From an ethical approach, it is a pretty complicated case. Perhaps the most convincing argument against ritual circumcision is that infants are incapable of providing consent to mutilation, and that they should be granted the freedom to decide whether or not they want to keep their foreskin at an age where they are capable of offering consent to the procedure (medical issues aside).

This girl, however, will never be capable of offering consent in any way in terms of what can or can't be done to her body. Therefore, it's presumed that the parents must be able to make decisions for her on her behalf. If the parents feel that horribly mutilating her will best serve her interests as a creature incapable of dealing with or even recognizing puberty (a decision, by the way, which makes the assumtion that she will never be able to understand it in her lifetime as you medical miracle theorists have put forth) then their decision as legal guardians is the most sound, and thus ethical one.

By the way, I wanted to mention something I noticed in the article. The parents claim that her dignity isn't being damaged, but is instead being preserved by the operation. However, how can something possess dignity if it is incapable of understanding the concept? It would seem that by purposely stunting the growth of their daughter, the only people whose dignity is being preserved by this operation is the parents, which I think may be good grounds for declaring the operation unethical.

Uh, I'd be very surprised if we were at any point able to cure this girl but not able to reverse the surgery that she underwent. Besides, altering her body to be one of a three-month old would probably be a prerequisite of any cure.

At that point you might as well transfer her consciousness into a cybernetic brain and give her a robot body, which we have just about as much chance of happening.

I don't want to control them - so much comment that what kind of lowly human being pours money into a surgery that was elective and probably not covered by an insurance agency - just because they can't be bothered to be good parents?

Go piss, moan and wipe to the staff that are in this thread and obviously disagree with you, since they haven't said anything yet. My finger-pointing towards you is not only on topic - but factual. If people don't like being shit-kicked for stupidity, then they need to stop being stupid. It's very easy.

Actually, theres a lot to that. What the fuck do young people know about shit from fuck? You're young, what experiences do you have? High school Social Studies class does not equate you to being able to throw your weight around simply because you can type on the internet. Watching CNN does not make you some Kissinger for the internet.

Earn my respect, don't cry because you can't.

Crawl out of your own sensibilities, whitebread. How does this girl herself benefit from this type of operation? Stunted growth? Becoming a ennuch (a term used for men, I know)?

No, these are parents that cannot be bothered to be parents. These are the same tripe that wedge their kids onto summer camp to get away from them or just buy them whatever they want to shut them up. These parents are not good parents, and neither are the doctors on the medical ethics board who obviously violated basic civil liberties simply because the parents had the coffers to pay for it.

Laws extend to everyone, not just most.

Thats not making a point, thats making a statement. Saying the sky is falling does not make it so, and your post did absolutely nothing to bolster your viewpoint at all.

Don't ever put it past me to treat you like you deserve to be. If you don't like it, hit the showers.

Your post does that well enough without my pointing it out. So why do I do it? I expect more from people, thats why.

I noticed that one of the doctors said that the child had no concept of dignity, himself. So the entire 'it's more dignified' argument seems to stem from the parents. In fact, it does seem to suggest that they perhaps feel somewhat guilty leaving their child like this forever?

Which brings me to a point I was thinking. I understand they are keeping her like this for everyone's collective ease and whatnot, ok. But it seems to me that they want to keep their "Pillow Angel" (Christ) a little girl for ever because they probably think she's cute like this in some way. I doubt a forty year old woman who has the mind of an infant is nearly as cute. In that sense, it's certainly selfish of the parents, but then, maybe I'm overanalyzing, here.

I beg your pardon.

What I intended to say was that it was the unethical choice because I felt no one was harmed. I usually go by this definition. Clearly, it's a bit... well, simplistic, and I'm not absolute about it, but generally speaking, a surgery that doesn't harm the child, makes a burden easier to bear for caregivers, and only takes money out of the pockets of those who wants it isn't too terrible in my book. But I live a life that's very forgiving, as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

The moral ambiguity involved is that there are some dignity issues (I suppose) and also the fact that this procedure involves mutiliating the human body. It's right up there with circumcision in terms of questionable. What more, exactly, were you expecting?

Did you read the article? The benefits are numerous. The question here is not whether or not there are benefits to the girl--there clearly are--but whether these benefits trump the disadvantages and/or ethical considerations.

"The main benefit of the height and weight reduction is that Ashley can be moved considerably more often, which is extremely beneficial to her health and well being. Currently, one person can carry Ashley, versus requiring two people or a hoisting harness and ropes, should she have grown larger. As a result, Ashley can continue to delight in being held in our arms and will be moved and taken on trips more frequently and will have more exposure to activities and social gatherings (for example, in the family room, backyard, swing, walks, bathtub, etc.) instead of lying down in her bed staring at TV (or the ceiling) all day long. In addition, the increase in Ashley’s movement results in better blood circulation, GI functioning (including digestion, passing gas), stretching, and motion of her joints."

"Recently, a doctor suggested that Ashley will be less prone to infections as a result of her smaller size. Bedridden individuals are more susceptible to potentially fatal infections. Both the reduction in size in itself, and the increased movement and resulting blood circulation are expected to reduce the occurrence and magnitude of such infections including:

1- Skin sores: larger body weight leads to pressure skin ulceration or bed sores, providing an inlet for deadly bacterial infections (another way to look at this is that adults are more susceptible to bed sores than children).

2- Pneumonia: increased body weight increases the pressure on the chest and reduces the lungs’ ability to expand, causing fluid build up in the lungs that increases the chance for pneumonia and breathing complications.

3- Bladder infection: similarly, increased body weight causes increased pressure on the bladder outlet, resulting in urinary retention and an increased risk for bladder infections."

And those are the benefits that only cover the growth attenuation aspect of it. You can whine and insult all you want, but don't pretend like there aren't any benefits to this girl. The real question is whether those benefits are appropriate in light of ethical considerations.

Don't some religions consider suffering as a necessary part of life and suicide as one of the worst offenses one can commit?

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.[/quote]

Apparently the parents get enjoyment out of her.

Also, any argument for why we shouldn't kill all pets? They're a resource drain on society as well.

They fetch slippers. Okay, kill all the cats.

Don't use euthanasia as an euphemism for murder. That's not the intention of the word--what you want to do is kill a girl, so say it like you mean it.
Are you seriously comparing her to a pet? Nice. Even pets don't get put down as soon as they're born--they tend to live a long life (usually longer than they would in nature due to veterinarians) before they are put down. It's a ridiculous comparison.

No cognitive skills? Are you sure we're talking about the same person? She has the cognitive skills of a three month old, which is probably still more than most pets have. And I don't remember reading anything about pain in that article (the link is broken now so I can't verify that).

Either way, killing an animal is completely different from killing a human, no matter what kind of vegetate state they are in. You do realize this, don't you? Or would you eat human meat?

EDIT: I just realized that all this discussion is off-topic. This topic isn't about euthanasia, it's about surgery to keep her childlike. I will totally stop now. :(

I would tend to agree with you on all of those points. She has the cognitive ability of a 3-month-old--that is something! I also thought that comparing her to people's pets is ridiculous, but I wasn't sure how to word why. You did it rather well.

Also, you're right about the article not mentioning pain. Besides the pain of recovering from the surgeries (which is short-term), the girl is fairly healthy--and when she IS in pain, she is able to communicate it. The whole point of the surgeries was to alleviate future pain, so the argument of why one should keep her alive when she is in such pain... Well, it doesn't make sense.

I was impressed by some of your other points, as well, but you communicated them well. I'll leave them be. :)

Wow, you're very right. I need to be more careful.

Fixing right now!

They do, but then what right do people have to dictate what one can or can't do with their life when the very nature of dualistic religions accepts the existence of free will? Calvanism is dead.

This also isn't a case where the girl can commit suicide. For all intents and purposes, she doesn't even understand that she exists. It's like pure instinct.

Presuming that she has a soul, wouldn't forcing her to go through suffering negatively impact the development of whatever soul she may possess? Also, as a counter to the argument of divine interventionism, wherein God would make an exception for the extenuating circumstance and "improve" the soul, wouldn't killing her now achieve the same result?

Are you trolling me? I've mentioned several times before that the girl provides value to her parents and family, my argument is that she has no intrinsic value society, and in the case that she would have to be taken care of by the state, it's unreasonable to demand that the general public keep her alive when she can never offer them anything.

Pets aren't killed because we value their company, yet we also put them down in situations where we feel that they should be killed in order to end their inevitable suffering. It's inevitable that all people must suffer, but people are also capable of dealing with it and bouncing back. This girl is incapable of dealing with suffering, and never will be. It's best to just end her life now instead of forcing her through a life where all she can know is pain or comfort.

No offense, RR, but this is the most retarded shit you've ever said.

Where do you draw the line? Two years? One year? Six months? Four? Either we're talking about a human being or meat with eyes--there's no line where she suddenly goes from lifeless blob to human and we missed the "opportunity" to throw her in a river. Even at 1 month a baby will exhibit personality traits.

Uh, what the fuck are you saying? Are you seriously suggesting that it should be that way, or else we should just kill her? Last I checked there were a lot of kids on public schools, maybe we should kill them too. Also, that classroom is likely privately funded, meaning that there are people paying for it who think it's worth their money. (Although I have to wonder why they send her to a classroom with her supposed lack of development. It would seem a pointless waste of money to me. But, their money!)

And since we're talking about a specific operation which I very much doubt any tax money went into, it is really not the issue here.

Just to make sure I get it, can I paraphrase your argument and you can tell me if I'm wrong? As far as I can tell you're saying: as long as the parents are footing the bill, it's their choice. But--if she becomes the state's care they shouldn't put money into treating her (with a very tiny likelihood of her becoming cured before she dies) because they could also use it to treat, say, a sick 3 month old girl that will actually develop into a woman if kept alive. If that's your argument then I can certainly agree with that, but correct me if I misunderstood.

If I was one of her parents, I don't know to what extend I would choose to keep her alive just because it's medically possible (there IS a point at which I would rather let someone pass on than keep them alive just to extend their suffering), but nothing I've read about this case suggests that she's in constant pain or that she is especially unhappy.

And hey, they're also raising two healthy kids. That's a contribution to all our pensions, right there!

I wasn't going to make the link between it and another person, but yes, if the state was supporting this girl, then it would be using taxpayer money (people who cannot value this girl) to allocate a limited amount of resources away from other people (such as your example) that may provide or are providing value to society.

The same thing was essentially happening during the Schiavo case. So long as Terri Schiavo was alive, the American public was poorer one more hospital bed, as were other terminally or severely ill patients. This was why evangelical interests who wanted to keep Schiavo alive even with their own money acted poorly, because they were artificially witholding resources dedicated to keeping Schiavo alive from actual "people" who needed it.

This girl, of course, doesn't need complicated machinery in order to live, and so long as the parents keep her alive, she's only a drain on them and her siblings (who may or may not be living on their own I dunno).

This is quite surreal since this is like my cousin.

My then 21 year old aunt was involved in a horrible accident while she was 6-7 months pregnant with her first husband driving. Lets just say the husband ended up being paraquadlegic and the baby born with a brain of a 6 months old eternally. She lived to be trying to mend things herself but that year long nightmare ended pretty soon when she divorced him (his resquest) and gave up the child to the inititution. That child died at 17 with the brain still as a 6 months old. Sad... real sad. I'm not sure how she die exactly, but if surgery helps to make it better and lengthen her life... I'm not sure how the parents can wager that she'll live long enough despite of how unpredictable her brain can be or even the fact that the parents themselves will be fully capable to take care of her til the day she die years after them.

I'm not saying the inititution is a better alternative, I'm not asking if they're good parents for doing what they're doing, I'm not asking how long she's capable of living or THEY to live... its just too unpredictable to assume the best of things even with the best intentions.

Why knocking the lack of free will? There's still some of us that believe in it. :(

I was using suicide as sort of a parallel to 'mercy killings' though I suppose I wasn't clear enough. If a religion doesn't want you to kill yourself or kill someone else, well, I can't really see where there's room to argue mercy killing is something the religion would endorse.

Well, it would negatively impact the development of the soul unless you consider suffering as a way to build up the soul's strength. Maybe it's a way of atoning for past actions in prior lives or something.

If she provides value to her parents then isn't she providing value to society? Why shouldn't the happiness of her parents matter to the rest of society if they aren't affecting it in a negative way (Hell, you could probably argue she's benefiting society because of all the exotic treatments and products she requires. How many jobs is she providing that wouldn't be there otherwise?)?

So keeping pets for company is alright because we put them down when it becomes too expensive to keep them alive? There's lots of medical techniques out there that could keep animals alive longer and in an alright condition, but since we obviously don't value a cat or dog as much as we value a human, we aren't willing to go to these extremes for them.

Hell, think about the level of money we're willing to put out on pets. Which animal do you think would be more likely to get an expensive treatment from an owner: Goldie the fish or Scrappy the puppy? Even within non-humans there's an obvious hierarchy.

I guess they'd have to think about it, and that would be the problem. When I'm talking about souls and crap, I'm trying to pre-empt metaphysical arguments.

Now you're sounding like the onlookers in the Broken Mirror parable. Her value to the parents is negligible, and if the parents are still a factor, but the state had to take care of their child, then the girl would still be a drain on society, because the amount of wealth her parents generate do not exceed the cost of keeping the girl alive. Any "happiness" that the parents have because of their daughter isn't worth it, when there are people who can actually interact with others on a social level that would need the services and resources this girl soaked up.

Ultimately, however, it's up to the body public. If "society" thinks that the girl should be kept alive, then it would be politicized to the point where all nay-saying is cowed into submission by police power (taxation).

That's not what I said at all. I said we put down pets because we feel that mercy killings are ok when we're talking about lower animals and not humans, which I think muddies the water concerning what people really think of as "human." To me, this girl is even less than an animal, but consider this if you have issue with my argument concerning her care by the state: would people agree to the state keeping a dog alive? Not an important dog, or a war veteran, just some guy down the street owns a dog that he can't take care of and wants taxpayers to help him front the bill for it.

I'm not sure how it is in America but around here, this kind of stuff already happens. If a person treats an animal very badly (this includes willful abuse, but also just inability because of lack of money), the animal can get taken away by the animal rights society (or whatever the fuck they're called). I'm pretty certain that they are entirely or almost entirely funded by the government.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that this instance exists as long as a single woman or child still gets abused within this country, but then I value human life more than animal life.

Of course, when an animal gets taken away from its owner, the animal rights society tries to pass it on to a new owner. That couldn't happen in this case, I imagine.

Around here we have something called the SPCA which as far as I know is a non-profit organization that essentially does the same thing. How much government funding they receive, I couldn't possibly tell you. Also, if the Animal Planet channel is to be believed, some states and municipalities have "animal police" that respond to reports of animal cruelty, or the negligent treatment of exotic animals. I don't really watch Animal Planet that much, so I couldn't even tell you if they have any actual police power.

So there you have it, I guess they do have police power. I also like how they have a dedicated "pitbull investigator." I hope they don't bring Ashley to Miami.

I'd also like to point out that animal cruelty isn't really what I was talking about, but it is pretty poignant.