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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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).

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

Originally Posted by Gecko3

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).

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 was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Gecko3

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 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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by pb and spanglish

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

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

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?

How ya doing, buddy?

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by mindOverMatter

I suppose, it's the parents decision.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by surasshu

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 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)

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by LeHah

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

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.