"Ashley Treatment" keeps severely disabled girl from growing

by Fe2O3Girl 25 Replies latest social current

  • Fe2O3Girl
    Fe2O3Girl

    This news story came out today and I was surprised that we haven't had a lively discussion about it. It brought to mind some of the ideas we discussed on the "Is circumcision child abuse?" thread.

    Ashley is now 9 years old. She was born with unexplained brain damage that has stopped her developing beyond a mental age of 3 months, although she is physically perfect. She can't move herself, sit up or hold her head up, and she will never improve. Her parents noticed signs of puberty 3 years ago, and decided on a course of treatment and surgery that will prevent Ashley ever maturing to physical adulthood. She has had a hysterectomy and breast surgery, and a course of oestrogen to prevent growth. Her parents feel that this is in her best long term interests and will maintain her quality of life.

    This website has been put together by Ashley's parents:

    http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/

    Having read their comments, I still have misgivings about their decision, but I think that they have taken the best course for their daughter. There are huge issues about the rights of disabled people, consent to radical surgery and treatment, and I don't think that Ashley should set a precedent. Every case is different.

  • Confession
    Confession

    Tough situation, but what was the motivation for these surgeries? And why the "breast surgery?" What was that about?

  • blondie
    blondie

    So if she had been a boy, would they have had him castrated?

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    I am with Blondie on this one - too many serious ethical questions in play here.

    Makes you wonder about the motives of the parents, does it not? Like maybe they wanted to create a permanent 3-year old?

    I know - bad thought, but the whole thing is admittedly creepy.

  • Fe2O3Girl
    Fe2O3Girl

    All the information on the surgery and treatment is in the link that I posted.

    The breast surgery removed breast tissue so that she won't develop breasts. This is primarily to prevent the discomfort of large breasts, to make it easier for her to use harnesses for bathing and in her wheelchair, and secondly to avoid sexualisation.

    If she were a boy, there would not be the risk of pregnancy as a result of rape, so I don't think that they would have had a boy castrated.

  • NewYork44M
    NewYork44M

    Not that it matters what I think but....

    I will side with the parents on this one. They did the right thing and their logic is correct.

  • mrsjones5
    mrsjones5

    I read through the blog and I totally understand their reasons and the logic behind what they did for their daughter. I also sympathize because of my experiences growing up with my mentally and physcially disabled brother.

    Josie

  • What-A-Coincidence
    What-A-Coincidence

    so sad :-(

  • under_believer
  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    The reason cited for some of those surgeries was risk of cancer. If she had been a boy would they have removed his testicles to reduce the risk of testicular cancer?

    I think it's awful that this has been permitted. The risks incurred by each surgery alone make me suspect that there was the hope she might die on the operating table. Why not remove her legs as well, so she doesn't have to suffer varicose veins or the risk of gangrene should she ever later develop diabetes!!!

    If society is going to go down that route then it really might as well put in place a full Nazi eugenics programme to weed out those who will never have a reasonable quality of life or contribute to society

    What next???

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit