Parents defend decision to keep girl a child (1 Viewer)

[jujuman13]

Your opinion please.
Link
Parents defend decision to keep girl a child - World - Times Online

 

[jfuh]

Your opinion please.
Link
Parents defend decision to keep girl a child - World - Times Online

As ****ed up as this is, there is some justification for the parents decision tough call. If it were up to me, I would not have made the same choice as the parents had. I find many of the criticisms valid points of "convenience" however on the other hand, none of the critiques need deal with the situation as the parents are so they're not really in a position to judge.
tough call.

 

[shuamort]

Anybody have "Interview with a Vampire" flashes?

Seriously, that's f***ed. I'm at a loss for words.

 

[talloulou]

The idea that doctors would allow parents to physically alter their children for convenience sake is scary however in this case it really does seem to be in everyone's best interest and the child is unable to give her opinion and thus the parents must make decisions for her. I am inclined to believe that if the child could make her own decisions she would most likely want to stay under the care of her parents vs being put in an institution. Her parents genuinely seem to have her best interest at heart and I applaud them for having such love that they'd do whatever is possible to ensure that they can continue to care for their daugher when they could just allow her to grow and then have her locked away because her weight and height gave them an "out" and a justified reason to give up the burden they carry. I say peace be with them....

Here's an informative article:

The Bulletin | Local & State | The ethics of altering children

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Well while teh parents are looking out for her, it also seems like some of the justifications and methods are a bit extreme.If she doesn't have big breasts, then she wont have to worry as much about rape.Like if you said thats the reason for removing breast buds of your daughter to a group of 100 people I' pretty sure a good number mroe than half would say that that's a ridiculous reason, although they are not the parents.
The uterus justification is a little strange as well but I guess could make sense in some ways.But the parents should have the final right to decide and if she could speak she would probably want to be in the care of her parents...but you never know.

Bleh, I dn.It's just a little weird, when I first read the uterus and breast thing I kinda made a face.

 

[1069]

The idea that doctors would allow parents to physically alter their children for convenience sake is scary however in this case it really does seem to be in everyone's best interest and the child is unable to give her opinion and thus the parents must make decisions for her. I am inclined to believe that if the child could make her own decisions she would most likely want to stay under the care of her parents vs being put in an institution. Her parents genuinely seem to have her best interest at heart and I applaud them for having such love that they'd do whatever is possible to ensure that they can continue to care for their daugher when they could just allow her to grow and then have her locked away because her weight and height gave them an "out" and a justified reason to give up the burden they carry. I say peace be with them....

Here's an informative article:

The Bulletin | Local & State | The ethics of altering children

Ditto.
If you really want to understand their reasoning, you should read their blog, at "Ashley Treatment".
It also would help if you'd ever personally known or worked with people as profoundly disabled as Ashley.
I have a relative with Down Syndrome; she is more severely incapacitated than many people with Down's. She is nonverbal and incontinent. Her level of cognitive functioning seems- to me- to be on par with that of a 12 to 18 month old child. She's in her 20s now.
When she was in her teens, she became so large and obese that her mother (a single parent) was no longer able to lift her, to bathe and change her. So she put her in a live-in care facility. When she started menstruating, the staff in this facility observed that her period seemed to cause her a significant amount of distress each month. She would cry and scream before and during her period, sometimes for entire days at a time. This was very foreign to her nature, as she was ordinarily very docile and content. It was unknown whether the distress she was experiencing was physical pain, or whether it was emotional/ hormonal in nature. Since she was nonverbal, she wasn't able to explain exactly what the problem was. She also became hostile at these times, and would strike out at her caregivers, which was also very foreign to her nature.
Her mother, in conjunction with her doctors, decided she should have a hysterectomy, and she did, when she was about seventeen, and she never had any more problems.
I don't think there's anything unethical about it.
When I was younger, I also worked very briefly as a caregiver in a state hospital, on a ward for people as profoundly disabled as Ashley. They were, for all intents and purposes, vegetative. I didn't stay long at that job, because being a very small person myself, I was unable to lift or even roll many of the patients unassisted; in flagrant violation of OSHA standards (which require two-person lifts for any patient weighing over 90 pounds), this hospital insisted that I ought to be able to move inert 200-pound patients, all by myself, from their beds to their wheelchairs.
After some rather dangerous and undignified attempts at this, I quit the job.
But the point of the story is, I felt like one of the saddest things about these patients (who were mostly teens and young adults; patients this profoundly retarded don't usually live past their twenties or early thirties, because they get a lot of lung disease and pneumonia from lying in bed all the time) was their sexual maturity. It really sucked having to change bloody pads on these poor patients. All patients wore cloth diapers with velcro leg closures; menstruating patients got a pad in their diaper. It was revolting. It made me both angry and sad. Not at them; just at the injustice of life.
Being a woman involves discomfort and hassle and considerable risk (breast cancer, common chronic problems such as endometriosis and fibrocystic breast disorder, cervical and other gynecological cancers, etc).
The benefits, however-to those of us with normal cognitive functioning- are manifold, more than worthwhile, IMO.
But for these patients, there will never be any benefits; sexual maturity will never be anything but a detriment to them.
I understood fully about the size factor, Ashley's parents wanting to keep her small enough to carry (it's not about them keeping her at home; as they explain in their blog, they will always keep her home no matter what, and always would've even without this treatment. They have the resources to hire in-home help, and they would never under any circumstances have institutionalized Ashley and entrusted her care entirely care to strangers).
I also understood about the hysterectomy. What good could fertility possibly do Ashley, whose mind will always be that of an infant? Weighed against the potential harm it could do her, the discomfort, there is no reason in the world that I can see for anyone so profoundly mentally disabled to have a sexually mature body.
I did not, however, understand why they removed her breasts (I suspected it was just an aesthetic thing, and I didn't like that much) but the blog explains that:

Ashley has no need for developed breasts since she will not breast feed and their presence would only be a source of discomfort to her. This is especially true since Ashley is likely destined to have large breasts, given her maternal and paternal female lineage; for example, an aunt had a breast reduction operation at age 19. Large breasts are uncomfortable lying down with a bra and even less comfortable without a bra. Furthermore, breasts impede securing Ashley in her wheelchair, stander, or bath chair, where straps across her chest are needed to support her body weight. Before the surgery Ashley had already exhibited sensitivity in her breasts.

Though this step in the treatment might seem extreme to some, it is a simple procedure when the breasts are still undeveloped. This operation involved removing Ashley’s subcutaneous, almond-sized breast buds, which contain the milk glands, while keeping the areolas and nipples intact. This surgery was done with small incisions below the areola, the slight scars almost disappeared a month after the surgery. This operation is akin to removing a birthmark and is a very different surgery from a mastectomy on an adult woman with developed breasts. Furthermore, when done in conjunction with the hysterectomy this step poses little to no additional recovery time or surgery risk (for example, anesthesia is done once).

The breast bud removal has other benefits:

1- Avoiding the possibility of painful fibrocystic growth and future related surgeries. Women in Ashley’s lineage have a history of fibrocystic growth.

2- Avoiding the possibility of breast cancer. Ashley has breast cancer history in her family.

3- Large breasts could “sexualize” Ashley towards her caregiver, especially when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse.

Of all the things we wanted to do to provide lasting physical comfort and quality of life to Ashley, the breast bud removal posed the biggest challenge to Ashley’s doctors, and to the ethics committee. We overcame this reluctance by detailing the benefits above, recounting Ashley’s family history of breast problems, and pointing out the fact that the same procedure is commonly provided to males for cosmetic reasons and to mitigate unwanted breast development (Gynecomastia).

So much for that. Entirely understandable and justified, IMO.
What good will Ashley's breasts ever do her, except to cause her discomfort, make her unwieldy to move around, make it difficult to secure her into into her wheelchair, and invite the possibilities of both fatal disease and potential sexual victimization at the hands of unethical caregivers?

This matter was intensively examined by an ethics committee before the surgery took place; one member of the committee stated:
“If the concern has something to do with the girl’s dignity being violated, then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity. Nor do I believe this is somehow demeaning or undignified to humanity in general; the treatments will endow her with a body that more closely matches her cognitive state – both in terms of her physical size and bodily functioning. The estrogen treatment is not what is grotesque here. Rather, it is the prospect of having a full-grown and fertile woman endowed with the mind of a baby.”

He's right.

Other families of profoundly retarded children will benefit from this treatment,
because this family had the guts to go first.

 

[Dogger807]

This is a very tough call for the parents and it wasn't a haphazard one. It went thru the ethics comitiee at the hospital where it happened. You'd better believe all side were discussed and argued for.

The child is unable to function. She's just this side of being in a vegitative state. Well actually just this side is probably to dramatic, but she's closer to that than normal. I believe the parents have the childs best intrests in mind when they made their decision. It's not one I'd ever want to make but I understand it.

 

[1069]

This is a very tough call for the parents and it wasn't a haphazard one. It went thru the ethics comitiee at the hospital where it happened. You'd better believe all side were discussed and argued for.

The child is unable to function. She's just this side of being in a vegitative state. Well actually just this side is probably to dramatic, but she's closer to that than normal. I believe the parents have the childs best intrests in mind when they made their decision. It's not one I'd ever want to make but I understand it.

I agree with what you say, but I think you understate the extent of Ashley's disability. Given my understanding of the situation, Ashley is, for all intents and purposes, vegetative.
There are good reasons why there are anti-eugenics laws in place, designed to protect the mentally handicapped from involuntary sterilization.
These laws have been in effect since the late 60s, because before that, many retarded people were involuntarily sterilized by well-meaning doctors.
Today, retarded people have sexual relationships, marry, have children, and raise them.
Society recognizes that this is their right, despite their handicaps, and it provides them with the assistance they need to live as independently as possible.
But Ashley's case is different. She is beyond "retarded". She will never have the capacity to consent to sex, although many higher-functioning retarded people can and do. She will never have the capacity to voluntarily decide to procreate, although again, many higher-functioning retarded individuals can and do.
She is not merely "retarded".
This procedure, this treatment, would never be used on an individual who was educably mentally retarded, because there are laws in place that were specifically designed to protect the rights and the fertility of such individuals.

 

[doughgirl]

Comments from the article.........

“The "Ashley Treatment" is intended to improve our daughter's quality of life and not to convenience her caregivers.”

As not to inconvenience her caregivers.Yea right.

“With the overwhelming thoughtful support email that we've received in the last 24 hours we feel like heroes and not defensive about what we did. We're working on adding this support material to the web site."

Yes its all about them isn’t it? I’d say Ashley is the hero wouldn’t you?
They say one thing, then say another……………………..

“A fundamental and universal misconception about the treatment is that it is intended to convenience the caregiver; rather, the central purpose is to improve Ashley’s quality of life.”

Inconvenience?????????????

</B>

“Ashley will be a lot more physically comfortable free of menstrual cramps, free of the discomfort associated with large and fully-developed breasts, and with a smaller, lighter body that is better suited to constant lying down and is easier to be moved around. ‘

Does Ashley have a choice? I never had discomfort with my breasts.
Small lighter body?

As someone said on the news a few minutes ago…….why didn’t they cut her legs off, then she would have been lighter still.


“Ashley’s smaller and lighter size makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc.”

So anyone who is regular size isn’t ever included in life and activities? You have to be small to get love?


What shallow comments they make.

“Furthermore, given Ashley’s mental age a nine and a half year old body is more appropriate and more dignified than a fully grown female body.”

God gave her a FEMALE BODY. Dignified? What the hell are they talking about?

“We call it “Ashley Treatment” because:
1- As far as we know Ashley is the first child to receive this treatment,
2- We wanted a name that is easy to remember and search for,
3- The name applies to a collection of procedures that together have the purpose of improving Ashley’s quality of life and well-being. Growth attenuation is only one aspect of the treatment.”

Or
1. They didn’t want to look at her growing up as a sad reminder of the pathetic situation and person she is.
2. BASICALLY MAKINGTHEIR LIFE BETTER and EASIER.



They want her to remain their little bitty picture “pillow doll” That is the image they want for her, the image they want to look at when they take care of her.

“The surgeon also performed an appendectomy during the surgery, since there is a chance of 5% of developing appendicitis in the general population, and this additional procedure presented no additional risk. If Ashley’s appendix acts up, she would not be able to communicate the resulting pain. An inflamed appendix could rupture before we would know what was going on, causing significant complication.”

5 frikin %…………… Hell pull out all her teeth……she might get a tooth ache.

“We are currently near the limits of our ability to lift Ashley at 65 pounds.”

Bullcrap….what are they weak and disabled themselves. I use to life bags of flour heavier than this before my hip replacement.


I am sorry these parents are pathetic.

“We tried hard and found it impossible to find qualified, trustworthy, and affordable care providers.”

They didn’t look very far…….as I said, pathetic. They did this for themselves.


What next a colonoscopy bag……..then she wouldn’t have to illuminate at all the normal way……all they would need to do is empty the bag. But then again it just might be to heavy for them.


Remove remove remove……..hell should all woman get breast buds removed so they wont get cancer?

“3- Large breasts could “sexualize” Ashley towards her caregiver, especially when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse.”

Caregivers? Thought the only ones who cared for her were a few family members. Remember they couldn’t find help.


What does all this have to do with Ashleys boredom? NOTHING. This is all about the parents and their comfort level.
They are pathetic……..

 

[1069]

They are pathetic……..

Your words would be offensive, if you weren't so clearly ignorant of that which you speak.
As it is, your words only make me (and no doubt Ashley X's parents, and all other right-thinking individuals) ever more resigned to the discouraging fact that there is no possibility of rational communication with a sizable minority of our fellow human beings, a demographic of which you yourself are an almost prototypical representative.

What next a colonoscopy bag……..then she wouldn’t have to illuminate at all the normal way……

... I generally "illuminate" by flicking a switch on the wall; I always thought that was "the normal way".
What've you got, a spotlight shining out of your butt or something?

:2rofll:

Jumped-up jack-booted Christ, too bad you couldn't have appeared and presented your case before the ethics committee.
I'm sure it would've lent a much-needed note of levity to the otherwise somber proceedings.

:lamo

 

[jamesrage]

Your opinion please.
Link
Parents defend decision to keep girl a child - World - Times Online

I think it is some ****ed up **** to alter a child for the sake of convenience for the parents.

 

[talloulou]

As not to inconvenience her caregivers.Yea right.

Making things more convenient for caregivers of the severely disabled is in my opinion a high priority. It's no small thing to care for someone severely disabled.

[/B]Does Ashley have a choice? I never had discomfort with my breasts.

Yeah the breast thing seemed odd to me too. I had assumed it had something to do with the high doses of estrogen and the uterus removal. I didn't know if that put her at a higher risk for breast cancer or not. It's not something I know alot about. If they just removed her breast because they didn't want her to have them well that is hard to understand.

Small lighter body?

She can't do anything herself. She isn't even potty trained. So they are bathing her, changing her diapers, ect.... If she grew to a size where either parent was unable to lift her than how would they continue to care for her? Not everyone has the resources to bring in outside help and even if you do have the money for that it's quite costly and these parents seem intent on being the primary caregivers themselves. Add to that the fact that she will need lifelong care and the parents are only going to get older I can definitely see how small size would be beneficial.

“Ashley’s smaller and lighter size makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc.”

So anyone who is regular size isn’t ever included in life and activities? You have to be small to get love?

Regular size full grown adults who shite their pants, can't walk, can't talk, can't bath probably actually don't get out that much. Sorry to be crude but it is what it is.

God gave her a FEMALE BODY. Dignified? What the hell are they talking about?

I don't what I'm supposed to make of that but let's assume you're right and god gave her that body. Well quite blatantly he dealt her a pretty ****ed up deck of cards if you ask me and thus I'm not sure how God is revelant even if God exists.

Or
1. They didn’t want to look at her growing up as a sad reminder of the pathetic situation and person she is.
2. BASICALLY MAKINGTHEIR LIFE BETTER and EASIER.

Well why shouldn't there lives be made easier? Without this treatment their lives could all become virtually impossible. And if they have resourses to hire help they still are gonna live a very different life. If you think of an infant with no capacity to care for itself in any manner which would you rather care for a 125 pound infant or one you can comfortably lift?

They want her to remain their little bitty picture “pillow doll” That is the image they want for her, the image they want to look at when they take care of her.

What makes you think that?

Bullcrap….what are they weak and disabled themselves. I use to life bags of flour heavier than this before my hip replacement.

Lifting a 125 pound adult several times a day is no easy task for anyone. I'm certain she would get out less and have a lower quality of care simply because everything would be more difficult.

 

[1069]

God gave her a FEMALE BODY.

God's nonexistence aside, Ashley still has a female body; the same one she was born with.
She isn't mutilated; there's no external sign that she's been altered in any way.
She is still in possession of all the ordinary external female genitalia.
But she has static encephalopathy, for God's sake, meaning she cannot walk, talk, raise her head up in bed, or even swallow food. There's been no progress in her mental ability since she was three months old, she's dependent on her caregivers in every way, including for position changes in bed, she can't hold a toy, and her parents don't know whether she even recognizes them.
In short, Ashley is vegetative, and there is simply no reason for a vegetative individual to have a large, sexually mature body, if there is any way to avoid it.
You say "God gave her a FEMALE BODY", but you're not taking into account that "God" also gave her a body that's not even capable of taking nourishment orally.
If we just let nature take its course, she'd be dead already; she would've been dead the day she was born.
A surgically implanted feeding tube allows Ashley to survive.
Why aren't you working yourself into a tizzy over that?
If "God" had meant Ashley to have a feeding tube, then she would've been born with one. Perhaps surgeons should stop fiddling with nature, huh Doughgirl? :roll:

As I said, this state hospital I briefly worked at was full of patients like Ashley; they rarely live past their twenties. They're too unwieldy to move around much (we strapped them into wheelchairs a few hours a day, and did some range-of-motion exercises with them by manually bending their arms and legs a certain number of times each day to prevent or minimize muscular atrophy, but that's it; all of them were incapable of voluntary, purposeful movement); as a result, they lay around in bed about 85% of the time, and their lungs fill up with fluid and phlegm, and they have respiratory problems and circulatory problems and digestive problems, and they get horrid festering bedsores, and they die.
Certainly anything that can keep Ashley out of institutional care as long as possible (although she may outlive her parents, and have to be institutionalized in the future) is a very good thing for her.

Being a size that she can be carried and moved and bathed and changed and included and transported easily, not merely heaved from bed to wheelchair, from wheelchair to bed, will stave off the chronic, progressive illnesses and conditions that inevitably plague bedridden patients and finally kill them, often sooner than later.
Nobody can possibly be expected to lug a 200 pound inert patient around much. Logistically, it's just impossible.
This treatment was the best way to maximize both the quality and the duration of Ashley's life.
I am satisfied that Ashley's parents were motivated by concern for her comfort.
What else can one do with a child like this, but try to ensure her comfort for as long as she lives?

 

[Dogger807]

I agree with what you say, but I think you understate the extent of Ashley's disability. Given my understanding of the situation, Ashley is, for all intents and purposes, vegetative.
There are good reasons why there are anti-eugenics laws in place, designed to protect the mentally handicapped from involuntary sterilization.
These laws have been in effect since the late 60s, because before that, many retarded people were involuntarily sterilized by well-meaning doctors.
Today, retarded people have sexual relationships, marry, have children, and raise them.
Society recognizes that this is their right, despite their handicaps, and it provides them with the assistance they need to live as independently as possible.
But Ashley's case is different. She is beyond "retarded". She will never have the capacity to consent to sex, although many higher-functioning retarded people can and do. She will never have the capacity to voluntarily decide to procreate, although again, many higher-functioning retarded individuals can and do.
She is not merely "retarded".
This procedure, this treatment, would never be used on an individual who was educably mentally retarded, because there are laws in place that were specifically designed to protect the rights and the fertility of such individuals.

I was under the impression she was at least cognitive if even minutely. Correct me if I am wrong.
​

 

[talloulou]

I was under the impression she was at least cognitive if even minutely. Correct me if I am wrong.
​

One of the articles did say something about her father's voice having a "soothing" effect on her or something. I'm not sure I'd call her a vegetable myself. More like an infant. I think she is probably capable of happy/sad/angry but with a limited capacity to express those feelings and zero ability to rationalize anything.

"There were several times when she was becoming a little agitated, and you could see that she was not entirely happy," Diekema recalls. "And then her dad would say something to the committee. She would hear his voice, and she would immediately stop. You could see her whole affect change. She would focus on him and his voice, and it was very clear that there was a really powerful relationship there between her and her parents."

http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/NEWS0107/611190344/1001&nav_category

 

[1069]

I was under the impression she was at least cognitive if even minutely. Correct me if I am wrong.
​

Sentient, yes (she is able to feel pain); Cognitive, no.
Cognizant, no.
As I mentioned, her parents don't know if she recognizes them.

 

[doughgirl]

1069 said, “Your words would be offensive, if you weren't so clearly ignorant of that which you speak.
As it is, your words only make me (and no doubt Ashley X's parents, and all other right-thinking individuals) ever more resigned to the discouraging fact that there is no possibility of rational communication with a sizable minority of our fellow human beings, a demographic of which you yourself are an almost prototypical representative.”

Spoken so clearly by someone who could give a rats arse about human life……..who condones the slaughter of unborn children even up until term. You have the gall to point your finger at me? Rational communication with a segment of society that only thinks death is the answer? Oh gee what do you represent?

“Jumped-up jack-booted Christ, too bad you couldn't have appeared and presented your case before the ethics committee.
I'm sure it would've lent a much-needed note of levity to the otherwise somber proceedings.”

Well honey I certainly would not have requested what these parents requested and what you think was perfectly acceptable to do to Ashley. I do have a severely handicapped person in my life and we did not castrate, mutilate him to make things easier for us. We manuever him the best we can.

Talloulou said, “Making things more convenient for caregivers of the severely disabled is in my opinion a high priority. It's no small thing to care for someone severely disabled.”

Where do we stop Talloulou? When do things become unacceptable? I’m sorry but I feel after reading this article convenience for these parents probably would have been death so they wouldn’t have to deal with this at all.
How could we allow people, the medical community especially to do what they did to Ashley?

Loving parents......I don't know about that.

“She can't do anything herself. She isn't even potty trained. So they are bathing her, changing her diapers, ect.... If she grew to a size where either parent was unable to lift her than how would they continue to care for her? Not everyone has the resources to bring in outside help and even if you do have the money for that it's quite costly and these parents seem intent on being the primary caregivers themselves. Add to that the fact that she will need lifelong care and the parents are only going to get older I can definitely see how small size would be beneficial”

A lot of handicapped and mentally retarded human beings can’t do anything. Is the answer then to mutilate them so that they can be cared for in better ways? What will this case mean, now that it becomes acceptable for parents to experiment on their children?

“ I don't what I'm supposed to make of that but let's assume you're right and god gave her that body. Well quite blatantly he dealt her a pretty ****ed up deck of cards if you ask me and thus I'm not sure how God is revelant even if God exists.’

Oh heres the blame God line…….knew that one would come up.

“Well why shouldn't there lives be made easier? Without this treatment their lives could all become virtually impossible. And if they have resourses to hire help they still are gonna live a very different life. If you think of an infant with no capacity to care for itself in any manner which would you rather care for a 125 pound infant or one you can comfortably lift?”

Their lives were made easier because of this? Because she now doesn’t have breasts?? :rofl Because she has no appendix, life is easier? Because she weighs less? Because they stunted her growth?

People have faced the challenges this family has faced for years, and worse. You think they are the first?


You do what you have to do to care for those you love you don’t start taking out organs.

“What makes you think that?”

Did you read the total article? They seem very superficial only caring about themselves. They say one thing, then counter it by saying another. They seemed way more interested in themselves then Ashley. They now have a website,………spokespeople………..trying to defend their actions, yet they say they don’t care what anyone else says. Remember they feel like HEROS. Yea right. You watch…….they will grace the cover of PEOPLE magazine within the month, books, movies........

“Lifting a 125 pound adult several times a day is no easy task for anyone. I'm certain she would get out less and have a lower quality of care simply because everything would be more difficult.”

Unbelievable that people feel as you do. We have abortion that outright kills, so why not this………yea I understand now, all about pro-choice, and now pro-choice for parents to mutilate and de-organ their children. Heck our laws say we can kill them..why not experiement on them too.

“Ashley’s doctors, Daniel Gunther and Douglas Diekema, wrote in their paper for the October issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine that the treatment would “remove one of the major obstacles to family care and might extend the time that parents with the ability, resources and inclination to care for their child at home might be able to do so”.”

Convenience, convenience……….


The article says defensively that, “Because Ashley was expected to have a large chest size, her parents say that removing her breast buds, including the milk glands (while keeping the nipples intact), will save her further discomfort while avoiding fibrocystic growth and breast cancer.”


Do we know she will get breast cancer? NO. Heck remove her gall bladder……she might get stones. Just remove as much as you can…….just “because” and “what if”.

Should all woman have their uteruses removed because of the risk of uterine cancer. Same with breasts, should we when we are healthy get them removed just in case?

The article stated…….”Large breasts could “sexualize” Ashley towards her caregiver, especially when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse.’

So let me get this straight, they are making them smaller so any caregiver wont get turned on? Wow what does that say to about small breasted woman.

““The God we know wants Ashley to have a good quality of life and wants her parents to be diligent about using every resource at their disposal . . . to maximise her quality of life.””

Every resource? “to maximize her quality of life” or make theirs better at Ashleys expense.

“Being a woman involves discomfort and hassle and considerable risk (breast cancer, common chronic problems such as endometriosis and fibrocystic breast disorder, cervical and other gynecological cancers, etc).”

You talk about risks? We talk in the abortion threads about increases of breast cancer in those woman who have had abortions and you laugh. You dismiss the fact that there might be risks at all…….and you justify their altering her breasts because of RISK to breast cancer?

You think by them doing this to her it will prevent her from getting lung, heart disease, colon cancer, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, etc etc…..she is a human being like the rest of us. Should we have everything taken out of us because of the risk of some? she is no different than the rest of us when it comes to cancer and their excuses are lame.



Would doctors do that if a normal patient wanted it? How many doctors would do a radical on a woman who was afraid of just simply getting breast cancer?
The parents mentioned they had breast cancer in their family. They are no different than most…..My grandmother died of breast cancer. I am not encouraging my daughter to get a radical or to have her breast buds removed. I did not get a radical, should I?

“Other families of profoundly retarded children will benefit from this treatment,
because this family had the guts to go first.”

And just what will be next? Death? A clinic where they can just drop them off.

 

[jfuh]

Spoken so clearly by someone who could give a rats arse about human life……..who condones the slaughter of unborn children even up until term. You have the gall to point your finger at me? Rational communication with a segment of society that only thinks death is the answer? Oh gee what do you represent?





Well honey I certainly would not have requested what these parents requested and what you think was perfectly acceptable to do to Ashley. I do have a severely handicapped person in my life and we did not castrate, mutilate him to make things easier for us. We manuever him the best we can.





Where do we stop Talloulou? When do things become unacceptable? I’m sorry but I feel after reading this article convenience for these parents probably would have been death so they wouldn’t have to deal with this at all.
How could we allow people, the medical community especially to do what they did to Ashley?

Loving parents......I don't know about that.





A lot of handicapped and mentally retarded human beings can’t do anything. Is the answer then to mutilate them so that they can be cared for in better ways? What will this case mean, now that it becomes acceptable for parents to experiment on their children?






Oh heres the blame God line…….knew that one would come up.






Their lives were made easier because of this? Because she now doesn’t have breasts?? :rofl Because she has no appendix, life is easier? Because she weighs less? Because they stunted her growth?

People have faced the challenges this family has faced for years, and worse. You think they are the first?


You do what you have to do to care for those you love you don’t start taking out organs.




Did you read the total article? They seem very superficial only caring about themselves. They say one thing, then counter it by saying another. They seemed way more interested in themselves then Ashley. They now have a website,………spokespeople………..trying to defend their actions, yet they say they don’t care what anyone else says. Remember they feel like HEROS. Yea right. You watch…….they will grace the cover of PEOPLE magazine within the month, books, movies........






Unbelievable that people feel as you do. We have abortion that outright kills, so why not this………yea I understand now, all about pro-choice, and now pro-choice for parents to mutilate and de-organ their children. Heck our laws say we can kill them..why not experiement on them too.







Convenience, convenience……….


The article says defensively that, “Because Ashley was expected to have a large chest size, her parents say that removing her breast buds, including the milk glands (while keeping the nipples intact), will save her further discomfort while avoiding fibrocystic growth and breast cancer.”


Do we know she will get breast cancer? NO. Heck remove her gall bladder……she might get stones. Just remove as much as you can…….just “because” and “what if”.

Should all woman have their uteruses removed because of the risk of uterine cancer. Same with breasts, should we when we are healthy get them removed just in case?





So let me get this straight, they are making them smaller so any caregiver wont get turned on? Wow what does that say to about small breasted woman.





Every resource? “to maximize her quality of life” or make theirs better at Ashleys expense.





You talk about risks? We talk in the abortion threads about increases of breast cancer in those woman who have had abortions and you laugh. You dismiss the fact that there might be risks at all…….and you justify their altering her breasts because of RISK to breast cancer?

You think by them doing this to her it will prevent her from getting lung, heart disease, colon cancer, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, etc etc…..she is a human being like the rest of us. Should we have everything taken out of us because of the risk of some? she is no different than the rest of us when it comes to cancer and their excuses are lame.



Would doctors do that if a normal patient wanted it? How many doctors would do a radical on a woman who was afraid of just simply getting breast cancer?
The parents mentioned they had breast cancer in their family. They are no different than most…..My grandmother died of breast cancer. I am not encouraging my daughter to get a radical or to have her breast buds removed. I did not get a radical, should I?



And just what will be next? Death? A clinic where they can just drop them off.

You are in no position whatsoever to judge.

 

[Dogger807]

Sentient, yes (she is able to feel pain); Cognitive, no.
Cognizant, no.
As I mentioned, her parents don't know if she recognizes them.

One has to wonder if they are actually doing her any favores keeping her alive. I know I'd rather die than be keep like that . Yet the poor girl has no other experience but.

However it's clear that her parents care about her. They could easily turn her over to the state, yet they are investing a lot of time and money into her future well being.

 

[7thKeeper]

Spoken so clearly by someone who could give a rats arse about human life……..who condones the slaughter of unborn children even up until term. You have the gall to point your finger at me? Rational communication with a segment of society that only thinks death is the answer? Oh gee what do you represent?

I will assume that you meant couldn't and not could. And I'm quite sure 1069 does care about human life. Please don't try to vilify others just because they do not share your view on matters and do not see things in black and white as you, judging by what I've read so far, seem to. If 1069 DOES support abortion up until term when there is no dire medical need for it, then I would oppose that view, but I get the impression that this is just a hyperbole and an attempt to again vilify the other person. This serves no good for anyone. Please point it out to me if I'm wrong in this.

Well honey I certainly would not have requested what these parents requested and what you think was perfectly acceptable to do to Ashley. I do have a severely handicapped person in my life and we did not castrate, mutilate him to make things easier for us. We manuever him the best we can.

Perhaps you wouldn't have and it's quite easy for us to make judgement on them, when we share no physical nor emotional links to Ashley. She's but a name to us, perhaps a mental image that we have formed in our minds based on the little we know to pretend that we actually know something about her, but none of us actually know her. You did what you thought was best for your relative/friend (I'm unaware of your actual relation to the handicapped person, based on what you told) and Ashleys parents did what they thought was best for their child. Yes, they talk about her being easier to take care of this way, but from what I see, you seem to fail to understand that this directly corresponds to her health and happiness as well.

Where do we stop Talloulou? When do things become unacceptable? I’m sorry but I feel after reading this article convenience for these parents probably would have been death so they wouldn’t have to deal with this at all.
How could we allow people, the medical community especially to do what they did to Ashley?

Loving parents......I don't know about that.

I am not Talloulou, so I do not know about his/her answer, but I will honestly say that I do not know where to stop and that we should not draw any premeditated lines in hard cases such as this. Every case is so unique with its own conciderations and twist that each such case needs to be handled individually and the professionals need to concider each case carefully. There should be no checklist nor ready made answers. And after reading and listening to this case on the radio (BBC), I must disagree with your assessment that they would have wanted death for their daughter out of conveniance. I feel as if this is just to vilify the parents to make opposing them easier, as it is much harder to condemn the parents based on ones own morals if you actually believe that they love their daughter.

A lot of handicapped and mentally retarded human beings can’t do anything. Is the answer then to mutilate them so that they can be cared for in better ways? What will this case mean, now that it becomes acceptable for parents to experiment on their children?

I'd hardly call this experimenting, as it seems that the doctors knew exactly what they were doing. This wasn't a case of "Hmm.. I wonder what will happen if we do this?". Yes, there are a lot of handicapped and mentally retarded who can't do anything and no, doing this sort of an operation is not always the answer , but concidering that from what I gather that this operation will end up causing her no discomfort in the future and most likely will end up improving her living conditions/keeping them from degrading in the future, I cannot find myself morally opposed to what was done in this case and will leave the decision to the parents and the doctors. No one here is advocating (as far as I know) that we start performing these kinds of operations to people left and right. What will this case mean? More discussion about the matter I'd hope.

Oh heres the blame God line…….knew that one would come up.

I'd like to point out that you were the one who brought God up and if you knew that this was going to come up, you shouldn't have mentioned Him. If we are to talk about that God gave her a female body, we'll also have to talk about the implications of God making her severely handicapped to the point that without medical aid, she wouldn't have lived long after her birth.

Their lives were made easier because of this? Because she now doesn’t have breasts?? :rofl Because she has no appendix, life is easier? Because she weighs less? Because they stunted her growth?

People have faced the challenges this family has faced for years, and worse. You think they are the first?


You do what you have to do to care for those you love you don’t start taking out organs.

From what I see, both the parents life when it comes to taking care of their daughter, as well as her own life was made easier by this. If one has to rely on others completely for their own well being, these two matters are pretty much one and the same. And the reasons for her breasts were already discussed and pointed out earlier. You may find them funny, but it seems that the professionals who were involved in this, having heard the reasons themselves, agreed that they were valid ones and allowed it to be done. Are they infalliable because of this (their profession)? No, but neither are you or me.

Did you read the total article? They seem very superficial only caring about themselves. They say one thing, then counter it by saying another. They seemed way more interested in themselves then Ashley. They now have a website,………spokespeople………..trying to defend their actions, yet they say they don’t care what anyone else says. Remember they feel like HEROS. Yea right. You watch…….they will grace the cover of PEOPLE magazine within the month, books, movies........

I've also heard short clips of the mother and father explaining themselves. And why wouldn't they defend themselves when they are accused of being horrible people just out for themselves without giving any thought to their daughter? I would defend myself, wanting others to know what I thought, even if ultimately everyone elses opinion did not matter. Did they actually say they felt like heroes? I must have missed that part, I don't know why they would feel like that.

Unbelievable that people feel as you do. We have abortion that outright kills, so why not this………yea I understand now, all about pro-choice, and now pro-choice for parents to mutilate and de-organ their children. Heck our laws say we can kill them..why not experiement on them too.

Well, I can't speak for others, but if we were to talk about killing in the most broadest sense, I do feel that killing is not always morally wrong. You seem to feel very strongly about abortion. I gather that you and 1069 must have argued a lot about the matter, concidering how often you have brought this up, when it has nothing to do with Ashleys case. And again, I'd hardly call this experimenting, as the parents and doctors seemed quite aware of the consequences of this operation. It seems that you just want to call it experimenting to create a mental image of a mad scientist/doctor/parent again just to vilify them.

Convenience, convenience……….

Snipped quote so that post would fit within character limit. Sorry.

Should all woman have their uteruses removed because of the risk of uterine cancer. Same with breasts, should we when we are healthy get them removed just in case?

I doubt any of us can see the future (as much as I know some people who can). Maybe she would have, maybe she wouldn't have. Her family did have a history for it. I am not quite certain of this move either, but it seems that the professionals found enough reason to allow it, even if I have my own doubts about the correctness of it. Now, I'm not a medical expert, but don't humans need their gall bladder for digestion? If they do, please do not make this comparison. However horrible you feel about the matter, nothing that actually keeps her living was removed.

So let me get this straight, they are making them smaller so any caregiver wont get turned on? Wow what does that say to about small breasted woman.

Nothing. Ashley is physically and mentally a child and will remain so now permanently. Even if a woman is flat-chested, she is still an adult female and can hardly be compared to a flat-chested child. Yes, when the parents are no longer able to take care of her, if she were to have an adult body, a caregiver could get turned on and I do think the risk of that is quite smaller if the person they are handling has the body of a child. I'd like to concider that the number of pedophiles is smaller than those who could possibly rape a woman who cannot resist nor tell anyone about it, especially among caregivers.

Every resource? “to maximize her quality of life” or make theirs better at Ashleys expense.

To maximize the quality of her life. I would like to know, what exactly is meant here by "at Ashleys expense".

You talk about risks? We talk in the abortion threads about increases of breast cancer in those woman who have had abortions and you laugh. You dismiss the fact that there might be risks at all…….and you justify their altering her breasts because of RISK to breast cancer?

You think by them doing this to her it will prevent her from getting lung, heart disease, colon cancer, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, etc etc…..she is a human being like the rest of us. Should we have everything taken out of us because of the risk of some? she is no different than the rest of us when it comes to cancer and their excuses are lame.

Well this is so closely addressed to 1069 that I'll leave to him/her, though I for one have not heard of any links between breast cancer and abortion that have withstood scrutiny very well. Perhaps there is, I personally do not know. In her case, due to her family background, we can however see the risk there. These are two very different cases.

Would doctors do that if a normal patient wanted it? How many doctors would do a radical on a woman who was afraid of just simply getting breast cancer?
The parents mentioned they had breast cancer in their family. They are no different than most…..My grandmother died of breast cancer. I am not encouraging my daughter to get a radical or to have her breast buds removed. I did not get a radical, should I?

I do not know if you should get a radical. Do you want one? If a normal patient wants one, I think that discussion and decision is left for the patient and the doctor.

And just what will be next? Death? A clinic where they can just drop them off.

I do not know what will be next, I'm sure this will be revealed with discussion, even if I personally doubt it is death out of conveniance, like you seem to want to suggest. I'll try to end this with a little bit of a lighter note however. About the clinics you mentioned, they already exist. We call them "retirement homes".

 

[doughgirl]

“You are in no position whatsoever to judge.”

Like it or not everyone judges. The thread is here to discuss and debate isn’t it? In a way you are judging me for judging them.

“One has to wonder if they are actually doing her any favores keeping her alive. I know I'd rather die than be keep like that . Yet the poor girl has no other experience but.”

See, here we go. What your really thinking will become reality and parents will have the right to have their children put “away”.

7th keeper, “I will assume that you meant couldn't and not could. And I'm quite sure 1069 does care about human life.”

What do you base this on since you have only been around for such a short period of time, 3 posts.



Why don’t you stick around and read her posts particularly in the abortion threads, then make comment about whether she values ALL life.

“Perhaps you wouldn't have and it's quite easy for us to make judgement on them, when we share no physical nor emotional links to Ashley. She's but a name to us, perhaps a mental image that we have formed in our minds based on the little we know to pretend that we actually know something about her, but none of us actually know her. You did what you thought was best for your relative/friend (I'm unaware of your actual relation to the handicapped person, based on what you told) and Ashleys parents did what they thought was best for their child. Yes, they talk about her being easier to take care of this way, but from what I see, you seem to fail to understand that this directly corresponds to her health and happiness as well.”

They are now in the news as they knew all along they would be. They have a web site where they are talking to people, defending their actions…..they have spokespeople etc etc….what they did was controversial was it not?

They are the ones who give us the image……they are the ones who have pushed her in the limelight.

Do the experts know for sure that what they did will eventually help her? Could what they did hurt her? If it weren’t controversial none of this would have happened. And as we can see the whole country is up in arms over this, like they were with Terri Schivo. So I certainly am not alone in how I am evaluating the situation.
I think many times we pick the easiest way, but that just might not be the best way for everyone concerned.

Is it in the best interest of every child who is aborted? Or is it in the best interest of only the MOTHER?

“I am not Talloulou, so I do not know about his/her answer, but I will honestly say that I do not know where to stop and that we should not draw any premeditated lines in hard cases such as this. Every case is so unique with its own conciderations and twist that each such case needs to be handled individually and the professionals need to concider each case carefully. There should be no checklist nor ready made answers. And after reading and listening to this case on the radio (BBC), I must disagree with your assessment that they would have wanted death for their daughter out of conveniance. I feel as if this is just to vilify the parents to make opposing them easier, as it is much harder to condemn the parents based on ones own morals if you actually believe that they love their daughter.”

What makes this case so hard? I don’t think it is hard. Do you know how many other people have faced and do face challenges such as this? Its not that complicated. They wanted to make life easier for themselves first. Don’t want to mess with breasts and periods…….all normal things that woman deal with. Are most woman’s periods that hard for them to deal with? No Are breasts hard to deal with? No

If you read their own words, if you read their website, these HEROS, as they call themselves are very, very defensive. They are trying to convince the world that what they did was right. Why be so defensive, why care what other people think? Maybe they are trying to convince themselves that what they did was ok. If they think for one minute they will convince the world that their actions were the right ones they are sadly mistaken.

“I cannot find myself morally opposed to what was done in this case and will leave the decision to the parents and the doctors. No one here is advocating (as far as I know) that we start performing these kinds of operations to people left and right. What will this case mean? More discussion about the matter I'd hope.”

Well peoples morals are different and they will be in this case. I personally feel abortion is murder and immoral and some think its no more than getting teeth cleaned…..and moral. People look at life differently. Hitler certainly looked at life differently than Mother Teresa didn’t he?


Whether people advocate doesn’t matter. The time will come when there will be the “first” set of parents who will kill their handicapped child.

“If we are to talk about that God gave her a female body, we'll also have to talk about the implications of God making her severely handicapped to the point that without medical aid, she wouldn't have lived long after her birth.”

Would love to talk about that……….the “blaming god for everything bad syndrome“.

“I've also heard short clips of the mother and father explaining themselves. And why wouldn't they defend themselves when they are accused of being horrible people just out for themselves without giving any thought to their daughter? I would defend myself, wanting others to know what I thought, even if ultimately everyone elses opinion did not matter. Did they actually say they felt like heroes? I must have missed that part, I don't know why they would feel like that.”

I’ve heard them as well. Why do HEROS have to explain themselves. These parents call themselves HEROS. They made their decision, why don’t they slip away give no interviews and just live their lives? Why do they have to explain anything then?


Yes, they called themselves heros.

“Well, I can't speak for others, but if we were to talk about killing in the most broadest sense, I do feel that killing is not always morally wrong. You seem to feel very strongly about abortion.”

Give us an example of when you think it would be acceptable to kill someone? I am assuming your not talking about capital punishment.

“I gather that you and 1069 must have argued a lot about the matter, concidering how often you have brought this up, when it has nothing to do with Ashleys case. “

You are right. Its to complicated and I won't bring that issue into this one……go to the abortion threads and read for yourself. But then you probably would take her side in the abortion debate because you seem to be pro-choice and you said you thought it acceptable to kill people. She happens to believe that abortion is ok even up until a natural delivery.


“And again, I'd hardly call this experimenting, as the parents and doctors seemed quite aware of the consequences of this operation. It seems that you just want to call it experimenting to create a mental image of a mad scientist/doctor/parent again just to vilify them.”

Why if there is nothing that alarming about the procedures that they did, why is this a top news story? Why are we even debating this then? The parents are the ones who put it out there.

“I doubt any of us can see the future (as much as I know some people who can). Maybe she would have, maybe she wouldn't have. Her family did have a history for it. I am not quite certain of this move either, but it seems that the professionals found enough reason to allow it, even if I have my own doubts about the correctness of it. Now, I'm not a medical expert, but don't humans need their gall bladder for digestion? If they do, please do not make this comparison. However horrible you feel about the matter, nothing that actually keeps her living was removed.”

These parents did make a judgment call. They assumed Ashley would get cancer of everything, the breasts, the uterus etc…..They removed her buds, her uterus, her appendix…….Most people have history in their family of cancer. The point I was trying to make…..if this is a logical thing to do, why shouldn’t other woman do it?


Her breasts had nothing to do with her handicap. Her uterus had nothing to do with her handicap. She was handicapped so what…….we could discuss this without even mentioning the fact that she was handicapped. Because what they did was only done for the parental convenience, these were not health concerns or anything that was really affecting her at the time.

“Ashley is physically and mentally a child and will remain so now permanently. Even if a woman is flat-chested, she is still an adult female and can hardly be compared to a flat-chested child. Yes, when the parents are no longer able to take care of her, if she were to have an adult body, a caregiver could get turned on and I do think the risk of that is quite smaller if the person they are handling has the body of a child. I'd like to concider that the number of pedophiles is smaller than those who could possibly rape a woman who cannot resist nor tell anyone about it, especially among caregivers.”

She would have had a womans body had they not stunted her. Mentally she might have been a child but she was growing physically into a woman. To stunt the breasts because now they think a health care worker will get turned on taking care of her is absolutely insane. INSANE. Gee Jon Benet Ramsey was a little child and large breasts didn’t stop the guy who physically abused her did it? Nor will it stop anyone who is sick and wants to take advantage of someone else sexually.

“To maximize the quality of her life. I would like to know, what exactly is meant here by "at Ashleys expense".”

Well I wont answer this one because I would bring God into it. You want my answer I’ll send it to by private post or anothe thread if you wish.

“I do not know if you should get a radical. Do you want one? If a normal patient wants one, I think that discussion and decision is left for the patient and the doctor.”

I wasn’t necessarily talking about myself, more woman in general. Do you think it would be a good idea?

“I do not know what will be next, I'm sure this will be revealed with discussion, even if I personally doubt it is death out of conveniance, like you seem to want to suggest. I'll try to end this with a little bit of a lighter note however. About the clinics you mentioned, they already exist. We call them "retirement homes".”

Well I truly believe down the line death will be available to those who want it for themselves or someone they are caring for. Its already happening in places around the world even in our country.

 

[Felicity]

I gotta say I agree with doughgirl on this one. It does appear to be for everyone's "convenience" except Ashley's. And exactly where does the persuit of "convenience" end? Hell...she'd be a whole lot easier to take care of if she was buried six feet underground. Is that a "treatment" the parrents should persue? I used to work in an extended care facility and there are PLENTY of methods to bathe and care for people of all sizes. Were the parents thinking of Ashley when they exposed her to radical elective surgeries all the medical risks associated with major surgeries and the convelescence of immobile persons? Or were they thinking of how much EASIER it all would be "if only"...?

The fear of her being sexualized or raped because she would have big boobs and a fertile body is just w.e.i.r.d.:shock: IMO it reveals a lot about the warped POV of the parents.

 

[Gibberish]

I gotta say I agree with doughgirl on this one. It does appear to be for everyone's "convenience" except Ashley's. And exactly where does the persuit of "convenience" end? Hell...she'd be a whole lot easier to take care of if she was buried six feet underground. Is that a "treatment" the parrents should persue? I used to work in an extended care facility and there are PLENTY of methods to bathe and care for people of all sizes. Were the parents thinking of Ashley when they exposed her to radical elective surgeries all the medical risks associated with major surgeries and the convelescence of immobile persons? Or were they thinking of how much EASIER it all would be "if only"...?

I agree also. This was a selfish act by the parents to make life more convenient on themselves. Where does the convenience stop? If she was able to walk would they be able to cut her legs off so that she couldn't run away or possibly fall and injure herself?

The fear of her being sexualized or raped because she would have big boobs and a fertile body is just w.e.i.r.d.:shock: IMO it reveals a lot about the warped POV of the parents.

It was a lame excuse.

 

[Felicity]

I just looked over the blog...and there are some strange ways the parents reference this "child" of theirs. For example:
We constantly feel the desire to visit her room (her favorite place with special lights and colorful displays) or have her with us wanting to be in her aura of positive energy. Is she a pet or a piece of furniture? Or is she a MEMBER OF THEIR FAMILY??? How do they know that's her favorite place? I thought she had the brain of a three month old? How CONVENIENT that her "favorite place" is off in another room one has to "visit" rather than her favorite place being among her family members. And...uh...if you look at the pictures the "family" provided--that blue room looks pretty BOOORING if you ask me. The bathroom looks more appealing and energizing. Also--"pillow angel" is about the most obnoxious, trite, and dehumanizing name for severely disabled people that I can think of. But I guess people who want to have a series of unwarranted radical elective surgeries done to people who cannot express their desires named after their child and called "the Ashley Treatment" (sounds like something one could order off the menue at your local S&M club--hey...maybe it is an appropriate name!)--I guess the pillow angel thing shouldn't surprise me.

The more I read on that blog the more disgusting I find this...

 

[talloulou]

See, here we go. What your really thinking will become reality and parents will have the right to have their children put “away”.

Parents do have children put "away." Unfortunately our society doesn't provide near enough adequate help for caregivers of the severely disabled and this "solution" really doesn't adequately address that problem though it does go a long way in simplifying things for this family.

They are now in the news as they knew all along they would be. They have a web site where they are talking to people, defending their actions…..they have spokespeople etc etc….what they did was controversial was it not?

It's very controversial. In fact I spoke with my husband about it and his line of thinking is closer to yours than mine. However I think working in hospital settings I've seen more of the realities of dealing with the severely disabled than he has. Now I'm not saying that immediately makes me right and him wrong but I think it imakes me more sympathetic to the caregivers.

They are the ones who give us the image……they are the ones who have pushed her in the limelight.

Anytime something new is tried in the world of medicine it is automatically in the spotlight. The controversial nature of this case makes that even more true.

Do the experts know for sure that what they did will eventually help her? Could what they did hurt her? If it weren’t controversial none of this would have happened. And as we can see the whole country is up in arms over this, like they were with Terri Schivo. So I certainly am not alone in how I am evaluating the situation.

I agree with you. It's very contraversial. However I don't view the parents as "selfish" as much as I see them between a rock and a hard place. So for me it was weighing what was best for the caregivers and the child against other alternatives. If this allows the caregivers to give the child better care than in my view it is beneficial to the child. People who are severely disabled to the extent that they aren't capable of any voluntary movement on their own are gonna require tons of help to remain comfortable. On one sight it said the girl would freak out if a hair was falling in her eye because she isn't able to wipe it away. She does feel pain, discomfort, as well as feeling happy and content. So I would think the more someone is able to easily manipulate her body for her and the easier that is to do the better off she will be and the higher her chances for happiness. So while I wouldn't agree to chopping off her legs I can see how keeping her smaller would be beneficial to her. People will be more willing and able to manipulate her body for her in order to make her more at ease. As far as her period goes that is something that could cause her discomfort and she has no way of understanding or rationalizing that discomfort so getting rid of it seems beneficial especially since she doesn't need a "period" and she is in no position to even understand her reproduction system let alone use it.

So in my view this treatment helps her and her parents and she will benefit from it so I can't view it as a selfish thing on her parents part.

I think many times we pick the easiest way, but that just might not be the best way for everyone concerned.

I'd agree. But again while something like abortion is definitely the "easy way" and doesn't benefit the unborn in any manner I think in this case the parents are doing something that does indeed benefit their child.

Is it in the best interest of every child who is aborted? Or is it in the best interest of only the MOTHER?

I get that and I agree. Abortion only benefits the mother. But in Ashley's case it seems, in my mind, that these treatments are going to benefit her by improving the care she is able to receive and making her more comfortable. The reality is that if she were to grow to 125-150 pounds no one would be able to manipulate her body for her to as great an extent that they will be able to with her weighing much less. Since it will be harder to care for her I think her chances of receiving lower quality care would be greater. If she is easily moved around then she will be moved around alot more.

What makes this case so hard? I don’t think it is hard. Do you know how many other people have faced and do face challenges such as this? Its not that complicated.

It is very complicated. The care that people as severely disabled as this child have received throughout history is crap. It's not always that people don't care enough to help and more a problem of it being so hard and strenuous to help these people. I imagine it's quite exhausting and often times it's exhausting doing the bare minimum and this child's parents are hellbent on doing way more than the bare minimum so how can you not see that as beneficial to the child.

They wanted to make life easier for themselves first. Don’t want to mess with breasts and periods…….all normal things that woman deal with. Are most woman’s periods that hard for them to deal with? No Are breasts hard to deal with? No

You're not talking about a normal person first off. Second, hell yeah my period is a pain in the arse and makes me moody. Now imagine if I'm feeling all moody and bleeding and I don't understand why, what's happening, or when it's gonna end? And I'm reliant on someone else to keep me clean and comfortable?

If you read their own words, if you read their website, these HEROS, as they call themselves are very, very defensive. They are trying to convince the world that what they did was right. Why be so defensive, why care what other people think? Maybe they are trying to convince themselves that what they did was ok. If they think for one minute they will convince the world that their actions were the right ones they are sadly mistaken.

Obviously when you make hard decisions that others question you are going to defend yourself and your actions.

Well peoples morals are different and they will be in this case. I personally feel abortion is murder and immoral and some think its no more than getting teeth cleaned…..and moral. People look at life differently. Hitler certainly looked at life differently than Mother Teresa didn’t he?

Clearly Hitler is different from Mother Teresa. Unfortunately most of us don't fall at such extreme leves and it's not so easy to label one person "pure evil" and another "pure good." Most of us fall somewhere in between. That's why I don't hate women who have abortions. I don't view them as "evil" and while I don't like their choice I view it more as misguided vs evil or black hearted. However some people do border on evil when defending the "choice" and then I go off on them. But that topic is very different from this one.

Whether people advocate doesn’t matter. The time will come when there will be the “first” set of parents who will kill their handicapped child.

This happens all the time. In fact many with severe disabilities caught in utero are aborted. But there is a big difference between that and this family and their choices.

Would love to talk about that……….the “blaming god for everything bad syndrome“.

You brought God up first by saying God gave her a woman's body. I'm just saying if we are going to bring God in it and say he gave her that body then he should be held accountable and blamed for giving her such a crap deck of cards.

I’ve heard them as well. Why do HEROS have to explain themselves. These parents call themselves HEROS. They made their decision, why don’t they slip away give no interviews and just live their lives? Why do they have to explain anything then?

Because they feel they made the "right" choice and so they're proud to defend it. Just as you and I contine to put forward the notion that convenient abortion is wrong. It's very human to attempt to get others to view something as you view it. We're social creatures and we value what others think.

These parents did make a judgment call. They assumed Ashley would get cancer of everything, the breasts, the uterus etc…..They removed her buds, her uterus, her appendix…….Most people have history in their family of cancer. The point I was trying to make…..if this is a logical thing to do, why shouldn’t other woman do it?

Well perhaps other parents caring for a similar child should consider it.

Her breasts had nothing to do with her handicap. Her uterus had nothing to do with her handicap.

Removal of her breasts seems confusing to me as well I'll have to look more into that when I have time. However I do know that anytime she is sitting up she is "strapped in" and I think I recall reading that very large breasts run in her family. So I can certainly see how not having huge breasts when you constantly have belts going across your chest could be viewed as beneficial. Plus someone said she had a family history of breast cancer and the most dangerous part of surgery is anesthesia so perhaps they figured it was best to take care of as much as possible with one surgery. Removal of her uterus though is so they can put her on high doses of estrogen which will keep her small without increasing her risk for cancer. It would be too dangerous to give her such high doses of hormones while keeping her uterus.