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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Because no one gives a poop about the disabled!

LuvSims2011 - Do not post on this thread again.

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".

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.

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.

Internet goons - kind of harsh. I thought this was the Debate Room - a place to discuss different issues.

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!

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!

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.

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?