I don't know what cesspool of piss and rust you were brought up in - but murder tends to be illegal in most places.

Yes you put in a footnote showing you knew this. But if you DID know it in the first place, why bring it up as an option?

(Christ, I sometimes forget how far down this hole of an internet goes when it comes to bad reasoning and harsh stupidity)

isn't that the question? should the parents be allowed to allow this, or do laws override that.
not to mention medical ethics...

You may not have your date of birth posted in your profile - but we can tell your age by this stellar peice of posting.

I think it's unfortunate that so much media attention is being placed on the ethics of the operation as opposed to bringing to life the dire lack of resources avaliable for the long-term care of significantly disabled people, especially those with limited money. Very few people can afford the type of care that disabled celebrities like Christopher Reeve received. I hope that the issue of long-term care is one that might be better addressed and explored by the medical community in the upcoming years.

I enjoy debating, but not with people who concentrate on things like the faults they see in their opponents debating style, or by making insults to the person they are debating against. That's not real debating.
----
I still disagree with the operation, but I just want to bring up these points (some of which may have already been mentioned)

First of all, this operation will save her the anguish of having to go through (at the age of three months) the kind of thing that most normal teen age girls struggle with. And since she's retarded, things like that won't make sense to her, and she'll never need or use her older body anyway. It's in her best interest to do it (from this point of view.
Also, from what I understand, if her body is developing at this rate, she will have to body of a 108 year old when she is only one year old. The operation could lengthen her life...A lot.

Earned that "Two" rating in your profile through hard work, did you?

Frankly, if you can't take a critique about the "faults in debating style", stop posting. Your posts are baseless, factless and borderline insipid. How do you expect anyone to give you any attention - nevermind respect! - if you can barely summon the strength to use proper grammar on a consistant basis.

I mean, I'm all for letting some typos slide, but you're way beyond simple bad spelling. It's like you go out of your way to be an asshole with this shit.

I agree with assisted suicide when a person with a terminal illness want to end their life, but is physically unable to do so... like someone with louis gehrig's disease for example, or if someone is bed-ridden terminal illness and wants help to end their life.

Euthanasia in this girls case is VERY touchy, I would not agree with it on the grounds that the girl has not stated it is what she wants (mainly because she can't tell you) and because she cannot let you know, then we have no way of knowing if she wants to be euthanased.

You know, I've noticied there is a difference between what should be done and what can be done, here, and a lot of us is forgetting it.

Yes, she is a vegetable; yes, she is never going to go beyond where she is. Perhaps if I was some college student on the internet I would simply say, "oh, kill her, please". But you all keep forgetting that this is someone's child.

I find it disturbing that it's the ones who don't have kids (most cases, never plan on having kids) telling the world that the parents are wrong for wanting to make their child's life (what little she has) more comfortable merely because she is a 'drain on society'. What society do we live in? Last I checked, you don't support her. There is nothing inherently illegal or even unethical in these procedures. Let the poor family do what they will, then, if that is the charge they chose to accept, regardless of what you would do.

And Christ, that some of us is arguing for experimentation on this human being... I wonder who in particular should be euthanized, here.

Haha, so I hear! I might not have made me point of view on this matter clear--I am against murder. =D
When you call it killing a girl, or murder, it doesn't sound quite so benevolent anymore, does it? Anyway, I brought it up as an "option" cause others mentioned it first--I don't know if it would've crossed my mind otherwise.

This being said - it obviously IS unethical. If it wasn't - why would there be a thread about this in the first place? Your obvious moral certainty belies a certain amount of ignorance that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole or care to honor you to wipe my asshole with.

While I understand the reasoning behind these operations, I don't think I can agree with it. Parents who commit to raising a child with any kind of disability have to be in it for the long haul. That these parents have a limit to their commitment says a lot about their character. There are other cases of mentally retarded females that have had no such operations and yet their parents continue to care for them as much as they can. This girl can barely move; is it much different and so much more objectionable for them to care for her than it is for those who look after an adult woman in a PVS coma? Puberty may well be painful for her the way they describe it, but that is just the way of things. I wonder how much pain/change could be comprehended by someone who isn't even as smart as a chimp.

If parents are so concerned about the quality of life a child will have, assuming they can forsee that the child will be severely disabled, they should make the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. It's a bit late when the child is 9 to start thinking about what they'll be feeling.

The only thing she could possibly want is basic sensory feedback. Lower animals are similarly incapable of communicating a want to die, yet we euthenize them constantly. Mentally speaking, this girl is even less than an animal. She's incapable of thinking anything.


Oh boo-fucking-hoo, how could this heartless college student wish that the parents would kill this abomination? Her only worth lies in the sentimental value she provides to her parents and family. Beyond that, if she was to become a burden of the state, it would be unreasonable to demand that taxpayers must front the bills just to keep a meatsack alive.

She'll never generate wealth, never love, never contribute to the arts, she's absolutely worthless to society, and waiting for miracle treatments to come along and all-of-a-sudden give her a functioning brain. I mean, holy christ, do you not understand how complex the mind is and its unforseen effects on the human psyche? Expecting such a solution to come up within our and her lifetimes is mind-numbingly unrealistic, considering that we're already beginning to reach the limits of silicon-based semi conductors (oh yes they'll need that processing power).

As outsiders to the whole process, I feel it is very difficult to criticize the parents in this situation. We probably aren’t going to be able to ascertain too much more, except that this decision wasn’t made spontaneously by the parents alone but with consultation with treating doctors. As such, it’s difficult to simply recommend that they should have decided earlier, terminated or whatever. They may have been waiting all this time for a “miracle cure” and have now decided that enough is enough, but we don’t know. In any case, I do not think her parents would have made this decision lightly.

As for LeHah’s rather bold assumption that it must clearly be “unethical” practice otherwise there wouldn’t be a thread about it… that’s probably the jumping to conclusions. My understanding is that the choice to stunt her growth has already had medical ethics committee approval, although this won’t stop the fact that there will be a big fucking ethical question mark hanging over the whole situation for a long time.

So then the obvious anwser is that the medical ethics committee who decided to do this is flawed. Perhaps they just wanted more money in their coffers.

It boils down to what benefit does the girl get from this operation. She doesn't get any - it was done because the parents are too skeeved out to clean up vagina shat.

I don't disagree with Brady's assumption myself - it would probably more merciful to see this girl dead than living 40 years as a mentally inept, sexually castrated midget. But I'll go even further than that yet again - and say if you're going to kill the girl, you might as well put her idiot, self-involved obviously rich parents into a grave, as well.

Why do you want to control how people spend their money? =\/

What the heck, Lehah? First, you should stop belittling people as your main method of arguing--sure it makes them feel inadequate, but it doesn't really help your case any. Holy crap. You have no substance to your arguments, just baseless insults. "Clearly you're young, because your opinion is crap," and the like.

Also, did half of you people even read the friggin' article? I know it's long, so I didn't really expect a lot of people to, but commenting in this thread is kind of pointless without reading it. Did you see the comments in the bottom? Mothers of retarded girls explaining how they will play in their blood flow, or are even terrified of it. To say that these operations are only for the parents' benefit is utter nonsense, and I would guess that most of you who said that did not thoroughly (if at all) read the article. They explained countless benefits to the girl--less discomfort, less pain, etc. Why should Ashley go through all the pain and discomfort associated with puberty and the adult body? The reason we go through it is because of the possibility of sexual intercourse, reproducing, etc. To put someone with the mental capacity of a 3-month-old through that is unfathomable. Also, clearly the parents plan on keeping Ashley for as long as they can--as long as they are physically able to, from what I gathered. Part of the reason for these operations was so that could be a very long time.

As for the whole euthanasia debate, I'm sort of surprised it even came up. This girl can feel, see, smile at voices, be soothed. That's enough for me. She is not like Terri Schiavo. Terri was aware of nothing.

Edit: Also, I am constantly surprised by the number of people who think they know when someone has a right to live. Why do you think Ashley is unhappy or dissatisfied? She doesn't know that she is supposed to be growing, so how can she miss it? These parents have such incredible dedication to their child. To just say "kill it"... I'm not sure you are able to see both sides of things. She may be a drain to society. Sometimes, moral laws have to override practicality. Euthanizing severely retarded people sounds chillingly familiar, historically.

She has no intrinsic value beyond her family and a freakshow, I wonder why it came up?

Terri Schiavo, for the record, also responded to sensory input.

Only because the Nazis practiced genocide-for-eugenics, then all of a sudden it isn't ok anymore to sterilize retards so that they end up fucking other retards and making children who they can't possibly raise, and more than likely end up just like them.

Killing the severely retarded (3 Months Old) has never been chilling, because it's no different from putting down animals. This girl isn't a person she's a thing that is only valued by those that made her.

There's a thread because there is a certain moral ambiguity; I am making my point, saying that it isn't. Who here is guilty of moral certainty? Clearly, I am. So are you in believing it's absolutely unethical. Be a bit more mature, here.
Which is a lot more important to them than you are recognizing. I can see your point; she is worthless to society. My question is, sincerely, are we judged as human beings on our worth to society? She's clearly worth something to her family. Seeing as how it does you no harm, I don't see what's wrong with letting a mother keep her "abomination". (Abomination - to whom? God?)
His goal isn't to argue; it is to (attempt) to make them feel inadequate. I don't mind it, though. His insults are always over-the-top humor. I assume it's intentional.
You're not helping your argument, here.

All of the major religions also regard souls as transcendental manifestations of the self that exist beyond physical boundaries. I.E., it's impossible to "eradicate" a soul, unless there's some kind of soul devouring monster or device. Assuming this girl does have a soul, killing her would free it from being trapped in a meaningless existence.

This is an interesting assumtion, though, because unless cycles of life and death operate based on reincarnation, the soul is considered to exist eternally aside from any supernatural intervention (pissed off god). Therefore, what difference is there in forty years compared to eternity? Aside from, of course, the potential for the negative development of the soul.

Yes. People confuse the nature of value judgement because they consider life itself to coincide with value to society, or in other words that life is priceless. This causes consternation when they find that they still evaluate people based on their own worth to the self.

People who act as destructive agents (criminals, shit politicians) are considered lesser than the general body, because they hamper the progress of society, and in the case of murder, permanently remove an active or potential value to society.

Those who can't contribute to society, such as this girl, also take on parasitic qualities when people determine their value. They act as resource drains without giving anything back either through wealth or the abstract.


Of course, the easiest way to confirm a "yes" to your question is to consider Max Weber's three-component theory of social stratification. One component of stratification is Status, which is defined by non-material factors, such as honor, prestige, and religion. According to this theory, somebody like a Police officer may have more status than a programmer, because while the Police officer may earn less his work is considered of greater import to society than the programmer.

Ultimately, what determines status is subjective. To the wealthy, for instance, status is more dependant on the amount of wealth one creates and possesses, whereas those in lower classes may place an emphasis on social impact when determining status.

The only thing which could possibly give this girl any sense of Status is the fact that she's human. People value "humanity" but they confuse the nature of humanity with being physically human, while what we consider humanity (a positive thing) embodies the more admirable traits that humans possess as social animals.

Consider this parable. A mad scientist has developed a brain-swapping device in Looney Tunes fashion and has swapped the minds of a man with that of a chicken. Which creature would people more readily refer to as "human?" The man which behaves like a chicken, or the chicken which behaves like a man?

You've made a compelling argument.

However, this goes to the original question I had, which is can vs. should. Seeing that this girl isn't a drain on anyone but her parents' finances, do you still want to euthanize her? Question of society aside, her parents clearly want her alive.

I want to. I never said that it should be done, because as legal guardians her parents are given leeway to make decisions for her in her stead. To me, she's a possession akin to a pet. If they want to support her, and derive value from her existence, then it's out of everybody's hands. I've said it before, pretty much.

You make an interesting point, and while it could very well be true, I feel your assumption that the process boils down to just benefiting her is a rather oversimplified viewpoint to take. Perhaps in your limited ethical framework it is easier to reduce a complex situation down to a simple matter of benefits, but it is seems rather underhand to exclude other considerations. Given that a medical ethics committee typically comprises of people with expertise in medicine, law, religion and in this case most certainly at least one person with an understanding of the concerns of a disabled person, I would be more inclined to accept that they have adequate personnel to make a reasonable assessment and judgment rather than your “obvious” conclusion. I’m also inclined to believe that there has definitely been a lot more thought put into it than any of us can possibly imagine.

Still, I won’t deny that I don’t feel this is an unusual or disturbing case. This is not because I believe any of it to be inherently wrong, but rather because it is such a drastic departure from conventional treatment which would involve the hiring of carers etc.