Severely retarded girl undergoes surgery to keep her in childlike state
 

When my friend first told me about this, my natural reaction was, "How incredibly horrible!" But upon scrutinizing a website advocating "The Ashley Treatment," I was prone to change my mind.

Ashley is a 9-year-old with the cognitive and physical functioning of a 3-month-old, with no chance for improvement. Her parents have cared for her tirelessly in their home, along with her two younger, normally-developing siblings. They opted in 2004 to have a number of surgeries that they believed would improve Ashley's quality of life: a hysterectomy, removal of breast buds, and growth attenuation (giving her large doses of estrogen to stunt her growth). Ashley is 4'5" and around 60 pounds, which is probably as large as she'll get.

Reading the article thoroughly, I became convinced that the parents were fully aware of what they were doing and were doing so with Ashley's best interests in mind, not their convenience. Keeping Ashley small will make her more portable, and she will be able to stay at home for a much longer time. Relieving her of her menstrual cycle and breasts will make her much more comfortable and prevent her suffering through cramps and other period-associated discomforts, and will erase the possibility of breast cancer and large, tender breasts that may be a burden and discomfort to her when lying in bed or being restrained with straps across her chest to hold her upright in the bathtub or move her about.

"If people have concerns about Ashley’s dignity, she will retain more dignity in a body that is healthier, more of a comfort to her, and more suited to her state of development."

If the parents were whackjobs, I would have some major qualms with this, but the article shows evidence of extensive research, collaboration with highly qualified professionals, and an incredible amount of love for their daughter.

The original article that my friend linked me to: comcast article
The official "Ashley Treatment" website: here

What do you think? Should the "Ashley Treatment" become available to severely mentally handicapped children who have no chance of improvement?

No, I honestly think that people should have their kids euthenized. There's nothing dignified about living an adult life looking like a 6 year-old and behaving 3 months. This goes beyond paternal instincts. Cavemen would've practiced infanticide.

I don't know how I feel about assisted suicide, euthanasia, and the like. In the case of Terri Schiavo, I believe it was the most humane thing to do, but she was brain dead. This child is not brain dead--she is a 3 month old baby in a 9-year-old body. There's a big difference. 3 month old babies, however helpless they may be, still live.

Also, it sounds like Ashley has a very loving and supportive family who dote on her continually and provide her with as full a life as she is able to have.

Wow, never seen something like this before. Upon closer reading, I think the parents and doctors are doing what they think is in the best interests of the girl.

It's a shame they can't figure out what's wrong with her, so that they could treat her and let her develop into a normal person.

I would also disagree with euthanizing her, as logical as it may seem to some people. The Nazi's would've no doubt studied her for a bit, then after concluding that there was no way to help her, they'd offer the parents an "experimental drug", one that's "worked" in other cases similar to this, but that there's a chance it may kill her. Of course, they're just saying this to get the parents to agree, and accept what happens (followed by the doctors poisoning her, and then telling the parents the girl's body rejected the treatment, a few months afterwards of course, so they could continue billing the parents for a little longer).

But no doubt this does raise some philosophical and ethical questions; is it right to kill someone who's in a state where they're only going to continue suffering, or one where they may seem alive, but aren't functioning at all in their brain (and I don't mean drug addicts or anything like that, I mean people who are essentially braindead or have a non-functioning brain like this girl)? And of course you'll have some people who would say "no", and others who would argue "yes".

I just hope caring for her doesn't become too expensive, and that it becomes a liability for the parents. If this was in a third world country, it's likely that girl wouldn't even of survived beyond her first 3 or 4 years (not because they care less, but because of the more devastating effects of poverty, famine, disease present there, which means decreased healthcare options and availability).

They shouldn't euthenize her. That goes against centuries of human rights developments right there.

In all actuality, I think what they are doing is smart in a technical sense, but decidedly creepy. I agree with this, but I don't really do it wholeheartedly.

Why are we talking about Nazis?

Edit: After reading the blog and not just the article, I have to say that the family seems very secure and the parents very loving. And they made a good case. The procedure isn't quite as disturbing as I thought.

I disagree with you on a key point here, and that is that the girl has a "non-functioning brain." It is certainly not developing, but it is definitely functioning! Clearly we wouldn't kill a 3-month-old because they have a poor quality of life--no one would argue that--but is the reason we "don't" kill them only because we know they will move past that state? At what age would a brain cease to be considered "non-functioning"? What about a 9-year-old with a 3-year-old brain? It becomes a bit more hazy, then.

Also, your mention of suffering raises a key issue. Many mentally handicapped people do suffer--they are abandoned, abused, unmotivated. But I really do not think that this girl suffers. She probably does not have a deep down feeling that she should be functioning better than she is. She does not know any better, and I can only assume that she is content with that. Things must certainly be frustrating for her, but there is a distinct possibility that she enjoys life. She feels things, hears things. I think we should hesitate to brand someone as having an unproductive, unfulfilling life, just because it is not "normal." Their lives may be perfectly satisfying to them, and they should be allowed to live them.

"Brain dead" is a very specific, clear-cut thing. One's mental age is on a spectrum, and it would be foolhardy to try and figure out the mental age at which one's brain is "functioning" well enough for them to be allowed the basic human right to live.

*shrug* Are 3-month-olds vegetables? Maybe they are. Maybe the title doesn't mean all that much.

3-month-olds only exist to consume. You can't just breastfeed a 10 year old, this girl will eventually require adult nutrition, and at that point you're keeping somebody alive who can't even give unusually strong retard hugs.

Cattle live, and we eat them all the time. The value society places on infants is because we know that they'll eventually grow up into actual people, and there's no chance of it with this girl. Free her soul, do something, it's really up to the parents, but if they didn't have the resources to take care of her and pay for a complicated operation to stunt her growth and development, then she would be a burden of the state, and that's what I think is bullshit.

I do understand completely the hysterectomy part. A friend of my grandmother had a "severely retarded" child. As she grew older, she learned to function a little better and could even talk a little bit, but the problem was that human beings - even retarded ones - develop a sex drive. As this girl became a woman, they had all sorts of problems with her, sexually. Once they even found her having sex with a man (also retarded) at the school where she went to learn life skills. They had snuck off together and were going at it. Imagine if she had gotten pregnant. I suppose either the grandmother or the state would have been responsible for the upkeep of that child.

You know, in the "good old days" this country used to practice legal eugenics. It was illegal for the mentally retarded to breed.

I'm not quite sure I understand this argument. Doesn't this apply to every woman? So shouldn't we do this to every female to ease the pain they'll feel later in life? Breasts technically aren't needed in this age and time so we should chop them all off to remove the risk of breast cancer?

I think the girl's better off dead, as her state isn't better off than Terri Schavio, but if the parents wish to front the money to take of their child, I'm not opposed to their choice.

In his defense, he is making the argument in the context that the girl has the mental capacity of a 3 month-old. Physical development and menstrual cycles would be impossible to comprehend for such a creature.

Still though, I say that they should kill her. It's really up to the parents.

I'm curious, would she have enough awareness to observe the changes? I don't really disagree with his conclusion, but I find the argument to be too broad.

I don't think you can accurately determine all the goings-on of the 3 month old psyche, but I'm certain that the one thing it would understand is pain. To be honest, I don't have enough knowlege of psychiatry to begin to even fathom the nature of the infantile brain.

Can it recognize that it is the body that is changing and not simply recognize the negative feedback involved in the pain of growth? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it.

The good thing is that her parents think they are some kind of heroes now or something like that

Well, if they really loved her, they would just accept her the way she was born and not try to "alter" her to suit their needs. Even if they think it's in her best interest.

I wouldn't kill someone with a disability, even if they were helpless and a complete social parasite mainly because who can tell what advaces in medicine are looming in the near future? People are really too quick to make life and death judgements from their armchairs.

Yeah, who knows when we'll be able to create complicated neural pathways and grey matter from nothing, completely altering mental capacity and affecting behavior in ways unimagined.

Imagine you woke up fully developed and living in a highly developed society with no knowlege of language, culture, or technology. Would you become a skilled worker or a schizophrenic?

I'll go one step further and say we should send her back in time so Josef Mengele can experiment on her.

I disagree with what the parents are doing. Simply put - they conducted unnessessary surgery for their own benefit, not their child's. Is there anything lower or more self-involved than removing the sexual identity of another human being simply because the parents continue to want to shelter and care for their child simply because she's a vegitable?

Why not simply remove the breathing hoses from so many accident victims? They'd eventually learn to breathe on their own anyway, right?

I hate to say it, but I agree with Brady.

This little girl, as sad and horrible as it the situation, is a drain on her family and will never move forward.

The point of humanity is to move forward, learn, and grow for the better. This little girl will remain in a 3 month old state for what could be the rest of her entire life - it's completely unfair to her, and there's not much anyone can do.

If you ask me, while I am sure the parents are well-intentioned, they're getting expensive surgeries on a person who is essentially doomed as a human. A 3-month old brain is not too complicated, and yea, I know I wouldn't want to take care of a perpetual 3 month old.

However - if the parents are willing to drop that kind of cash on these "treatments" and want to actually keep their daughter alive, I can understand that. No one is in any position to tell them what to do with their daughter and their money, provided they're doing no harm and no one else in the family objects.

There's no love like a parent's love for their child - I can see how they'd not consider euthansia.

But, you know, I just dislike seeing people holding on to a lost cause. =/

I suppose, it's the parents decision.
I personally strongly disagree with it, and I would never do it to my kid, but not all parents think the same way I would.
I just think that with medical advancements, they could eventually "fix" her to be "normal", so they don't need to "fix" her to be more convenient now when it could negatively effect the rest of my life

Civil liberties extend to some, but not all? What cave were you born in?

In this particular case, the parents aren't exactly doing what's the most convenient for them. If anything, killing her* would be convenient, saving the parents enormous amounts of time and money.

I'm not sure if I would choose to have her undergo this surgery if I had a child like this, but I can certainly see where they are coming from.

I don't think it shouldn't become generally available, because this kind of thing is different with each child. It needs to be assessed with extreme care, and no general rule can cover it.

As for medical advancements, I think by the time they can fix this kind of major problem (which should occur in the next 20 years or so, when we will understand and be able to reconstruct the human brain), it would also be quite easy to reverse this surgery. Of course, she would have to survive for that long, which might be difficult since this kind of defect often coincides will all kinds of other medical issues.

You would also have to reconstruct her body to be three-months old, so she can experience life from that point on. As Brady illustrated, it would be a prerequisite of any remedy for her. However, that should become available around the same time. Overall, it really isn't unthinkable that a cure will appear within her lifetime.

* She will not receive legal euthanasia in the Netherlands (or probably Belgium, though I'm not as familiar with their rules), because she cannot give consent to it herself. If anyone other than the person in question, in full mental health, decides over whether they live or die, and chooses the latter, it is considered murder.

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.

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.