NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm

Parents of a disabled 9 year old named Ashley, who has the cognative ability of a 3 month old, have decided to give her hormonal treatment in order to limit her growth, as well as removing her uterus and breast buds. They say it is maintain the levels of care they are currently giving her - a larger Ashley would be harder to move around the house and involve in the family. The menstrual cycle would also (apparently) cause her discomfort and distress. They've attracted a lot of critisism from disability groups, but some doctors and organisations fully suppot the descision too.

I for one am sympathetic to this move. Having a fully grown woman with the mental capacity of a newborn baby is far less dignified than what will be essentially a child with the mind of one. She'll receive high levels of paliative care (the disease is incurable and causes sufferers to have reduced life-spans) from an obviously loving family, and in the end that's all that matters. Not only that put her parents will have a lighter workload, and considering they are the ones who are in essense 'suffering' from their child's disability we should not condem them for that.

Your opinions please?

Heard about this on BBC newshour this morning. I think the parents made a difficult decision, and probably the correct one. That kid's brain damage will prevent her from ever being able to walk. She has the awareness of a three month old baby. Keeping her small will not cause her any pain or discomfort, and it will make it easier to care for her.

This isn't unethical because they are doing what they can to try and keep her pain minimal, and make care for her easier.

I'm with the parents. Letting her body just get more and more unwieldy is likely to make things more unpleasant for everyone, herself included. This should help ease her pain and distresses in the future, and do the same for the parents.

It's really along the lines of a mercy killing. Sometimes you have to do difficult things for people you love.

Heard about this on BBC newshour this morning. I think the parents made a difficult decision, and probably the correct one. That kid's brain damage will prevent her from ever being able to walk. She has the awareness of a three month old baby. Keeping her small will not cause her any pain or discomfort, and it will make it easier to care for her.

A lot of disability groups are complaining that caring for a fully sized woman is not a vast increase in the workload compared to a child, and that Ashley's treatment will cause her indignity :rolleyes: Frankly keeping her child sized will improve her quality of life. Strangely her condition has had parallels drawn with cerebal palsy, which is an entirely different case as sufferes from that disease have perfect mental functions, and thus are aware of indignity.

Some people open their mouths too quickly...

A lot of disability groups are complaining that caring for a fully sized woman is not a vast increase in the workload compared to a child, and that Ashley's treatment will cause her indignity :rolleyes: Frankly keeping her child sized will improve her quality of life. Strangely her condition has had parallels drawn with cerebal palsy, which is an entirely different case as sufferes from that disease have perfect mental functions, and thus are aware of indignity.

Some people open their mouths too quickly...

I don't see how limiting her growth in a few ways is taking away her dignity. What about the indignity of a full-grown body acting like a baby? It's not something she can help, why not just fit her body to her mind? She'll be treated like a little girl and look like a little girl. I'd much prefer that than treating a full-grown woman like a little girl.

Did she consent to it?

I can understand completely why they are doing this. My parents had a friend who's child was in much the same way. He was permanently in nappies (diapers) and had to be carried around in a carry cot. His body never grew to the same size of an adult but he did certianly get MUCH larger and much more difficult to handle. Especially when he hit puberty. His voice broke and so his crying, which he did often, was that of a baby but with the voice of a grown man. He also had to be shaved regularly to stop him pulling the hair out himself and of course his muscles also developed and he became very strong and physically difficult to deal with. I have no idea what happened to him, this was about 25 years ago now and he was 16 years old then.

A lot of disability groups are complaining that caring for a fully sized woman is not a vast increase in the workload compared to a child, and that Ashley's treatment will cause her indignity :rolleyes: Frankly keeping her child sized will improve her quality of life. Strangely her condition has had parallels drawn with cerebal palsy, which is an entirely different case as sufferes from that disease have perfect mental functions, and thus are aware of indignity.

Some people open their mouths too quickly...

Some dumb whore on the BBC this morning tried to compare caring for Ashley with caring for a person with one leg amputated. She then tried to argue that if Ashley had been allowed to go through puberty the hormones could have restored some function to her. As if hormones can magically regenerate dead brain tissue. She compared what was done to Ashley to Eugenics. If Ashley did get pregnant it wouldn't be her choice. It would have been the result of a rape. If anyone is a candidate for elimination through eugenics it's the witless **** on the BBC this morning.

Did she consent to it?

She has the mental abilities of a three month old. She's not consenting to anything.

Did she consent to it?

She probably can't tell the difference.

Did she consent to it?

Try asking a baby if it consents to complicated hormonal treatment and surgery

I can understand completely why they are doing this. My parents had a friend who's child was in much the same way. He was permanently in nappies (diapers) and had to be carried around in a carry cot. His body never grew to the same size of an adult but he did certianly get MUCH larger and much more difficult to handle. Especially when he hit puberty. His voice broke and so his crying, which he did often, was that of a baby but with the voice of a grown man. He also had to be shaved regularly to stop him pulling the hair out himself and of course his muscles also developed and he became very strong and physically difficult to deal with. I have no idea what happened to him, this was about 25 years ago now and he was 16 years old then.

Sad story, I always sympathise with the carers in cases like these, it cant be difficult bringing up a child with a serious mental condition

Did she consent to it?

If you read the post you know full well she was unable to give consent, and thus she falls under the legal guardianship of her parents.

You can't argue that this is interfering in her right to natural development because her condition isn't natural to begin with. The only reason she's even alive is because medical science and modern society make it possible. Her parents have the obligation to ease her suffering the best way possible, and this seems to be it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm

Parents of a disabled 9 year old named Ashley, who has the cognative ability of a 3 month old, have decided to give her hormonal treatment in order to limit her growth, as well as removing her uterus and breast buds. They say it is maintain the levels of care they are currently giving her - a larger Ashley would be harder to move around the house and involve in the family. The menstrual cycle would also (apparently) cause her discomfort and distress. They've attracted a lot of critisism from disability groups, but some doctors and organisations fully suppot the descision too.

I for one am sympathetic to this move. Having a fully grown woman with the mental capacity of a newborn baby is far less dignified than what will be essentially a child with the mind of one. She'll receive high levels of paliative care (the disease is incurable and causes sufferers to have reduced life-spans) from an obviously loving family, and in the end that's all that matters. Not only that put her parents will have a lighter workload, and considering they are the ones who are in essense 'suffering' from their child's disability we should not condem them for that.

Your opinions please?
I'm of mixed feelings about this. While I can and will concede that such treatments will make caring for her easier on the parents, Make accepting Ashley's condition more publicly acceptable, and can help protect her from some very, VERY sick individuals out there... there are other concerns as well.

She will NOT improve? Who's to say what advances in medical treatments will occure in the following years.

"Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they saidshe won't be? so the parents have already decided this? why? because they think she will be an unfit mother? what if other Guardians and the Family Members of other autistic/mentally Disabled children made this choice. this does open a preceident on their rights to their bodies.

As I said before, I have mixed feelings about this...

I suppose it's no more or less moral than circumcision, assuming the pain from the surgery has subsided and she's in no more pain.

Wow, I was in Cleveland, Tennessee over the holidays...

Reasonable and logical move.

But Agnes Fletcher of the UK's Disability Rights Commission said
Fuck Agnes Fletcher, the "Rights" Commission has no standing or right to tell the legal guardians of a cognitive invalid what is best for the child. Social problem my ass.

Wow, I was in Cleveland, Tennessee over the holidays...

You were practically at my doorstep!

I'm of mixed feelings about this. While I can and will concede that such treatments will make caring for her easier on the parents, Make accepting Ashley's condition more publicly acceptable, and can help protect her from some very, VERY sick individuals out there... there are other concerns as well.

She will NOT improve? Who's to say what advances in medical treatments will occure in the following years.

she won't be? so the parents have already decided this? why? because they think she will be an unfit mother? what if other Guardians and the Family Members of other autistic/mentally Disabled children made this choice. this does open a preceident on their rights to their bodies.

As I said before, I have mixed feelings about this...

Doctors agree that much of her brain is non existant. She'll never walk, or even move around. She's stuck with the mental abilities of a three month old. Odds are that we won't have the medical technology to fix that within our or our kid's lifetimes if we ever do.

Some dumb whore on the BBC this morning tried to compare caring for Ashley with caring for a person with one leg amputated. She then tried to argue that if Ashley had been allowed to go through puberty the hormones could have restored some function to her. As if hormones can magically regenerate dead brain tissue. She compared what was done to Ashley to Eugenics. If Ashley did get pregnant it wouldn't be her choice. It would have been the result of a rape. If anyone is a candidate for elimination through eugenics it's the witless **** on the BBC this morning.

Your opinions the woman on the BBC are a little harsh, but I completely agree with your point.
If her size were to be limited, but she was still fertile, and did get raped and got pregnant, to say the pregnancy and birth would be difficult is a vast understatement.
The parents have the best wishes of their daughter at heart, and those who have never been in that situation (myself included) should not critisise them, especially without fully considering all the issues.

I suppose it's no more or less moral than circumcision, assuming the pain from the surgery has subsided and she's in no more pain.

I've been circumcised and I'm still fertile. I think.

'Checks pants'

It's all still there.

Removing the foreskin and the uterus are pretty different operations with pretty different effects. Circumcision is perfectly innocent, thus the morality is different.

I've been circumcised and I'm still fertile. I think.

'Checks pants'

It's all still there.

Removing the foreskin and the uterus are pretty different operations with pretty different effects. Circumcision is perfectly innocent, thus the morality is different.True, but if somebody circumcised a three-year-old for nonmedical reasons, it would be different than doing so to a three-day-old.

True, but if somebody circumcised a three-year-old for nonmedical reasons, it would be different than doing so to a three-day-old.

Hardly, a three year old would still not be able to consent or even understand what the operation would entail. The only difference is that an anesthetic would be used.

I'm not sure if this is a good move, or a bad move. A right thing or a wrong thing. A moral choice or an immoral one. But I am sure of one thing; in such an ambiguous set of circumstances, the only people with a right to make such a decision is the girl's parents with the advice and support of her doctors. Anybody else can fuck off. :)

Hardly, a three year old would still not be able to consent or even understand what the operation would entail. The only difference is that an anesthetic would be used.Parents are allowed to sign up their three-year-olds for unnecessary medical procedures over there?

I'm not sure if this is a good move, or a bad move. A right thing or a wrong thing. A moral choice or an immoral one. But I am sure of one thing; in such an ambiguous set of circumstances, the only people with a right to make such a decision is the girl's parents with the advice and support of her doctors. Anybody else can fuck off. :)

That'll do.

Your opinions please?

Why not simply euthanise her ?
Seriously - who benefits from her existence ? She will stay 3 months old forever in a malfunctioning body. What joy will she get out of life ? What joy will the parents have ?

Why not simply euthanise her ?
Seriously - she will stay 3 months old forever in a malfunctioning body. What joy will she get out of life ? What joy will the parents have ?

Let the parents decide that, not you. From what I've heard she will simply remain a large baby. Why euthanise her for that?

Let the parents decide that, not you.
Oh, definately. I am just wondering why the option is not even considered.

From what I've heard she will simply remain a large baby. Why euthanise her for that?

You say that as if euthanising her would be punishing her.

Why not simply euthanise her ?
Seriously - who benefits from her existence ? She will stay 3 months old forever in a malfunctioning body. What joy will she get out of life ? What joy will the parents have ?

What joy will she get out of life?:3-month-old babies can experience a whole range of emotions.
Who benefits from her existance?: there are many people you can say that for - why not euthanise them all, then?!
What joy will the parents have?: they clearly love their daughter

Why not simply euthanise her ?
Seriously - who benefits from her existence ? She will stay 3 months old forever in a malfunctioning body. What joy will she get out of life ? What joy will the parents have ?

That argument could be used for lots of things, and is dangerous. You could use that excuse to euthanize anyone who doesn't benefit from existing. There's a school of thought that all life is precious, whether or not (I guess) they enjoy being alive.

I think easing her pain and minimizing her social stigma is probably the best way to go.

It's got to be a hard decision, and I'm sure her parents have wondered about euthanasia. Hard to call, either way.

Wow. I find what they did deeply disturbing - but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same had I been in their situation. Who can, really? So I'll have to agree with LG:
I'm not sure if this is a good move, or a bad move. A right thing or a wrong thing. A moral choice or an immoral one. But I am sure of one thing; in such an ambiguous set of circumstances, the only people with a right to make such a decision is the girl's parents with the advice and support of her doctors. Anybody else can fuck off. :)

She will NOT improve? Who's to say what advances in medical treatments will occure in the following years.

People making important medical decisions shouldn't live in fantasy worlds.

Why not simply euthanise her ?
Seriously - who benefits from her existence ? She will stay 3 months old forever in a malfunctioning body. What joy will she get out of life ? What joy will the parents have ?

I like to think my son got a lot of joy out of life when he was 3 months old. He smiled and laughed and was (is) an absolute delight. I am positive that despite her condition her parents still love her dearly or they would have found some way to put her in permanent care so that they do not have to deal with her. While I undestand the practicality of your suggestion as a parent I also find it rather callous.

That argument could be used for lots of things, and is dangerous. You could use that excuse to euthanize anyone who doesn't benefit from existing.

And that is a bad thing because... ?
Do note that I place the decision if the existence is benefecial primarily at the person living the life. It is not my place to determine that.

And that is a bad thing because... ?
Do note that I place the decision if the existence is benefecial primarily at the person living the life. It is not my place to determine that.

Ah, just saw your edit as I was posting.

Well, who decides who benefits and who doesn't? This is a difficult discussion, and frankly my brain isn't in it right now.

I'm just saying that going around, possibly euthanizing people who can't give consent, might be wrong. I do stress, might.

Doctors agree that much of her brain is non existant. She'll never walk, or even move around. She's stuck with the mental abilities of a three month old. Odds are that we won't have the medical technology to fix that within our or our kid's lifetimes if we ever do.Odds, but not a Certainty... ;)

People making important medical decisions shouldn't live in fantasy worlds.

Hope is never a fantasy.

it's that same "Fantasy World" that people making important medical decisions live in. That's why they strive to find cures for Cancer, HIV/AIDS, and whatever new disease/virus that emerges. it's people who live in that "Fantasy world" that design better prostetics for people missing limbs, pacemakers/artficial hearts for people with faulty/damaged hearts.

Let the parents decide that, not you. From what I've heard she will simply remain a large baby. Why euthanise her for that?because chances are, she might out-live the parent's ability to care for a... permament baby. That then puts the burden on their finances as they need to hire someone to care for her. Also, should anything happen to the parents, then the responsibility of caring (can't be called raising, after all, it seems everyone thinks there will be NO mental growth.) for Ashley will fall on someone else. Heaven help Ashley if she becomes a Ward of the State...

oh, and I am not pushing for Euthanising her. it is the parent's choice.

it's that same "Fantasy World" that people making important medical decisions live in. That's why they strive to find cures for Cancer, HIV/AIDS, and whatever new disease/virus that emerges. it's people who live in that "Fantasy world" that design better prostetics for people missing limbs, pacemakers/artficial hearts for people with faulty/damaged hearts.

There is a difference between working on finding a cure and pretending one will be pulled out of one of those researcher's asses before the child dies from, the most unlikely, old age.

Odds, but not a Certainty... ;)

No, but pretty much so

Hope is never a fantasy.

it's that same "Fantasy World" that people making important medical decisions live in. That's why they strive to find cures for Cancer, HIV/AIDS, and whatever new disease/virus that emerges. it's people who live in that "Fantasy world" that design better prostetics for people missing limbs, pacemakers/artficial hearts for people with faulty/damaged hearts.

I think people are trying to push across that you cant play with people's lives in the manner you're suggesting. Suppose she continues to grow, has her first period, but no cure is found? Suppose she reaches her 30s, 40s, 50s and no cure is found? Her life will be uncomfortable and unenjoyable. It's better to take the option where she grows up (not sure in what sense I mean there) in a home where her parents can easily take care of her and she enjoys life as much as a 3 month old can. Medical science isn't a miracle, it's science, and finding a cure for Ashley's disease is a near impossibility, fact.

because chances are, she might out-live the parent's ability to care for a... permament baby. That then puts the burden on their finances as they need to hire someone to care for her. Also, should anything happen to the parents, then the responsibility of caring (can't be called raising, after all, it seems everyone thinks there will be NO mental growth.) for Ashley will fall on someone else. Heaven help Ashley if she becomes a Ward of the State...

oh, and I am not pushing for Euthanising her. it is the parent's choice.

Unlikely, from what I've researched people with this kind of problem live for around 20-50 years. Chances are if her parents are healthy they will outlive their child, which is a tradgedy.

Did she consent to it?

She has the cognitive ability of a 3-month-old. She can't consent. Her parents are responsible for her - for the rest of her life. If this causes her no pain or discomfort, if, indeed, it will alleviate discomfort (picture a 3-month-old with menstrual cramps) then I see no problem with it.

Odds, but not a Certainty... ;)



<snip>.

There is also, according to an article I read about quantum physics, a very slim chance that an apple in a box will spontaneously teleport out of the box. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Same with this miracle cure.

We are at least 30 years from doing anything remotely worthy in cases like these. Perhaps much more, who can say. I sure cant.

I´m pro euthanasia too. They should let her die and get over it. Have another baby, a healthy one that can fully develop and give some love back to their parents.

Because this one wont give much. Even a cat would give more.

Anyway, its the parents decision. But in these cases, it would be much beter if she had been aborted.

We are at least 30 years from doing anything remotely worthy in cases like these. Perhaps much more, who can say. I sure cant.

I´m pro euthanasia too. They should let her die and get over it. Have another baby, a healthy one that can fully develop and give some love back to their parents.

Because this one wont give much. Even a cat would give more.

Anyway, its the parents decision. But in these cases, it would be much beter if she had been aborted.

That logic is disgusting. She's mentally healthy if she is to be thought of as a 3 month old instead of a 9 year old. Her quality of life identical to a baby's, and they seem to have a good time. It isn't as if she's going to whither and die painfully, as long as her parents continue to care she has a healthy life ahead of her.

There is a difference between working on finding a cure and pretending one will be pulled out of one of those researcher's asses before the child dies from, the most unlikely, old age.so you are for killing the child then.

I think people are trying to push across that you cant play with people's lives in the manner you're suggesting. and as I said, I am of mixed feelings on this. so I am actually neither condemming nor am I condoning what the parents did, I do agree it is within their rights as the Guardians/Parents of the child.Suppose she continues to grow, has her first period, but no cure is found? Suppose she reaches her 30s, 40s, 50s and no cure is found? Her life will be uncomfortable and unenjoyable.How do you know it will be uncomfortable? a Toothache is uncomfortable, so did they have all her baby teeth pulled out? Headaches are uncomfortable, thus should they should keep her away from all sources of light?

infact, because of her condition.. maybe she won't develope to have periods.
It's better to take the option where she grows up (not sure in what sense I mean there) in a home where her parents can easily take care of her and she enjoys life as much as a 3 month old can. Medical science isn't a miracle, it's science, and finding a cure for Ashley's disease is a near impossibility, fact.so was putting a man on the moon. that was once called an Imposibility. so is a person living to be a 100. finding a cure for the plague, leprosy and other diseases.

Unlikely, from what I've researched people with this kind of problem live for around 20-50 years. Chances are if her parents are healthy they will outlive their child, which is a tradgedy.while this is most likely... there have been reports of children outliving expectations. so 20-50 years could actually turn into 60-80. that's what makes life so... special. anything can happen.

There is also, according to an article I read about quantum physics, a very slim chance that an apple in a box will spontaneously teleport out of the box. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Same with this miracle cure.then don't, but don't deny those that will hope and wait and even search.

so you are for killing the child then.

So you are for being an hyperbolic asshat?

The medical ethical issue here seems to be that this is to make the parents life easier as there is no real reason why this level of surgery and hormonal treatment is needed for her own comfort and wellbeing.

Stopping her mensturating is one thing. Keeping her artificially a size that her parents can easily 'manage' is a whole different thing altogether.

Humans are defined by heir cognative functions. Without those, one lacks the relevant sake.

At this point she's basically a pet. No one objects when you get your dog neutered, do they?

Keeping her artificially a size that her parents can easily 'manage' is a whole different thing altogether.

And ironically, that is far less intrusive than anything else.

From my point of view, this seems to be the decent thing for the parents to have done. It makes their, as well as their child's, life far easier than they would have been otherwise.

From my point of view, this seems to be the decent thing for the parents to have done. It makes their, as well as their child's, life far easier than they would have been otherwise.

How does it make her life easier exactly?

and as I said, I am of mixed feelings on this. so I am actually neither condemming nor am I condoning what the parents did, I do agree it is within their rights as the Guardians/Parents of the child.How do you know it will be uncomfortable? a Toothache is uncomfortable, so did they have all her baby teeth pulled out? Headaches are uncomfortable, thus should they should keep her away from all sources of light?

You're a guy, aren't you? For a baby the menstrual cycle would be undoubtedly distressing. The bleeding is the first thing that springs to mind. How can a 3-month old comprehend any of that? I don't see what you're trying to prove here with your reductio ad absurdam. Removing her uterus won't cause any pain, discomfort os disadvantage for the future. Who loses? Nobody. Who wins? Ashley. Get off your ethical high horse and have compassion.

infact, because of her condition.. maybe she won't develope to have periods.

Tut, you should have said that you were a doctor!


so was putting a man on the moon. that was once called an Imposibility. so is a person living to be a 100. finding a cure for the plague, leprosy and other diseases.

Again, reducing to the absurd. Those claims were founded out of ignorance. Who can blame 1st century man for not understanding microbiology and pharmaceuticals, let alone infamous rocket science? We know better - some diseases are incurable

while this is most likely... there have been reports of children outliving expectations. so 20-50 years could actually turn into 60-80. that's what makes life so... special. anything can happen.

Obviously, but we use averages for a reason. What are the chances of this poor girl living for 80 years?

then don't, but don't deny those that will hope and wait and even search.

Poor old you, waiting patiently for a miracle cure. I'm sure that biologists everywhere are glad that you're asking them to do the near impossible. Who's going to investigate this condition, which probably affects less than 0.00001% of the global population when there's the scourge of cancer and AIDS killing thousands of millions a year all across all inhabited continents? Let this girl and her parents live comfortable and happy lives instead of forcing them through decades of discomfort and misery just because you expect a miracle cure to fall from the sky.

Ugh, I hate the "dignity" thing disability groups always bring up. This person has the cognitive ability of a 3-month old, cannot walk, or do anything else. Frankly, if you haven't figured this out, she doesn't have the understanding to HAVE dignity, or much else.

You're a guy, aren't you? For a baby the menstrual cycle would be undoubtedly distressing. The bleeding is the first thing that springs to mind. How can a 3-month old comprehend any of that? I don't see what you're trying to prove here with your reductio ad absurdam. Removing her uterus won't cause any pain, discomfort is disadvantage for the future.

infact, because of her condition.. maybe she won't develope to have periods.

Tut, you should have said that you were a doctor!



Again, reducing to the absurd. Those claims were founded out of ignorance. Who can blame 1st century man for not understanding microbiology and pharmaceuticals, let alone infamous rocket science? We know better - some diseases are incurable



Obviously, but we use averages for a reason. What are the chances of this poor girl living for 80 years?



Poor old you, waiting patiently for a miracle cure. I'm sure that biologists everywhere are glad that you're asking them to do the near impossible. Who's going to investigate this condition, which probably affects less than 0.00001% of the global population when there's the scourge cancer and AIDS killing thousands of millions a year all across all inhabited continents? Let this girl and her parents live comfortable and happy lives instead of forcing them through decades of discomfort and misery just because you expect a miracle cure to fall from the sky.[/QUOTE]


I repeat my question. How is her quality of life improved by having her growth articially stunted?

How does it make her life easier exactly?

The resulting discomfort and displeasure that would result from her parents having to forcibly restrain her, her ease of movement would be greatly increased, the ease with which she could be handled would also be increased.

And more than that, by improving the quality of her parents lives, the action they took will also improve the quality of her life by improving her parents ability to care for her.

I repeat my question. How is her quality of life improved by having her growth articially stunted?
Why do you care? She lacks the cognitive abilities required to be human.

She'll be loved more easily.

you make the kid sound like a poodle.

so because its easier for her parents to handle her eugenics are acceptible?

dubious mate. dubious.

She'll be loved more easily.

you make the kid sound like a poodle.

so because its easier for her parents to handle her eugenics are acceptible?

dubious mate. dubious.

This clearly isn't eugenics.

She'll be loved more easily.

you make the kid sound like a poodle.

so because its easier for her parents to handle her eugenics are acceptible?

dubious mate. dubious.

No, because I'm assuming that trying to love a 20 year old daughter who acts like a baby is difficult. Tucking an adult into bed every night whilst they cry and flail around must be distressing.

I consider it unethical. Unethical that this child is even alive, that is. It should've been terminated as soon as it was known it could never reach sapience.

She'll be loved more easily.

you make the kid sound like a poodle.


okay, point here. If a 3-month old can't understand puberty, why can she understand hormone treatment?

I consider it unethical. Unethical that this child is even alive, that is. It should've been terminated as soon as it was known it could never reach sapience.

But the child isn't distressed. And the parents love her. Whilst I support Euthanasia it isn't called for in this situation.

No, because I'm assuming that trying to love a 20 year old daughter who acts like a baby is difficult. Tucking an adult into bed every night whilst they cry and flail around must be distressing.

so is bringing up any child with an illness.

they have a child with a profound disabilty. the priority is her wellbeing, not the ease of which the parents can lift her around. this is a drastic step to take to make your own life as a parent easier.

She'll be loved more easily.

you make the kid sound like a poodle.

It is nigh impossible for people without training in the field to take care of adult patients with these problems, including parents. It is far more difficult to take care of an adult than a child.

the priority is her wellbeing, not the ease of which the parents can lift her around. this is a drastic step to take to make your own life as a parent easier.
The issues are one in the same. Her wellbeing will suffer without what human interaction with familiar people she can get.

I think you need to shut the fuck up.

I consider it unethical. Unethical that this child is even alive, that is. It should've been terminated as soon as it was known it could never reach sapience.

Couldnt agree more.

If you want this kid to have dignity, kill her.

As someone else said, she isnt too diferent from a pet.

It is nigh impossible for people without training in the field to take care of adult patients with these problems, including parents. It is far more difficult to take care of an adult than a child.


The issues are one in the same. Her wellbeing will suffer without what human interaction with familiar people she can get.

I think you need to shut the fuck up.

i think you need to calm the fuck down. this issue affects me mre than you, geddit. the wellbeing of the person with the disability is paramount and no-one has put forward any rational arguement in favour of pumping her full of strong drugs just to make her a bit smaller and lighter.

the 'difficulty' of care is a typically consumerist attitide. buying a less disabled child.

"Strong drugs"? You mean hormones? Oh yeah, a terrible thing that, with millions of people taking them everyday.

"Strong drugs"? You mean hormones? Oh yeah, a terrible thing that, with millions of people taking them everyday.

millions drink alcohol. I wouldnt give any to a child on strong medication either

her parents are purchasing an extremely strong treatment in order to have a more 'manageable' (for them) disabled child.

thats whats put the chills up the medical and special needs community.

How does it make her life easier exactly?

If she's easier to care for she'll get better care. It's just a fact. Nobody wants to deal with a problem patient.

I'm of mixed feelings about this. While I can and will concede that such treatments will make caring for her easier on the parents, Make accepting Ashley's condition more publicly acceptable, and can help protect her from some very, VERY sick individuals out there... there are other concerns as well.

She will NOT improve? Who's to say what advances in medical treatments will occure in the following years.

Even if she does improve, we aren't going to have any kind of treatment that will bring her to adult level. We're still trying to work on regrowing nervous tissue in people who are otherwise healthy. To try and grow and direct tissue that never developed properly is an even larger leap.

she won't be? so the parents have already decided this? why? because they think she will be an unfit mother? what if other Guardians and the Family Members of other autistic/mentally Disabled children made this choice. this does open a preceident on their rights to their bodies.

Maybe because she cannot consent to sex. Even if she does improve, she's not going to jump from the mentality of a 3 month old at age nine to the mentality of an adult. She is never going to be able to consent to sex, pregnancy, nor will she ever be able to raise a child.

And it doesn't open any precedents to those who are disabled but capable of consent. This treatment was approved precisely because of the severity of her condition. Autistic children quite often become productive members of society who are perfeclty capable of consent. Their thought processes are always a little different from the norm, but they do often learn to interact with the rest of us. Those who are mentally disabled are the same.

Odds, but not a Certainty...

Close enough.

it's that same "Fantasy World" that people making important medical decisions live in. That's why they strive to find cures for Cancer, HIV/AIDS, and whatever new disease/virus that emerges. it's people who live in that "Fantasy world" that design better prostetics for people missing limbs, pacemakers/artficial hearts for people with faulty/damaged hearts.

Of course, while we strive to find cures for cancer, we don't tell the terminal cancer patient that they should hang on through any level of pain "just in case." They make pragmatic decisions, sometimes to forego painful treatment, because they know that the are going to die. While we strive to help those who have been paralyzed by injury or disease, we don't tell them to plan to run a marathon in a few years.

Meanwhile, comparing this condition to conditions we actually have treatments for or to those simply missing limbs is misleading at best. We're talking about a condition for which we have no treatment. We are working as hard as we can on treatments for neural disorders, but anything that would improve her condition *at all* is at least 10 years down the road. Treatments that would raise her cognitive abilities to the level of an adult aren't even in sight.

As I said before, I have mixed feelings about this...

As do I, but you seem to basing your objections in pipe-dreams. These parents looked at the reality of the situation, not the near-impossible chances. Those with debilitating diseases (or those who care for them, if they are unable to make decisions themselves) should certainly hope, but they have to be pragmatic as well. I'm sure the parents are well aware of the research in this area, and that it isn't anywhere even remotely close to doing anything for their child.


You're a guy, aren't you? For a baby the menstrual cycle would be undoubtedly distressing. The bleeding is the first thing that springs to mind. How can a 3-month old comprehend any of that? I don't see what you're trying to prove here with your reductio ad absurdam. Removing her uterus won't cause any pain, discomfort os disadvantage for the future. Who loses? Nobody. Who wins? Ashley. Get off your ethical high horse and have compassion.

To be fair, removal of the uterus, especially at a young age, could contribute to many health problems. Of course, I'm sure they plan to keep her on hormone treatments, so those problems will most likely be much less of an issue than the health problems she already has.

Poor old you, waiting patiently for a miracle cure. I'm sure that biologists everywhere are glad that you're asking them to do the near impossible. Who's going to investigate this condition, which probably affects less than 0.00001% of the global population when there's the scourge of cancer and AIDS killing thousands of millions a year all across all inhabited continents? Let this girl and her parents live comfortable and happy lives instead of forcing them through decades of discomfort and misery just because you expect a miracle cure to fall from the sky.

Don't think that medical science isn't doing anything in this area. There is all sorts of research into neural development and regeneration, both for less severe birth defects and for regaining use after injury. It is unlikely that many researchers are looking into this condition in particular, but research in many areas could eventually help us to better understand it and even to help improve her condition. Such treatments, however, are a long, long, long way off. We still don't have many treatments that help improve the condition of patients with paralysis - where the nerves have already grown and need to be regenerated. Growing all new neural systems that are actually functional is a much more difficult problem.

I repeat my question. How is her quality of life improved by having her growth articially stunted?

Her parents feel that they can better care for her if she is smaller, and the idea makes sense. Better care for her, as well as more inclusion in their activities (which would become increasingly difficult with increasing size and weight), leads to an overall better quality of life.

you make the kid sound like a poodle.

so because its easier for her parents to handle her eugenics are acceptible?

dubious mate. dubious.

What does eugenics have to do with the price of eggs in China?

so is bringing up any child with an illness.

they have a child with a profound disabilty. the priority is her wellbeing, not the ease of which the parents can lift her around. this is a drastic step to take to make your own life as a parent easier.

This doesn't detract from her wellbeing. In fact, it enhances it because she's easeir to care for, therefore her caregivers, which won't always be loving parents, won't get exhausted and start to cut corners on cleaning her and caring for her.

millions drink alcohol. I wouldnt give any to a child on strong medication either

her parents are purchasing an extremely strong treatment in order to have a more 'manageable' (for them) disabled child.

thats whats put the chills up the medical and special needs community.

It didn't put chills up the ethics board of the hospital where they did the surgery. Fact is easier care will translate into better care for her. She's a burden on her family. A heavy burden is more likely to be put down.

You're a guy, aren't you? For a baby the menstrual cycle would be undoubtedly distressing. The bleeding is the first thing that springs to mind. How can a 3-month old comprehend any of that? I don't see what you're trying to prove here with your reductio ad absurdam. Removing her uterus won't cause any pain, discomfort os disadvantage for the future. Who loses? Nobody. Who wins? Ashley. Get off your ethical high horse and have compassion.please quote me where I said I was against what they did to Ashley.


Tut, you should have said that you were a doctor! and as frequently quoted, it's a rare disorder. do you know if the body will develop with the brain in that particular condition from birth?

Again, reducing to the absurd. Those claims were founded out of ignorance. Who can blame 1st century man for not understanding microbiology and pharmaceuticals, let alone infamous rocket science? We know better - some diseases are incurableand yet we are assuming that such conditions won't be discovered or cured in later years.

Obviously, but we use averages for a reason. What are the chances of this poor girl living for 80 years?the same for the Parents living for 80 years. granted her Mental health is not normal, but with the extra care she's receiving from her parents, her chances improve almost every day.

Poor old you, waiting patiently for a miracle cure. I'm sure that biologists everywhere are glad that you're asking them to do the near impossible. Who's going to investigate this condition, which probably affects less than 0.00001% of the global population when there's the scourge of cancer and AIDS killing thousands of millions a year all across all inhabited continents? Let this girl and her parents live comfortable and happy lives instead of forcing them through decades of discomfort and misery just because you expect a miracle cure to fall from the sky.
yep, we should adopt this way of thinking, the condition of One person or even less than .001% is not important, they don't matter, and they shouldn't concern anyone.

AIDS only affected less than .001% of the global population when it started. MS affected less than .001% of the global population when it started, Autism affected less than .001% of the global population... but you would rather wait till it becomes a noticable problem before someone starts any form of research for treatment or cures... and you say that I should have compassion! :rolleyes:

millions drink alcohol. I wouldnt give any to a child on strong medication either

her parents are purchasing an extremely strong treatment in order to have a more 'manageable' (for them) disabled child.

thats whats put the chills up the medical and special needs community.

You are pissing and moaning about giving a child hormones but accepting surgical operations to remove the uterus and breast buds?
You don't even know the level of hormone treatments, again, shut up, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The medical community has been convinced of the necessity, the head of the special needs community in the UK just wants press attention and from the quote has no idea what she is talking about.

Makes sense to me. I would have no interest in trying to take care of an adult that was so severely disabled. If the parents are trying to be the caregivers for this person, it makes sense to minimize their burdens in whatever ways possible. It's not going to affect the child in any meaningful way given the kid's disabilities. If these disabled rights advocates are so up in arms about this, then they should have volunteered to assist the parents care for this child as she grew up. If, as I suspect, they're only there to piss and moan and get themselves on TV, they can STFU.

Even if she does improve, we aren't going to have any kind of treatment that will bring her to adult level. We're still trying to work on regrowing nervous tissue in people who are otherwise healthy. To try and grow and direct tissue that never developed properly is an even larger leap.being a rare condition tho... any movement forward is a movement forward. while I don't expect a miracle cure, I won't write one out.

Maybe because she cannot consent to sex. Even if she does improve, she's not going to jump from the mentality of a 3 month old at age nine to the mentality of an adult. She is never going to be able to consent to sex, pregnancy, nor will she ever be able to raise a child.

And it doesn't open any precedents to those who are disabled but capable of consent. This treatment was approved precisely because of the severity of her condition. Autistic children quite often become productive members of society who are perfeclty capable of consent. Their thought processes are always a little different from the norm, but they do often learn to interact with the rest of us. Those who are mentally disabled are the same.
consenting to sex isn't one of my concerns. it's the rights as to what can be performed on a person who mental capacity is dimminished. While I will say that the parents can do what they do seem necessary, it does open the door for such alterations to be done on other patients that can fall into the same area of mental developement.

Of course, while we strive to find cures for cancer, we don't tell the terminal cancer patient that they should hang on through any level of pain "just in case." They make pragmatic decisions, sometimes to forego painful treatment, because they know that the are going to die. While we strive to help those who have been paralyzed by injury or disease, we don't tell them to plan to run a marathon in a few years.

Meanwhile, comparing this condition to conditions we actually have treatments for or to those simply missing limbs is misleading at best. We're talking about a condition for which we have no treatment. We are working as hard as we can on treatments for neural disorders, but anything that would improve her condition *at all* is at least 10 years down the road. Treatments that would raise her cognitive abilities to the level of an adult aren't even in sight.yet in most cases and States, mercy killing is still illegal, so they have to hold on till a cure is found.

I watch my friends Husband waste away from cancer. he went through all the treatments and chemo and the only thing keeping him going was the chance that his cancer would go into remission or that some cure would be found. while he did die, he lasted alot longer than the doctors and speciallist expected him to. I won't deny that hope to anyone.

and those conditions where we have treatments now were treated the same back then. "Incurable," "nothing can be done," yet now we do have cures and treatments for things that were once incurable and untreatable, and making great strides for the ones we didn't defeat yet.

It didn't put chills up the ethics board of the hospital where they did the surgery. Fact is easier care will translate into better care for her. She's a burden on her family. A heavy burden is more likely to be put down.

Not to mention that it isn't just a matter of "easier". I could pick up a 9-year old and carry her around quite a bit. If I were caring for a 30-year old who couldn't move on her own, I might be able to move her from one room to the other a couple of times a day. I'll admit that many people are stronger than me, but it still comes into play. If she is larger, even if the parents are doing their absolute best, she will be moved less and will thus have less interaction with others.


and yet we are assuming that such conditions won't be discovered or cured in later years.

No, we are recognizing that such cures, if they are to be found, are a very long way off. Even the most exciting research is most often years to decades away from an actual treatment - and that is in better understood organ systems and disorders. And, with just about any disorder, early treatment is paramount. Even if we find a great treatment to improve this condition within the next decade, it wouldn't help Ashley nearly as much as it would a child who had just been born.

You can't make all medical decisions based on what might possibly maybe happen one day. You need to look at the state of the art now, and where the research seems to be going, and make the best decision you can with that information. Ashley's parents probably know a lot more about that than any of us do, considering that they're dealing with it every day.

and as frequently quoted, it's a rare disorder. do you know if the body will develop with the brain in that particular condition from birth?

Do you? You made the claim, back it up.

and yet we are assuming that such conditions won't be discovered or cured in later years.

This much I know: Brain cells can't regenerate.

the same for the Parents living for 80 years. granted her Mental health is not normal, but with the extra care she's receiving from her parents, her chances improve almost every day.

Her quality of life will improve, nobody said anything about the length of it. Again, you're talking like an expert when in reality you're making vague, completely unfounded assumptions.

yep, we should adopt this way of thinking, the condition of One person or even less than .001% is not important, they don't matter, and they shouldn't concern anyone.

AIDS only affected less than .001% of the global population when it started. MS affected less than .001% of the global population when it started, Autism affected less than .001% of the global population... but you would rather wait till it becomes a noticable problem before someone starts any form of research for treatment or cures... and you say that I should have compassion! :rolleyes:

Whilst I sympathise with this girl and her family, I don't think medical research should be diverted to cure her condition. Your AIDS and MS remarks are irrelevant, this disease can't be passed by any means other than genetics. We can either spend billions finding that cure for cancer that will save the lives of billions or spend billions saving the lives of a few hundred mental cases. You do the maths. If you value human life, the former is the better option.

being a rare condition tho... any movement forward is a movement forward. while I don't expect a miracle cure, I won't write one out.

Miracle cures don't happen. We get incremental improvement. Yes, any movement forward is a movement forward, but that movement will also be slow. You can't bank on a treatment that might be available decades down the road.

consenting to sex isn't one of my concerns.

It should be. If she can't consent to sex, she damn sure shouldn't ever have children.

it's the rights as to what can be performed on a person who mental capacity is dimminished. While I will say that the parents can do what they do seem necessary, it does open the door for such alterations to be done on other patients that can fall into the same area of mental developement.

At the same level of mental development, it is probably a good idea. At a higher level of mental development, not so much.

When conjoined twins are likely to die if left alone and we can save one, we do so, even though the other will die in the separation surgery. This doesn't mean that, when both twins can be saved, we just let one die.

Medicine is very case-specific. The board that approved this treatment looked at the same issues you are talking about and decided that, in Ashley's case, the treatment was ethical. If faced with most mental disabilities, who (a) have much more cognitive ability period and (b) have much more chance for significant improvement, the same treatments would not be ethical.

yet in most cases and States, mercy killing is still illegal, so they have to hold on till a cure is found.

You keep jumping to killing, when that isn't even under discussion. The parents are taking steps to make sure that her quality of life is the best they can make it. That's what they *should* do. If no cure is ever found, they still will have done all they can to make her life worthwhile. Mercy killing doesn't even need to come into the picture.

I watch my friends Husband waste away from cancer. he went through all the treatments and chemo and the only thing keeping him going was the chance that his cancer would go into remission or that some cure would be found. while he did die, he lasted alot longer than the doctors and speciallist expected him to. I won't deny that hope to anyone.

It isn't a matter of denying hope. It is a matter of not offering false hope. The doctors told him what his chances were. He chose to undergo the treatments, even with a poor prognosis, because he hoped that they would work. But anyone who misrepresented the chances of remission or a cure to him did a great disservice. If they weren't misrepresented, I'm sure he was hoping more for remission, with "cure" a distant hope. And I highly doubt he was promising to come to graduations/weddings/etc. in years to come or making any major long-term plans.

and those conditions where we have treatments now were treated the same back then. "Incurable," "nothing can be done," yet now we do have cures and treatments for things that were once incurable and untreatable, and making great strides for the ones we didn't defeat yet.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean we should make our medical decisions based on "one day maybe." If there is promising research that looks close to a cure, that's one thing. If there isn't even anything on the horizon, then hoping for a cure is fine, but making decisions based on the off chance that one might appear is irresponsible.

No, we are recognizing that such cures, if they are to be found, are a very long way off. Even the most exciting research is most often years to decades away from an actual treatment - and that is in better understood organ systems and disorders. And, with just about any disorder, early treatment is paramount. Even if we find a great treatment to improve this condition within the next decade, it wouldn't help Ashley nearly as much as it would a child who had just been born.

You can't make all medical decisions based on what might possibly maybe happen one day. You need to look at the state of the art now, and where the research seems to be going, and make the best decision you can with that information. Ashley's parents probably know a lot more about that than any of us do, considering that they're dealing with it every day.and I am not making a medical decision baised "on might be's". as I said earlier, I am not condeming nor am I condoning her parents for their decision.

Do you? You made the claim, back it up.what claim? I asked if the body develops normally with the brain in that condidtion. do you know?

This much I know: Brain cells can't regenerate.as it was "Known" years ago, that none of the human body can't be re-grown.

Her quality of life will improve, nobody said anything about the length of it. Again, you're talking like an expert when in reality you're making vague, completely unfounded assumptions.I did not deny that her quality of life would be better with what the parents did. I never claimed to be an expert in anything involving this, so if you're reading "Expertise", that's your end, not mine.

and people have said that she won't outlive her parents, thus they are saying what the length of her life will be, reguardless of examples of children surviving years when doctors and other experts gave them months.

Whilst I sympathise with this girl and her family, I don't think medical research should be diverted to cure her condition. Your AIDS and MS remarks are irrelevant, this disease can't be passed by any means other than genetics. We can either spend billions finding that cure for cancer that will save the lives of billions or spend billions saving the lives of a few hundred mental cases. You do the maths. If you value human life, the former is the better option. so you agree with the statement "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"

Miracle cures don't happen. We get incremental improvement. Yes, any movement forward is a movement forward, but that movement will also be slow. You can't bank on a treatment that might be available decades down the road.yet many do, and some benefit from the wait.

It should be. If she can't consent to sex, she damn sure shouldn't ever have children. so anyone determined to fall into the catagory of unable to give consent should be sterilized? (if consent is given by their Guardian/Primary Caregiver)

At the same level of mental development, it is probably a good idea. At a higher level of mental development, not so much. how high a level of mental development? and what if that developement is extremely slow... being that it's projected that while at age 9, she's at 3 months mentally, and at age 18, the person would've improved to that of 6 months. Even tho improvement is seen, would the rate still keep her in the catagory of being steralized for her comfort? what mental capacity would one have to be at to understand Menstration?
(this is a serious question.)

When conjoined twins are likely to die if left alone and we can save one, we do so, even though the other will die in the separation surgery. This doesn't mean that, when both twins can be saved, we just let one die. Conjoined Twins is rather a different case than this. As you said, both will die if the operation is not performed, then one must be saved, but what if both can live without the operation, and with the operation, one will die but the other's life would be improved?

Medicine is very case-specific. The board that approved this treatment looked at the same issues you are talking about and decided that, in Ashley's case, the treatment was ethical. If faced with most mental disabilities, who (a) have much more cognitive ability period and (b) have much more chance for significant improvement, the same treatments would not be ethical.again, it am not saying that what was done to Ashley is wrong. but it does open up a precident of what can be done on other in the same mental capacity as Ashley.

You keep jumping to killing, when that isn't even under discussion. The parents are taking steps to make sure that her quality of life is the best they can make it. That's what they *should* do. If no cure is ever found, they still will have done all they can to make her life worthwhile. Mercy killing doesn't even need to come into the picture.the Killing thing is for those who said that it's better to Euthanize Ashley since there is no chance she can improve.

It isn't a matter of denying hope. It is a matter of not offering false hope. The doctors told him what his chances were. He chose to undergo the treatments, even with a poor prognosis, because he hoped that they would work. But anyone who misrepresented the chances of remission or a cure to him did a great disservice. And I highly doubt he was promising to come to graduations/weddings/etc. in years to come or making any major long-term plans. it's one thing to offer false hope, and another to remove the hope that one person has. no misrepresentation of facts were given to him as far as I was told. She did prepare for his death, yet still hope for his life. He was light hearted and high-spirited, even on the night he passed away.

what claim? I asked if the body develops normally with the brain in that condidtion. do you know?

You said that she might not go through puberty because of her disability, which was a wild stab in the dark on your part.

as it was "Known" years ago, that none of the human body can't be re-grown.

Either you choose to ignore the scientific fact that brain cells can't regrow, or you think that because people say something is impossible it is therefore possible. I'm afraid that I don't know anything about your double negative there.

I did not deny that her quality of life would be better with what the parents did. I never claimed to be an expert in anything involving this, so if you're reading "Expertise", that's your end, not mine.

You thought that her life expectancy was increasing with 'each passing' day. Bullshit.

and people have said that she won't outlive her parents, thus they are saying what the length of her life will be, reguardless of examples of children surviving years when doctors and other experts gave them months.

Really? Do you know any such examples? Are they commonplace? No. Are doctors correct most of the time? Yes.

so you agree with the statement "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one"

Yes, and I think that it's foolish to believe otherwise, unless you have a personal connection with 'the few'.

yet many do, and some benefit from the wait.

Come on then, lets have a few examples here. People die whilst waiting for miracle cures Junii, didn't your parents ever buy you a pet?

so anyone determined to fall into the catagory of unable to give consent should be sterilized? (if consent is given by their Guardian/Primary Caregiver)

No, because such a situation is so unusual. However to protect from pregnancies from rape and abuse she should be sterilised.

how high a level of mental development? and what if that developement is extremely slow... being that it's projected that while at age 9, she's at 3 months mentally, and at age 18, the person would've improved to that of 6 months. Even tho improvement is seen, would the rate still keep her in the catagory of being steralized for her comfort? what mental capacity would one have to be at to understand Menstration?
(this is a serious question.)

I assume that girls learn about menstration at 10 or 11. if she had normal cognative developement she'd have to be 18 before giving medical consent to sterilised. By your projection the girl would have to be 360 before she could comprehend puberty and bearing children.

Conjoined Twins is rather a different case than this. As you said, both will die if the operation is not performed, then one must be saved, but what if both can live without the operation, and with the operation, one will die but the other's life would be improved?

Then that's the choice of the twins, or the parents if they're infants.

again, it am not saying that what was done to Ashley is wrong. but it does open up a precident of what can be done on other in the same mental capacity as Ashley.

And that's a good thing. It's the medical equivalent of the common law.

and I am not making a medical decision baised "on might be's". as I said earlier, I am not condeming nor am I condoning her parents for their decision.

You stated that the situation bothers you because of the "might be's." In other words, you seem to think that more consideration should have been given to them.

yet many do, and some benefit from the wait.

No, they don't. They hope for a cure, but they don't bank on it. Instead, they go with the treatments currently available and hope for something better in the future. Patients with kidney failure certainly hope for regenerative medicine to eventually progress to the point that we can regenerate their kidneys, but they don't bank on that. Instead, they accept dialysis and are possibly put on a kidney transplant list. If they don't, they die waiting for the miracle cure.

so anyone determined to fall into the catagory of unable to give consent should be sterilized? (if consent is given by their Guardian/Primary Caregiver)

If they will never be able to give consent and their caregiver and physicians determine that it is the best course of action, yes. There are health risks associated with sterilization, so the decision should be weighed carefully, but the ability to consent should certainly be a major factor.

how high a level of mental development? and what if that developement is extremely slow... being that it's projected that while at age 9, she's at 3 months mentally, and at age 18, the person would've improved to that of 6 months. Even tho improvement is seen, would the rate still keep her in the catagory of being steralized for her comfort? what mental capacity would one have to be at to understand Menstration?
(this is a serious question.)

Let's say that there was support for such a rate of ongoing development for the rest of her life. At 36, she'd be cognitively a year old. At 72, she'd be 2 years old. You're talking about someone who will die of old age before she'd be anywhere near the age at which most people undergo puberty. She still would need the level of care afforded to a 2-year old.

I'm not saying there's a bright line here with this treatment being acceptable on one side and unacceptable on the other. Something like this has to be examined carefully on a case-by-case basis.

Conjoined Twins is rather a different case than this. As you said, both will die if the operation is not performed, then one must be saved, but what if both can live without the operation, and with the operation, one will die but the other's life would be improved?

Of course it is a different case, but it demonstrates the principle. Medicine isn't a matter of, "This person has 'x' disorder, so they will be treated with 'y'." It is incredibly case-specific. Will 'y' be good for this particular patient? Will it cause more good than harm?

again, it am not saying that what was done to Ashley is wrong. but it does open up a precident of what can be done on other in the same mental capacity as Ashley.

In the same mental capacity and the same prognosis for improvement, yes. But it says nothing at all about the cases you mentioned (ie. autism), which are not the same and do not have the same prognosis.

it's one thing to offer false hope, and another to remove the hope that one person has. no misrepresentation of facts were given to him as far as I was told. She did prepare for his death, yet still hope for his life. He was light hearted and high-spirited, even on the night he passed away.

If they have false hope, and they are making decisions based off of it, they should be made aware of the facts. It sounds like the people you are describing realized that it was a long-shot, so they didn't have false hope, and I'm sure they did everything they could to make their time together the best that they can. But their example does nothing to suggest that people should make their medical decisions based on, "Well, even though there's no inkling of a treatment right now, there might be one day....."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm

Parents of a disabled 9 year old named Ashley, who has the cognative ability of a 3 month old, have decided to give her hormonal treatment in order to limit her growth, as well as removing her uterus and breast buds. They say it is maintain the levels of care they are currently giving her - a larger Ashley would be harder to move around the house and involve in the family. The menstrual cycle would also (apparently) cause her discomfort and distress. They've attracted a lot of critisism from disability groups, but some doctors and organisations fully suppot the descision too.

I for one am sympathetic to this move. Having a fully grown woman with the mental capacity of a newborn baby is far less dignified than what will be essentially a child with the mind of one. She'll receive high levels of paliative care (the disease is incurable and causes sufferers to have reduced life-spans) from an obviously loving family, and in the end that's all that matters. Not only that put her parents will have a lighter workload, and considering they are the ones who are in essense 'suffering' from their child's disability we should not condem them for that.

Your opinions please?

I agree with this move as well. This girl has the mind of a baby, and will most likely be that way forever. It's easier to remove her reporductive organs since she will most likely never be able to care for a child of her own, plus getting periods won't be any fun or useful at all for her or her parents.

Her parents are trying to keep the workload off their daughter as well as themselves. While I'd normally object to something like this, we have to remember that the girl would be better off.

You stated that the situation bothers you because of the "might be's." In other words, you seem to think that more consideration should have been given to them.yes, I said the situation bothers me, but I also stated that I neither condemn nor condone their actions. which means, I hold no judgement over what they did. Even more so since as you said, no one here knows how much consideration they gave or what conversations they held with their doctor.

No, they don't. They hope for a cure, but they don't bank on it. Instead, they go with the treatments currently available and hope for something better in the future. Patients with kidney failure certainly hope for regenerative medicine to eventually progress to the point that we can regenerate their kidneys, but they don't bank on that. Instead, they accept dialysis and are possibly put on a kidney transplant list. If they don't, they die waiting for the miracle cure.and on that list, they wait and they hope for a matching donor. they volunteer for radical new types of treatment for the hope that it will work, they keep fighting even tho others say "Give up and die".

If they will never be able to give consent and their caregiver and physicians determine that it is the best course of action, yes. There are health risks associated with sterilization, so the decision should be weighed carefully, but the ability to consent should certainly be a major factor.which goes into the defining of what level of mental competence is needed to give consent? to keep it simple, what mental age should they be at?

Let's say that there was support for such a rate of ongoing development for the rest of her life. At 36, she'd be cognitively a year old. At 72, she'd be 2 years old. You're talking about someone who will die of old age before she'd be anywhere near the age at which most people undergo puberty. She still would need the level of care afforded to a 2-year old.

I'm not saying there's a bright line here with this treatment being acceptable on one side and unacceptable on the other. Something like this has to be examined carefully on a case-by-case basis. never said that is was anything else but a case-by-case basis. however, each case can reference a previous one that had a favorable response and each favorable response sets the mark as to where the limits are. all I said was that this opens a door that others will use for good or ill.

Of course it is a different case, but it demonstrates the principle. Medicine isn't a matter of, "This person has 'x' disorder, so they will be treated with 'y'." It is incredibly case-specific. Will 'y' be good for this particular patient? Will it cause more good than harm?

In the same mental capacity and the same prognosis for improvement, yes. But it says nothing at all about the cases you mentioned (ie. autism), which are not the same and do not have the same prognosis.

and since "Y" appears to have made "X"'s life better, why can't patient "Z" get the same treatment since the symptoms are similar in many ways and yet different.
and now since patient "Q" has the same symptoms as patient "Z", "Q" should be allowed the same "y" Treatment
Why won't you give "y" Treatment to patient "T" granted Patient "T" doesn't have the same symptoms like Patient "X" but shares similar symptoms with patient "Q" who did recieve the treatment even tho "Q" didn't have the same conditions and Symptoms of "X"? we'll take you to court for denying my offspring the same treatment!

Far Fetched? not really since the reasoning is for the "Improvement of the Patient's Quality of Life" which is ambiguous at best.

If they have false hope, and they are making decisions based off of it, they should be made aware of the facts. It sounds like the people you are describing realized that it was a long-shot, so they didn't have false hope, and I'm sure they did everything they could to make their time together the best that they can. But their example does nothing to suggest that people should make their medical decisions based on, "Well, even though there's no inkling of a treatment right now, there might be one day....."the example shows that Hope can comfort a patient and their loved ones.

and on that list, they wait and they hope for a matching donor. they volunteer for radical new types of treatment for the hope that it will work, they keep fighting even tho others say "Give up and die".

I never said that hope was a bad thing. I simply pointed out that we don't make medical decisions based solely on hope - especially hope for something that isn't even on the horizon.

which goes into the defining of what level of mental competence is needed to give consent? to keep it simple, what mental age should they be at?

They should be able to understand the significance and consequences. When they've reached that level of cognitive ability, they can grant consent. While they certainly aren't foolproof, there are tests for this that are legally recognized.


and since "Y" appears to have made "X"'s life better, why can't patient "Z" get the same treatment since the symptoms are similar in many ways and yet different.

If the differences are significant and would preclude the reasoning for the treatment granted to 'x', then the situation is entirely different and there is no reason to treat 'z' the same.

Two people come into a hospital complaining of leg pain. One of them saw a rattlesnake just before the pain started and has puncture marks on her leg. She is given an antivenom and improves. Does that mean we shoudl give the other person, who was indoors and has no evidence of a bite, the same treatment? The symptoms are the same - pain in the leg. It may even be in the same place on the leg. But the situation is different, and giving her the same treatment would be more likely to harm than help her.

Far Fetched? not really since the reasoning is for the "Improvement of the Patient's Quality of Life" which is ambiguous at best.

It is pretty far fetched, considering that even small differences in a situation can make a drastic change in the quality of life of a given person and what might improve it.

the example shows that Hope can comfort a patient and their loved ones.

Indeed, but only if the hope is tempered by reality. If my loved one has been hit by a car and lost the use of his legs, I would be a fool to hope for him to win the 100-meter dash at the Summer Olympics. I would get nothing but disappointment from such a hope. If, on the other hand, his leg has been injured, but is improving, hoping for him to walk again would be comforting, and it might actually be realized.

In your example, we were talking about cancer. There are patients who have gone into remission, even from some of the most aggressive of cancers. It isn't foolish to hope for remission, even if it is unlikely. It would be foolish to live as if you will definitely get remission, or to make major life decisions based on it, but hoping for it is not.

Well if stuff like stem cell research works out one day she might actually be able to recover... Still It'll be disturbing to have a 35 year old kid.

Well if stuff like stem cell research works out one day she might actually be able to recover... Still It'll be disturbing to have a 35 year old kid.

Isn't it funny that many of the same people offended by this are against stem cell research?

Well if stuff like stem cell research works out one day she might actually be able to recover... Still It'll be disturbing to have a 35 year old kid.


hey if that works to the point were she can lead a fully functional life then they'll be able to regrow her removed breasts and uterus via the same method.

Well if stuff like stem cell research works out one day she might actually be able to recover... Still It'll be disturbing to have a 35 year old kid.

Even stem cell research isn't a magic bullet. We may eventually have a stem cell treatment that would lead to improvement in cases like this, but full fucntion in a case like this is still a pipe-dream. We'll probably have the technology to find disorders like this early in development and coax the body itself to develop properly before we have the technology to essentially grow functioning cognitive brain tissue.

You said that she might not go through puberty because of her disability, which was a wild stab in the dark on your part.yet you in your "Expertise" know that her body will devlope in the normal way...

I said, as you agree with, MIGHT NOT. that's by no means an expert call. for all we know, her glanduar system may not work, so the hormones neccessary for the changes for puberty may not even be produced. again, MAY NOT.

Either you choose to ignore the scientific fact that brain cells can't regrow, or you think that because people say something is impossible it is therefore possible. I'm afraid that I don't know anything about your double negative there.What I am saying, that you are not getting, is that science changes what we know at every discovery. 10 years ago, we KNEW that there were only 9 planets in our solar system. now it's a different number.

20 Years ago, we KNEW that Cloning was the stuff of science fiction... now...

heck, we even KNEW that Dinosaurs were Reptiles until proof and evidence suggested otherwise.

so yes, we know now that braincells can't regrow. but in 5 or 10 years, that too MIGHT change.

You thought that her life expectancy was increasing with 'each passing' day. Bullshit.
lets look back on that post, shall we?
because chances are, she might out-live the parent's ability to care for a... permament baby. That then puts the burden on their finances as they need to hire someone to care for her. Also, should anything happen to the parents, then the responsibility of caring (can't be called raising, after all, it seems everyone thinks there will be NO mental growth.) for Ashley will fall on someone else. Heaven help Ashley if she becomes a Ward of the State...Chances are, Might be. suppositions, a chance, odds are...

now the first statement of an actual length of time.
Unlikely, from what I've researched people with this kind of problem live for around 20-50 years. Chances are if her parents are healthy they will outlive their child, which is a tradgedy. so you state the first definitive length of time, not me.

now I did say
the same for the Parents living for 80 years. granted her Mental health is not normal, but with the extra care she's receiving from her parents, her chances improve almost every day. but can you deny that the extra care the parents would give to Ashley would NOT help her chances for living longer? or are you thinking that Ashley's parents would NOT give special or more attention to their ailing daughter?

by no means an "Expert" diagnosis, but one of common sense, and definitatly not one saying that her life expectancy is improving "Every Day" as you claim I said.

Really? Do you know any such examples? Are they commonplace? No. Are doctors correct most of the time? Yes. nice use of the word MOST. so there are those that prove the docs wrong.

and yes, many examples have been shown on Dateline and other news programs. I'm looking for and compiling a list of cases of those who lived well past doctor's predicted length of time.

Yes, and I think that it's foolish to believe otherwise, unless you have a personal connection with 'the few'.ahh... so it's No help for the few unless you have a personal connection. again, nice compassion that you show... too bad it's only for people you are personally connected to.

Come on then, lets have a few examples here. People die whilst waiting for miracle cures Junii, didn't your parents ever buy you a pet?is that how you view Ashley and others fighting for their lives? as PETS?

No, because such a situation is so unusual. However to protect from pregnancies from rape and abuse she should be sterilised. unfortunatly, the main reason given was because of her comfort. you know.. the pains of her Menstral cycle. Not Rape. and if she is being kept in a younger seeming body... rape and abuse can still happen, no matter if she is sterile or not. (that is Assuming the parents are not keeping an eye on her as they would a 3 month old.)

I assume that girls learn about menstration at 10 or 11. if she had normal cognative developement she'd have to be 18 before giving medical consent to sterilised. By your projection the girl would have to be 360 before she could comprehend puberty and bearing children.so you place the mental age somewhere to be 11 to make such a sterilization procedure with such an exscuse of comfort unnecessary...

And that's a good thing. It's the medical equivalent of the common law.and like most laws, it can be abused.

heck, we even KNEW that Dinosaurs were Reptiles until proof and evidence suggested otherwise.

No one with any grounding in cladistics can claim that Dinosaurs are not reptiles. You'd make a better case if your examples weren't wrong.

I never said that hope was a bad thing. I simply pointed out that we don't make medical decisions based solely on hope - especially hope for something that isn't even on the horizon. we shouldn't, but some do. we can't stop them, but have to honor their choices. and I for one won't ridicule them for it.


They should be able to understand the significance and consequences. When they've reached that level of cognitive ability, they can grant consent. While they certainly aren't foolproof, there are tests for this that are legally recognized.and while I agree that 3 months does fall into the catagory of mentally unfit... there are... let's just say not everyone holds life dear. and I hate for one to slip by and do something legally to hurt and harm a child or child-like person.

If the differences are significant and would preclude the reasoning for the treatment granted to 'x', then the situation is entirely different and there is no reason to treat 'z' the same.one would think. but with the onset of lawsuites and people looking for the nip/tuck for faster solutions...

Two people come into a hospital complaining of leg pain. One of them saw a rattlesnake just before the pain started and has puncture marks on her leg. She is given an antivenom and improves. Does that mean we shoudl give the other person, who was indoors and has no evidence of a bite, the same treatment? The symptoms are the same - pain in the leg. It may even be in the same place on the leg. But the situation is different, and giving her the same treatment would be more likely to harm than help her.unfortunatly, the bite would also be a symptom... but let's say Headaches.
some are painful but benign, others can be tumors. which is why examinations are needed and even then, the diagnosis can be wrong.

It is pretty far fetched, considering that even small differences in a situation can make a drastic change in the quality of life of a given person and what might improve it.add to that the fact that it's a third party speaking for that person... which is why I say "improving the quailty of life" is an ambiguous reason. in Ashley's case it's understandable, but would the same reasoning be valid if it was a boy instead of a girl? To prevent any harm from shaving facial hair (as well as maintaining the ease to care and watch him.)

Indeed, but only if the hope is tempered by reality. If my loved one has been hit by a car and lost the use of his legs, I would be a fool to hope for him to win the 100-meter dash at the Summer Olympics. I would get nothing but disappointment from such a hope. If, on the other hand, his leg has been injured, but is improving, hoping for him to walk again would be comforting, and it might actually be realized.

In your example, we were talking about cancer. There are patients who have gone into remission, even from some of the most aggressive of cancers. It isn't foolish to hope for remission, even if it is unlikely. It would be foolish to live as if you will definitely get remission, or to make major life decisions based on it, but hoping for it is not.and for alot of people, hope is all they have left. and I'm not just talking cancer here.

and if your loved one did get into that situation... well running the 100-meter dash at the olympics would be far-fetched, running a marathon in say... 3 years isn't.

No one with any grounding in cladistics can claim that Dinosaurs are not reptiles. You'd make a better case if your examples weren't wrong.I meant Reptiles in the modern sense.

it's been found that dinosaurs moved more like birds, not hampered by temperature like most reptiles would be.

their bones hollow and their characteristics are closer to birds than reptiles.

while it can be argued that Dinosaurs are Reptiles/birds, it still bellies my example that states before the 1970's the common knowledge was that Dinosaurs were reptiles in species.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://www.geotimes.org/jan06/feature_threedinofaces.html

but to explore it further would hijack this thread...

yet you in your "Expertise" know that her body will devlope in the normal way...

I said, as you agree with, MIGHT NOT. that's by no means an expert call. for all we know, her glanduar system may not work, so the hormones neccessary for the changes for puberty may not even be produced. again, MAY NOT.

Her doctors, on the other hand, are experts. The board who approved the treatment are medical experts. And they seem to have been pretty sure that she would undergo puberty. Hence the treatments to stop it from happening.

What I am saying, that you are not getting, is that science changes what we know at every discovery. 10 years ago, we KNEW that there were only 9 planets in our solar system. now it's a different number.

That's a very bad example. We now "know" that there are 8 planets in our solar system. Of course, that has a lot to do with us redefining "planet" and very little to do with any new discovery.

20 Years ago, we KNEW that Cloning was the stuff of science fiction... now...

20 years ago, it was the stuff of science fiction. Cloning of human beings (or primates, for that matter) still is.

heck, we even KNEW that Dinosaurs were Reptiles until proof and evidence suggested otherwise.

Last time I checked, the dinosaurs are still classified as reptiles. They simply are no longer assumed to have all been cold-blooded.

so yes, we know now that braincells can't regrow. but in 5 or 10 years, that too MIGHT change.

Depends on the type of brain cell in question.

Of course, in this case, it wouldn't be regrowth. It would be new growth.

unfortunatly, the main reason given was because of her comfort. you know.. the pains of her Menstral cycle. Not Rape. and if she is being kept in a younger seeming body... rape and abuse can still happen, no matter if she is sterile or not. (that is Assuming the parents are not keeping an eye on her as they would a 3 month old.)

Actually, both were given as reasons. While there are those out there who would rape her in a child's body, there are more who would do so if she had an adult's body. And the parents themselves can't be there 24/7. Sterilized, in the awful case that something like that did occur, she won't have to go through a pregnancy.

and like most laws, it can be abused.

But we don't refrain from making laws simply because someone might try and find a way to abuse them.

yet you in your "Expertise" know that her body will devlope in the normal way...
I said, as you agree with, MIGHT NOT. that's by no means an expert call. for all we know, her glanduar system may not work, so the hormones neccessary for the changes for puberty may not even be produced. again, MAY NOT.

For all we know her glandular system may not work... What a riddiculous thing to say. You keep on stabbing there, it won't make it any more likely.

What I am saying, that you are not getting, is that science changes what we know at every discovery. 10 years ago, we KNEW that there were only 9 planets in our solar system. now it's a different number.

No, there's scientific fact, and scientific progress. Cosmologists and astronomers didn't calculate that there could only be 9 planets in the solar system, they were only limited by the size of their telescopes. Nobody's dismissing the chance that there may be another planet out there.

20 Years ago, we KNEW that Cloning was the stuff of science fiction... now...

Really? I'd have thought that people considered it an eventual reality.

heck, we even KNEW that Dinosaurs were Reptiles until proof and evidence suggested otherwise.

Of course! They were amphibians, Diplodacus excelled in synchronised diving. :rolleyes:

so yes, we know now that braincells can't regrow. but in 5 or 10 years, that too MIGHT change.

Unless we can force brain cells to divide (which would require genetic modification - ethical?) and grow connecting neurons it's highly unlikely. Thats a hundreds of years of research and experimentation at least if we want results. 5-10 years is a fantasy.

lets look back on that post, shall we?
Chances are, Might be. suppositions, a chance, odds are...

Blash blah blah.

Love doesn't make people live longer. I can't see why her parents care would make her physically live longer. It isn't founded in medicine at all, it isn't even common sense. Give me a case and I'll consider it.

nice use of the word MOST. so there are those that prove the docs wrong.

and yes, many examples have been shown on Dateline and other news programs. I'm looking for and compiling a list of cases of those who lived well past doctor's predicted length of time. [/QUOTE]

You're perceptive of my mistakes...not. There are tens of millions of terminally ill people out there. How many live way past expectations? I'm hazarding a guess: not many at all. If a significant amount of people did survive longer than expected then doctors would factor that into their calculations and boom: they wouldn't be living past their time any more. By definition it cant be any large percentage.

ahh... so it's No help for the few unless you have a personal connection. again, nice compassion that you show... too bad it's only for people you are personally connected to.

Isn't it logic? If you have a oil tanker full of supplies but only enough fuel to visit one of two Islands which one do you pick? The one with a single starving person or the one with hundreds?

is that how you view Ashley and others fighting for their lives? as PETS?

No, its just that parents buy their children pets to teach them about death. You're living in a fantasy that with a little hope, a little love and a little luck people with crippling mental conditions can live into their 80s.

unfortunatly, the main reason given was because of her comfort. you know.. the pains of her Menstral cycle. Not Rape. and if she is being kept in a younger seeming body... rape and abuse can still happen, no matter if she is sterile or not. (that is Assuming the parents are not keeping an eye on her as they would a 3 month old.)

It avoids pregnancies and keeps her comfortable.

so you place the mental age somewhere to be 11 to make such a sterilization procedure with such an exscuse of comfort unnecessary...

Pancakes (I don't understand)

and like most laws, it can be abused.

You can't abuse the common law for heavens sake, it's not statutory.

we shouldn't, but some do. we can't stop them, but have to honor their choices. and I for one won't ridicule them for it.

I won't ridicule them for it, but if they are making decisions for someone else, I certainly would wish to have their authority to do so removed.

unfortunatly, the bite would also be a symptom...

Indeed, which makes your example of a case in which the symptoms are similar, but somewhat different, perfect. They both have similar symptoms, but the differences lead to a much different treatment.

add to that the fact that it's a third party speaking for that person... which is why I say "improving the quailty of life" is an ambiguous reason. in Ashley's case it's understandable, but would the same reasoning be valid if it was a boy instead of a girl? To prevent any harm from shaving facial hair (as well as maintaining the ease to care and watch him.)

He wouldn't have to shave his facial hair. It could simply be kept trimmed like the hair on his head.

Men don't experience anything like menstruation and pregnancy, so that reasoning wouldn't exist with a male patient. Not to mention that castration is rather different from a hysterectomy.

Of course, the reasons of keeping the child small might even be more prominently considered with a male patient than a female one, as he would be likely to become larger, heavier, and stronger than his female counterpart.

It would be a difficult situation, and those most qualified to make the decisions would be his guardians and physicians.

and for alot of people, hope is all they have left. and I'm not just talking cancer here.

I would hope that they would still have love - their bonds to others. There are those who may truly only have hope, without even those human bonds, but they are few and far between. And if unwarranted hope is all they have left, then they really have nothing at all left.

and if your loved one did get into that situation... well running the 100-meter dash at the olympics would be far-fetched, running a marathon in say... 3 years isn't.

Exactly my point.

it's been found that dinosaurs moved more like birds, not hampered by temperature like most reptiles would be.

their bones hollow and their characteristics are closer to birds than reptiles.

Actually, this is only true of *some* dinosaurs. It appears that some of the animals were more bird-like (and actually, evolutionarily, developed into birds), while some were more like modern day reptiles. Others may have actually been more closely related to mammals.