• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do parents have this right?

No, there is no reason to suppose that two adults cannot handle a disabled child who is a little bit bigger. This sickens me.
 
Yes, parents (guardians, society at large) do have a right, and perhaps even a moral obligation, to do what is best for those who cannot and will never be able to act on behalf of their own best interests.
See our discussion of this case.
link
 
This story deeply disturbed me.

What happens if she was/is more sentient than it seems?

We are living in a cruel cruel world...
 
I'm kinda on the cusp with this one. On one side, the ethics of doing this to a living, breathing, thinking person is very questionable to me. On the other side, doing this is a protectorant to this child and assists in her care. I'd like to read more of what others think.
 
vauge said:
This story deeply disturbed me.

What happens if she was/is more sentient than it seems?
Click to expand...

I am horrified. Utterly horrified.

But if I could state, for certain, that I thought the parents were wrong-- that their decision would hurt their daughter or even make any difference in the long run-- then I would not be horrified. I would be disgusted and angry, and I would be posting about what kind of depraved monsters her parents must be.

But I can not.
 
davideyoung said:
Parents of a mentally dissabled child had her surgically growth-prevented to "keep her a managable size".
Surgery on girl raises ethical questions | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Does this go beyond parental rights when caring for a child?
Click to expand...

It is amazing that according to the left you do not have a right to listen on your children's phone conversations and that children should abortions without parental consent,but if two scumbags want to physically alter their child for the sake of convenience or euthanize a innocent child it is okay.
 
It's amazing how warped some peoples' notion of "convenience" is.

Look, I'm not comfortable with this... and I don't know if I can support it even being legal even with a judge's order and the recommendations of an ethics panel. But to dismiss the entire issue as decadent, selfish parents harming their own daughter in the name of "convenience" is to twist the word beyond all comprehension.
 

I agree; the idea that caring for a vegetative patient at home forever could possibly be in any way "convenient", whether said patient weighs 60 pounds or 200 pounds, simply defies credulity.
Neither would it be particularly "convenient" to gestate and birth a child with static encephalopathy and then place her in an institution, nor would it even be particularly "convenient" to discover while pregnant that one's fetus had static encephalopathy and terminate the pregnancy.
Each of these three scenarios would, in fact, be its own special flavor of Hell.
But out of the three, the one that the label "convenient" is most preposterous when applied to is scenario #1... which also happens to be the option that the parents of Ashley X have chosen.

I don't know what you folks' idea of "convenient" is, but when I think of convenience, I think of microwave popcorn and 2-in-1 shampoo/conditioner combos, not giving birth to and caring for vegetative offspring until I or they drop dead.
Maybe I'm just spoiled by the pampered life I lead; no doubt each thread participant who has denounced the "selfishness" of Ashley's parents has two or three comatose, vegetative, or otherwise nonsentient and/or noncognizant offspring of their own tucked away in a back bedroom, and would never dream of subjecting said offspring to any sort of elective medical procedure that might enhance their comfort and increase their longevity.
 

Did you even read the part the part in the article that said

"the parents of the severely mentally and physically disabled child have stunted her growth to keep their little "pillow angel" a manageable and more portable size"
 
No, it's not okay. I see this on par with eugenics and genetic manipulation. Your child is your child. They are humans, and their own humans, too. You shouldn't be allowed to mess with them to keep them "manageable". Since when are children "manageable", anyway?
The child is a child. As far as I can tell, it isn't a health risk for her to be her normal size, so you shouldn't change it. Now, if she would be risking her life to be her normal size, I could agree with it: I think that people should put the health of their children first. But really, if she'd be healthy otherwise... I think what the parents did wasn't good.
 
jamesrage said:
Did you even read the part the part in the article that said

"the parents of the severely mentally and physically disabled child have stunted her growth to keep their little "pillow angel" a manageable and more portable size"
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. Did you read the part that described, in detail, where being easier to handle will allow her to suffer less and live longer and healthier?
 
Yes, I did. Did you read the part that described, in detail, where being easier to handle will allow her to suffer less and live longer and healthier?
Click to expand...

Thats like cutting off a kids legs and claiming that they will be healthier because they can't fall and hurt themselves. They prevented her from going through puberty and claimed it would make life easier for her.

I find this quite reprehensible. It is quite different to say, "we are going to not undergo surgery that will allow her to grow to full height." They are essentially castrating her to make her more portable. I do not have a problem with parents electing not to undergo certain procedures for mentally disabled children. This however, it is proactive action that never would even be considered in a normal child.
 
rathi said:
They prevented her from going through puberty and claimed it would make life easier for her.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. On the other hand, her going through puberty isn't going to do anything for her, either. She's never going to have children. She's never going to enjoy sex.

It disgusts me to even say it... but she's not losing anything.
 
Yes, they are. On the other hand, her going through puberty isn't going to do anything for her, either. She's never going to have children. She's never going to enjoy sex.

It disgusts me to even say it... but she's not losing anything.
Click to expand...

She can't walk either. Would you support cutting of her legs to make her smaller, lighter and more portable? I agree that she will not miss anything, but that doesn't mean that you actively injure her either. I doubt she would care if she got raped either, but that doesn't give anyone the right to rape her.
 
Actually that wouldn't make her more portable....


These parents had some agonizing decisions to make and I am glad I will never have to make them. Their reasoning is sound. It prevents them from having to put her in some institution later on, protects her from certain, if remote, maladies, aches and, yes, inconveniences that normal woman just chalk up to being women.
I feel so bad for that family and that beautiful little girl, but they have to do what is best for them, not what others think.
 
It is difficult to be a parent and be judged when your child is different or has a life altering issue. I think that this instance crossed the line though.
 
Doesn't anyone realize that almost nobody gives a **** about other people?

I'm here with my circumcised **** and vow never to have sex (and I never had a girl as a friend and I'm not gay). In case you were wondering it severely decreases sexual stimulation. I think its partially to blame for why the single population is growing and climbing divorce rate.

Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction


Nobody cares if 1 out of 100 people are unable to ejaculate as a result from circumcision.

People say getting circumcised reduces the chances of getting a STD. Circumcised or not, if you have sex without protection and your partner has a STD the chances of acquiring a STD are so high. Uncircumcised get STD more often because they have SEX more often.

a very rare and sad case - David Reimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


My point being, some parents don't give a **** how badly they threat their children. I think that some parents circumcise their kids so they won't have sex when they are teenager. Circumcising usually doesn't stop this and would effect later sex life (marriage) since aging reduces sensitivity. If parents don't want their kids to not have sex, then they should actually give a **** and be stricter.
 



These claims are as preposterous as they are bizarre.
Please provide some independent documentation (ie, not from CIRP) to substantiate these claims. :roll:
 
davideyoung said:
Parents of a mentally dissabled child had her surgically growth-prevented to "keep her a managable size".
Surgery on girl raises ethical questions | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Does this go beyond parental rights when caring for a child?
Click to expand...

The link didn't work for me. Anyway, I don't like this decision.

If the child were not brain damaged, but a normal everyday kid, could the parents have legally done this? No, they couldn't, but maybe this scenario doesn't compare.

How about if the child had been a quadraplegic. Maybe the parents could still have chosen this growth prevention surgery, because a quad would be much more 'portable' if she were tiny.

Or, take the same quadraplegic child, go ahead and let her age, but how about removing the arms and legs to reduce weight? The limbs are useless, and are certainly going to be awkward for the caregiver to deal with.

Like I said, I couldn't access the link, but did the procedure that was performed on the baby leave an obvious scar? If not, that's the reason it was allowed to be done.
 
Found this site started by her parents.

The treatment includes growth attenuation through high-dose estrogen therapy, hysterectomy to eliminate the menstrual cycle and associated discomfort to Ashley, and breast bud removal to avoid the development of large breasts and the associated discomfort to Ashley. We pursued this treatment after much thought, research, and discussions with doctors.

The "Ashley Treatment"
 

Yeah, that's her parents' blog. We've all read it. It's been discussed in both "Ashley" threads.
So, in light of that, you still disapprove?
 
1069 said:
Yeah, that's her parents' blog. We've all read it. It's been discussed in both "Ashley" threads.
So, in light of that, you still disapprove?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. They didn't go far enough. There are still appendages, limbs that can be removed, right? And she only needs one kidney, they could remove the other, and snip out the gall bladder. She only needs one lung. A good liposuction would reduce her weight. I bet they could get her down to about 35 easily managed pounds.

Seriously though. The line about the breasts didn't make sense. Since when do breasts cause such pain? Are 2 billion women in pain right now because of their breasts?

Anyway, I didn't know there were two threads on this. But the Ashley site didn't make any difference to me. I understand that the parents were going through hell over their daughter. But their actions don't make any sense to me.

Another point, the brain damaged girl didn't request any of the modifications. The parents did these things 'for' her.

Ever see the movie Boxing Helena? It was a disturbing story about a man who wanted to keep a particular woman in a sort of human package just for his needs. This story reminds me of that in a way.
 


I discussed my thoughts on the matter in considerable depth in the other thread.
To avoid redundancy, I'll simply direct you there:

link
 
Parents have the right, and the responsibility, to do whats best for their child. I'm sure this was not something that was easy for them to decide to do. I don't think it's what I would have done (but thankfully, I never had to make such a decision) but I don't think I have any place in second guessing the decisions made by the family and the doctors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…