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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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)?

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by surasshu

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Devoxycontin

Is it three years or three months? Your opening post says 3 months yet you keep saying years. I mean there is a wide difference here.

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

Fixing right now!

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