'this way it will be easier to take care of her ' .

You don't have the strenght to take care of a disabled kid , fine . Not everyone can tackle the task . But this , it encourage peoples to seek (not better treatement) but an easy way to not deal with the issue .

But this is just my opinion .

[VerDeTerre]

It's shocking, although some of it actually makes sense. The part about less wear and tear on the body makes sense. I've heard that those with cerebral palsy and muscular dystrophy don't live long (20-30 years) in part due to the stress on their joints. I don't really understand it, but it always makes me very sad when I think of the kids I've known who have that. Moving them around can get difficult as they age. It sounds like they are describing an individual with CP who probably suffered brain damage along with the physical. I can relate what they are saying about her being childlike and not understanding things related to maturing into an adult. On the whole, however, I would distrust the assessment that this is a safe or even wise thing to do. How often has medicine overlooked risks because of assumptions based on limited information? I don't think they know enough to safely arrest someone's development. Further, medical and other professionals will make predictions about people with disabilities that are often conservative and proven later to not be sufficiently true. In other words, it's hard to predict how someone may develop and they may surprise you. Frankly, I don't believe this is in the best interests of the individual.

[RoseCity]

I read the Guardian article and it seems like the procedure was done for the comfort of the parents. They say it will be easier to care for her if she stays small. Then to further make their case, they say it's to spare Ashley 'discomfort' - that being the development of secondary sex characteristics. Which is slightly weird - as if all adult women are in discomfort, but can deal with it because they aren't disabled. And then they're dosing her with hormones and having painful surgeries performed.
Another disturbing thing is that they invented the name 'pillow angel' for people who stay where you put them. And an ideal pillow angel should be small I'm guessing. Another parent whose child had the procedure says 'our loving God wouldn't want Erica to be in pain.' - again, the 'pain' coming presumably from mature female breasts and menstruation.
I would say no, this isn't ethical. It's in a murky area where someone can say that it's okay to do something to an intellectually disabled person because the disabled person doesn't know the difference.

[Saturnfly]

Well my initial reaction screamed "no" simply because of the idea of modifying the human body so that it doesn't perform and age naturally? I mean, there must be serious health issues with that. I'm not a doctor, or a biologist, but even still we are a relatively fresh species and our multitude sciences can't be that advanced to perform without glitches.

Why can't they just do what normal people do and take care of the disabled child or put her into care? I'm sure they think it's for health reasons, but when you mess with the body that dramatically there are going to be health issues regardless.

Nevertheless there are disabled offspring in most biological species, just like a shoemaker will occasionally craft a dud pair of shoes. You treat it like an illness, if you can treat it at all you do, if not, you maintain as normal a life as possible. You don't go surgically removing parts of a child's body and injecting shit into her.

Isn't there a specific type of pig which was genetically altered and bred to stay a piglet?
A lot of people who kept the 'piglets' as pets eventually had adult sized pigs to deal with.

It just doesn't seem right to me... I mean my neighbour has an over 30 year old daughter who is disabled but can still function relatively normally despite her lack of intelligence/ communication and need for constant care and supervision.
It just seems like these people are wanting to mess with nature to make their lives easier because they can't bare the effort of raising a child with a disability.

[PhenethyaSim]

I'm having empathy pain just thinking about what was done to this child. This procedure screams selfish parents and it was flat out wrong someone who was part of this procedure A nurse, doctor or relative should have stepped in and said No! how is it that no one involved called social services? I think it is simply inhumane to do this to a person.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I read the Guardian article and it seems like the procedure was done for the comfort of the parents. They say it will be easier to care for her if she stays small. Then to further make their case, they say it's to spare Ashley 'discomfort' - that being the development of secondary sex characteristics. Which is slightly weird - as if all adult women are in discomfort, but can deal with it because they aren't disabled. And then they're dosing her with hormones and having painful surgeries performed.
Another disturbing thing is that they invented the name 'pillow angel' for people who stay where you put them. And an ideal pillow angel should be small I'm guessing. Another parent whose child had the procedure says 'our loving God wouldn't want Erica to be in pain.' - again, the 'pain' coming presumably from mature female breasts and menstruation.
I would say no, this isn't ethical. It's in a murky area where someone can say that it's okay to do something to an intellectually disabled person because the disabled person doesn't know the difference.

possibly imagine painfully bleeding every month, but never knowing why, or if its even going to end? id call that uncomfortable.
id say the difference between a severely disabled person such as ashley having periods and a non-disabled person such as i having periods is that i know what my period is, why i get it, when to expect it, and what to do about it when it comes for me. and its never comfortable, even given all that...imagine what itd be like to have none of that. ive gotten used to it, but ashley never would.

they also mentioned bed sores being less of a problem with her minimal size.

[Saturnfly]

possibly imagine painfully bleeding every month, but never knowing why, or if its even going to end? id call that uncomfortable.
id say the difference between a severely disabled person such as ashley having periods and a non-disabled person such as i having periods is that i know what my period is, why i get it, when to expect it, and what to do about it when it comes for me. and its never comfortable, even given all that...imagine what itd be like to have none of that. ive gotten used to it, but ashley never would.

they also mentioned bed sores being less of a problem with her minimal size.

So they're pretty much not even giving her a chance to even learn to understand.

If you were in an accident and doctors swore you'd never walk again, would you just go ahead and amputate your legs to get rid of the dead weight because doctors (who are often as wrong, as they are right) told you there was no point ever trying to regain use of your legs?
Not saying that people amputate their legs because they can't use them, lol, but in this case the parents of a disabled child have decided for their daughter that she is incapable of ever learning.

Disabled people can and do learn to function in society, they can and do learn to adapt to changes to their body. Sure the menstrual cycle is uncomfortable, even for people who understand them. But it's up to her parents to teach her, not disable her further.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

So they're pretty much not even giving her a chance to even learn to understand.

i dont think you get it. ashley is going to remain an infant (mentally) forever...she will not learn to understand it. she doesnt have the capacity. its the nature of her problem; not all disabled people are capable of the same things.

[Autistic socialist]

i dont think you get it. ashley is going to remain an infant (mentally) forever...she will not learn to understand it. she doesnt have the capacity. its the nature of her problem; not all disabled people are capable of the same things.
I need to tap that disagree button twice. My mother thought I'd never speak at one point and then my little bother came along and taught me how to speak and soon I was like a little college lecturer and was talking so much they had to shut me up some times! I also drink from the bottle till I was 6! I happen to be one the smartest people most people I know know! So just remember it is not your opinion that is informed by facts! :alarm:

[StardustX]

I'm just going off of what was said in the thread, I didn't bother reading the article but I might later.

I hate how humans screw with things that were meant to happen. She is the way she is, and it's disgusting that they altered her to keep her "healthy". What they did will probably end up doing more harm than good in the long run.
I can understand why they did it and each to their own. However, I don't agree with their decision.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I need to tap that disagree button twice. My mother thought I'd never speak at one point and then my little bother came along and taught me how to speak and soon I was like a little college lecturer and was talking so much they had to shut me up some times! I also drink from the bottle till I was 6! I happen to be one the smartest people most people I know know! So just remember it is not your opinion that is informed by facts! :alarm:

personal anecdotes arent applicable to everyone.
the fact is, nobody here has a crystal ball on the matter. not even you. however, probability states a likelihood for non-development.

[maxon]

personal anecdotes arent applicable to everyone.
the fact is, nobody here has a crystal ball on the matter. not even you. however, probability states a likelihood for non-development.
Well, to be fair (and I agree with your point), in that case the case for treating Ashley is also undermined. If you can't predict the future with any certainty, you cannot predict how she will develop. I agree the probability states a likelihood for non-development, but probability is not certainty, or indeed, fact.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Well, to be fair (and I agree with your point), in that case the case for treating Ashley is also undermined. If you can't predict the future with any certainty, you cannot predict how she will develop. I agree the probability states a likelihood for non-development, but probability is not certainty, or indeed, fact.

probability still has a basis on fact (well, technically, its based upon a collection of relatively consistent past experiences/observations), though. hoping for the best, however, does not.

for example, if 9 times out of 10, someone does not recover, then there is still a chance of recovery...but probability would say that it isnt worth holding your breath for. those who choose to count on that 1% chance of positivity dont live very long, or even very comfortably.
gambling, for example. you have a certain probability of winning, but it is considerably lower than your probability of losing. should the idea that you could win at all be enough to throw away your life savings at it?
the exception proves the rule, it doesnt negate it.

[Autistic socialist]

personal anecdotes arent applicable to everyone.
the fact is, nobody here has a crystal ball on the matter. not even you. however, probability states a likelihood for non-development.
We don't know anything about this case except what the media tells us. The media does not effectively protect the disabled or their rights.
If Ashley had a somewhat developed brain then an environmental change could change the course of her development just like my brother added to my environment.
Keeping her small will not necessarily protect her, she will remain a target for pedophiles throughout her life. I believe there are many pedophiles who also target the disabled because they think that people with disabilities are vulnerable.

[VerDeTerre]

From what I've seen, those predictions by medical personnel about the developmental likelihoods are often way off. It doesn't even approach the scientific reliability.

[Oaktree]

I wonder if those sorts of predictions are ever tested by keeping track of those children. I have a few anecdotal stories about friends who were predicted to be developmentally challenged and turned out fine, but I imagine that predictions being wildly off wouldn't happen in the majority of cases without some adjustment to the criteria of prediction.

[VerDeTerre]

I haven't seen figures on it and I would certainly be interested in them if you or anyone else could come up with them. My statements are based on what I've seen of the population of handicapped and developmentally delayed individuals in the school system. I think not enough is known about human development and about disabilities to accurately make the predictions they do. Having said that, the predictions aren't usually wildly off, meaning if there is a developmental delay or cap predicted, that's usually the case. What's not usually the case is the degree of handicap.

[Mootilda]

for example, if 9 times out of 10, someone does not recover, then there is still a chance of recovery...but probability would say that it isnt worth holding your breath for. those who choose to count on that 1% chance of positivity dont live very long, or even very comfortably.Of course, you mean that 1 chance out of 10 is a 10% chance, not a 1% chance.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Of course, you mean that 1 chance out of 10 is a 10% chance, not a 1% chance.

yeah, missed a 0. didnt proofread...thanks for catching it.

[maxon]

From what I've seen, those predictions by medical personnel about the developmental likelihoods are often way off. It doesn't even approach the scientific reliability.
Yes, this is likely to be the case. Very often 'facts' like that are based on what people (admittedly educated and knowledgeable people) think will happen and not on hard, tested empirical evidence. As an academic myself, I am aware of just how flimsy your evidence is at times.

[Sorrowgrave]

Just like how most Gay experts are striaght, and how all the shrinks I know of in town have never been on the other side of a mental health clinic this sounds like a big know it all professional sticking their nose were it does not belong. why didn't Ashley's parents look up other people who had children with this disease? There IS something called the internet. Having a handicapped younger sibling myself I know that in this day and age children with speical needs aren't shut up in the closet, and that parents do reach out for help when their at a cross roads for the safety of their child. Pardon any errors in this, but it's not even seven in the morning yet here.

[Mistermook]

Because you have a handicapped younger sibling you know that this person's parents didn't check the internet (where presumably you think the medical professionals who suggested this gained their degree?) and your own diagnosis and evaluation (again, gained from the internet) is superior to everyone actually involved. My facepalming knows no limits, truly.

What's next? Should we show you a picture and you can tell us that she's not even sick? "Looks shopped. I can tell by the pixels."

[BlackjackGabbiani]

Those are some sicko parents. How this girl wasn't taken away by protective services after they first started looking into this is beyond me, and how any doctor who would ever perform such a surgery wasn't disbarred on the spot is beyond me too.

This isn't about what she can understand. This is about parents basically deciding that they could mutilate their daughter basically because they *could*. So what if she'll never understand why she bleeds now and again? THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

[Autistic socialist]

Those are some sicko parents. How this girl wasn't taken away by protective services after they first started looking into this is beyond me, and how any doctor who would ever perform such a surgery wasn't disbarred on the spot is beyond me too.

This isn't about what she can understand. This is about parents basically deciding that they could mutilate their daughter basically because they *could*. So what if she'll never understand why she bleeds now and again? THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
:alarm: Because no one gives a poop about the disabled! :alarm:

[HystericalParoxysm]

LuvSims2011 - Do not post on this thread again.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

This isn't about what she can understand. This is about parents basically deciding that they could mutilate their daughter basically because they *could*. So what if she'll never understand why she bleeds now and again? THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

thats not a particularly empathetic set of words.
if the suffering is unnecessary, why should she be forced to endure it? if it can be skipped, why not skip it?

and technically, there are a lot of different practices that fall under "mutilation". ear piercing is mutilation. tattooing is mutilation. car wrecks are mutilation, but you dont see anybody foaming at the mouth to outlaw cars, and its because the pros outweigh the cons. amputating a limb is mutilation, but you dont see many who would rather die than have the problematic limb chopped off.
if the pros outweigh the cons for this girl, theres no reason to get up in arms over how its done...except, maybe, if youre* a sadist who simply likes to see disabled people suffer their crappy circumstances and their caretakers go batty.

@Autistic socialist: lol.

*general "you".

[Mistermook]

tif the pros outweigh the cons for this girl, theres no reason to get up in arms over how its done...except, maybe, if youre* a sadist who simply likes to see disabled people suffer their crappy circumstances and their caretakers go batty
Needs repeating. If I were stuck with useless appendages that simply got in the way of me doing the things I needed to do, that might cause me discomfort, or might cause unpleasant people to want to stick their penises into me against my will? Let's just say I would entertain the conversation willingly about cutting those suckers off. And in the absence of my ability to consent to such a conversation in the first place, I'd hope that the general consensus would be "Wait, what are these things actually doing here? I know this serves a purpose in other people, but what function does it have here?" As long as that conversation had taken place - with experts and people who cared about me (however unlikely that might be), rather than a bunch of internet goons with little stake or information? I'd be fine with their decision, just like I'm fine with the decision these people made. Now, give me another patient and another set of circumstances? Who knows? A lot of things are one-size fits all sorts of solutions, but I don't think this is one of those things.

If people start chopping off women's boobs willy-nilly because they're in wheelchairs, then I'll march with the rest of the mob to burn down Dr. Frankenstein's castle. This is an extreme medical treatment, but it's not without consideration. It's pretty apparent to me that that even if the treatment is ill-advised, it's not malicious - and maliciousness is pretty much my standard for condemnation in the absence of illegality.

[RoseCity]

And, yeah, she's not using her arms or legs, so those can be removed. Then she'll be a nice, tidy package - easy to move about and will fit well on a pillow. Also she could have a colostomy - the bag will be a more efficient way to handle waste. While they're doing that, they can sew her vagina closed so that no one will be able to rape her, at least not in her vagina.
As long as that conversation had taken place - with experts and people who cared about me (however unlikely that might be), rather than a bunch of internet goons with little stake or information?
Internet goons - kind of harsh. I thought this was the Debate Room - a place to discuss different issues.

[Autistic socialist]

might cause unpleasant people to want to stick their penises into me against my will?

Keeping her small makes that more likely due to she becomes an easier victim. She already has problems with speech and I know from living in group homes that if you can't talk about your abuse your a target and the only way to stop the abuse is to be violent! The freaks come out in the day Mistermook! :alarm:

[Mistermook]

So... Based off of that rant... We what? Strap a vagina bomb onto her to prevent abuse? She can't be violent, from what I can tell she's suffering from too much atrophy for that. Beat the shit out of everyone in group homes that she's not even in, because it goes on in group homes and her parents are doing this all to protect her from group homes in case they get hit by a bus?

Seriously, I've got no clue what your point is, other than you see your dissimilar situations as similar, and therefore your anecdotes relevant to the discussion.

[Autistic socialist]

So... Based off of that rant... We what? Strap a vagina bomb onto her to prevent abuse? She can't be violent, from what I can tell she's suffering from too much atrophy for that. Beat the shit out of everyone in group homes that she's not even in, because it goes on in group homes and her parents are doing this all to protect her from group homes in case they get hit by a bus?

Seriously, I've got no clue what your point is, other than you see your dissimilar situations as similar, and therefore your anecdotes relevant to the discussion.
The article says they are keeping her from growing to so when she is handed over to others she will not be too much to handle... What does others mean, her bothers and sisters? Unless that is the case you can't say that. I don't maybe in Europe they have cameras in group homes to keep that from happening, which I know prevents all but verbal abuse, they do not have them where I live/d! Besides you forget how many non-verbal cases when people start using assisted communication they get better results then when they tried verbal communication.... Was that ever tried by a true professional I would like to know. Disabled people turn out to non-verbal geniuses all the time!

[Mistermook]

Are you a medical professional? Do you have more familiarity with the case than the article?

Then why do you think you know more about what's going on than the people who raised her and the doctors? I'm not seeing a red flag here, except for on the other side of the argument: lots of argument from emotion and "personal experience" that doesn't sound remotely relevant.

[Barbie Crash]

That's absolutely horrible, and it's certainly not "saving" her from anything. Sure, puberty isn't fun, it is a very complicated period of life, but keeping your daughter a little girl forever, is that really so she doesn't have to go through the typical changes in life, or because you are selfish, and don't want your little girl to grow up? After puberty, life can be amazing, you experience so many things, and life can be hard, but that's no reason to stay young forever. It's screwing with nature, and it's wrong.

Not to mention, what does that girl do when her parents die? Who will take care of her?

[SuicidiaParasidia]

It's screwing with nature, and it's wrong.

except that we do that, all the time.

why is this time so different from, say, when we use heaters during the winter? or umbrellas when its rainy? or penicillin when we get sick? or wearing glasses when our vision blurs? thats "screwing with nature"--and none of us live in caves, any more. a house isnt natural, and it tilts the balance in our favor. is it wrong to live in a house?
how many of you hunt and cook your own food? its not natural to patron a grocery store. the plains of africa and the jungles of china have no SafeWay. and unless your store only sells organic vegetables/fruit...its been screwed with.

EDIT: those who disagreed with me, id love to know why.

or, you could take the opposite view, in which case everything is natural, as everything is derived from nature. nature is one of those things that is everywhere, inescapable. unless we've somehow borrowed something froma 5th dimension, its natural. a lamp rearranged is still a lamp.

[acid_fairy]

I read about this a long while ago and my opinion still stands. I believe what they have done is necessary.

This poor child is severely disabled and will never have any mental capacities beyond a three month old (I think that age, apologies if wrong). Parents make decisions for babies all the time, because they have to. It is no different with Ashley. Ashley is basically a baby inside a growing body; how could anyone expect a baby to deal with menstrual cramps? I'm 24 and they still knock me for six!

At the end of the day it IS the parents' choice, because Ashley does not have the mental capacity to make the choice for herself.

EDIT:
I love it when people say 'well it's not NATURAL'. Well dying from breast cancer is natural; are you against treatment for that? What about the contraceptive pill and computers and antibiotics and cars and contact lenses... I could do this all day.

[BlakeS5678]

This thread seems to be over. Seeing as no one can top the last two posts. (Not including my own)

[kuyke001]

I think a lot of that could have been handled using hormones. Once puberty starts the growth in height of girls slows dramatically. Periods can be stopped with depot injections. The breasts would still form though. And there is also ablation where they can destroy the uterine lining so there are no periods. Surgery seems radical and premature.

[Mistermook]

I think that if it could have been simply and safely handled using hormones, I'm guessing the doctor who'd been her primary specialist care physician would have maybe done it that way. Despite a lot of alarmism in this thread, and even accepting that doctors are human and sometimes make mistakes, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of physicians don't wake up and go "I need to find a bunch of excuses to slice up this kid with genetic issues." There's always the slimmest of possibilities that Dr. Likestocut somehow passed the parental, societal, and professional scrutiny anyways, but if it were the case that everyone somehow missed his diabolical plan I think his immediate professional colleagues would now be falling all over themselves to outline the ways he did and the ways they don't.

[beafish123]

I think maybe the growth hormone and breast bud removal might be a bit extreme, but why shouldn't they be allowed to have their daughter get a hysterectomy? Shes has the mental capability of an infant, and always will. Whether she could understand periods or not, it's not like she'll need it to have kids.

[picass0blue]

A vital point many people miss in the discussion of this issue is that the child in question has the intellectual capacity of a three-month-old infant and has remained this way for the best part of a decade. Even if there was a possibility of improvement, the likelihood of her gaining the capacity necessary to consent to sex and pregnancy and then look after a child is so ridiculously low that it isn't worth entertaining when discussing fertility. They're not sterilising someone because they lack capacity to have responsible sex and look after a child, as was the issue with sterilising people in institutions - the fact is that any act of sex involving this patient would legally and unquestionably count as rape. The parents of one of the kids subject to this procedure even expressed concern that if they were no longer around to care for her, she may be raped (which is horrid enough) resulting in pregnancy (and the issue of termination because honestly what the heck else could they do?).

I believe that the decision about this procedure lies with the parents and doctors who have been involved with the child in the long term, and should never be taken lightly. The bottom line is that puberty and the experiences of adulthood are highly irrelevant to a three-month-old baby, and that the situation of a person so profoundly mentally disabled matches that of the baby in every important sense. Unlike a baby, they have a very low likelihood of intellectual maturation, and are essentially stuck in that state and have to be treated as such to ensure their survival. Any decisions taken bear only on the personal situation of each patient, and people must remember that the permanence of such decisions has nearly none of the negative repercussions it would have on the typical person - we can reasonably project this decision twenty years into the future.

Personally I think the reality of rape and abuse in institutions is a MUCH bigger issue than the personal autonomy of an "infant" with loving parents and qualified doctors. Why is so little attention being directed at the cause of these parents' fears for the future? :wtf: