It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parents Surgically Keep Their Daughter Child-Size

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Being sexually mature would be another physically exhausting transition for her in her already complicated life. We can't really ask ourselves theoretical questions regarding how she would feel because it's entirely possible that the limit of her feelings are purely responsive. Her parents seem to have the best judgment for her emotional capacity.




posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I guess I understand the parents doing the hysterectomy. A menstrual flow would be messy, and hard to keep up with, plus you would stand the chance of a possible child molester coming along someday, and someone in this condition who’s mind never progressed past 3 months whose physical body matured enough to have a baby…Not a good situation. Would I personally do this to my child? No, why add further medical bills?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
This kid may grow up and may want to have children of her own ... And who is to say that she wouldn't have a miracle ??? Just like the weaker animals get picked off first whenever the animals eat one another ... You now why because god intended for the Strong to survive ... and that is how it will alwys be ...



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
This kid may grow up and may want to have children of her own


Impossible. She stopped maturing at the age of three months old. I suggest rereading the article to see all of the details. Any person that is sharing the mental capabilities of a three month old child, is not prepared to mother any child. There is no validity to this defense.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jensouth31
plus you would stand the chance of a possible child molester coming along someday,

She wouldn't be a child.

and someone in this condition who’s mind never progressed past 3 months whose physical body matured enough to have a baby…Not a good situation. Would I personally do this to my child? No, why add further medical bills?

When it comes to coma patients and the diasabled.. sometimes the only clue that they're being raped is when they fall pregnant because they can't report it.
I'd rather her fall pregnant straight away [get it terminated under a general] and the rapist can be thrown in jail [use his dna as evidence] rather than give him years of access to do what he wants. Menstuation is one thing.. but I think cutting her uterus out to prevent pregnancy is bloody sickening. Are they planning to send her to a place where rapists are doing community service or something?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
riley, Have you seen the movie Kill Bill? Far fetched scene, but I am sure that it happens all over the world, on a regular basis.

Everyone of us here has an opinion. It is an opinion that we are all entitled to, and nobody is permitted to say we are not entitled to it. But I just fail to see how we can criticize the parents, assuming those that are criticizing, have read the full article. The parents could of easily shipped their daughter out the door to receive specialized care, which would of permitted them to live a completely normal life.

They said no and are sacrificing every moment of their life to assure their daughter receives the proper treatment and love that she deserves. They are not selfish, and their love is pure. Faulting a parent for loving their child is something I am not prepared to do. They may be making extensive decisions for their daughter, but I believe this is how their daughter would want it to be.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
riley, Have you seen the movie Kill Bill? Far fetched scene, but I am sure that it happens all over the world, on a regular basis.

Of course it does.. and it's a shame they can't 'react' the same way the charactor did.. but making them infertile will only IMO encourage predators as there's no risk of getting their victims pregnant. If this is a major problem in centres.. they should have 24 hour survelence.


But I just fail to see how we can criticize the parents, assuming those that are criticizing, have read the full article.

I read the relevent parts of their blog.. they were worried about [paraphrased as close as I can remember]
"large/big breasts inviting sexual abuse".

They said no and are sacrificing every moment of their life to assure their daughter receives the proper treatment and love that she deserves.

Thats relative. This treatment has not been done to this extent on a child before. They will not know all the side effects of it for decades.

They are not selfish, and their love is pure.

Love doesn't make up for lack of common sense. Big breasts or not if their child is in the care of a sexual predator he's probably not going to care whether or not she has breasts. He'd care about opportunity.

Faulting a parent for loving their child is something I am not prepared to do. They may be making extensive decisions for their daughter, but I believe this is how their daughter would want it to be.

Just as you think people shouldn't fault them on their rationale.. you certainly can't speculate on what the kid would want. The parents are only guessing as it is.

[edit on 5-1-2007 by riley]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
The girl has the brain of a 3month old baby. She began showing signs of puberty at the age of 6. She recieved a hysterectomy and removal of her breast buds due to the fact that large breasts run in her family. They are currently giving her estrogen so that her body will think its a different time in life and her bones will cease to grow. Not a bad thing for her. She won't become obese. Does she need to bleed on a monthly basis like others? She is like a baby and those of you who have had children know 3month olds when you put them down don't do much more then smile and maybe move their arms and legs. Its the one point in life where you know when put down they will stay put (LOL you will never see that again as a normal child progresses) I am glad I have never been placed in a position like these people but I guess it seems as though it sounds rational. Perhaps she may have felt discomfort at first after the operations but I think in whole these things will be much better for her.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
He'd care about opportunity.


Which is why they are doing everything in their power to restrict any opportunity a predator would have. They feel by keeping their child in their own care, they can limit any possibility of such an attack.


Originally posted by riley
Just as you think people shouldn't fault them on their rationale.. you certainly can't speculate on what the kid would want. The parents are only guessing as it is.


But it is their right to make that decision. We can say they are in a position of bias, but the fact is, it is their right to make these decisions on behalf of their child.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Wow there is alot of moral and ethical issues within this topic for sure.

In my career I have actually seen the parents of a child with similar disabilities actually push for the exact opposite of what these parents are doing.

That being said: These parents are the ones taking care of thier child and thier concerns about being able to care for her and move here etc are well founded. It seems like a small thing to turn someone 65 pounds, but its not something you have to do a few times a day, its more like 20-30 times a day, 7 days a week, holidays, weekends etc. And it is unlikely that they would have any assistance either.

A poster above points out charity groups that can assist, but in my experience they are few and far between as evidenced by the large numbers our seinors that lie neglected in nursing homes etc. If these people cannot care for this child they are condemming her to live out the rest of her life in an institution that in my experienced is usually understaffed (hence not enuf turning, cleaning etc) and they basicaly lie there waiting to die of skin breakdown, pneumonia, or a hospital aquired infection.

These parents are doing what they feel they need to do to take care of thier child.

[edit on 1/5/07 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cw034
We certainly wouldn't do this type of thing to a child who has cystic fibrosis or some other horrific disease, why is it ok to do it to a child who doesn't have the mental capacity to speak for herself? If she were severely retarted and could speak, walk and roll over but was never going to progress past the age of 6 mentally would it be ok then?


If she was able to speak, walk and roll over and have the mental capacity of a 6 year old this surgery wouldn't be neccessary. The child in question is completely incapable of providing any care for themselves. The parents have to clean, bathe and provide for all care.

This isn't something the parents are doing to make it easier on themselves ... it is something they are doing to make it possible to care for their child as she gets older. These are parents who are basically commiting their entire lives to providing care for their child. In this case if this girl grew to full size the parents would have no choice but to give her over to someone else's care ... how compassionate do you think a non-parent care provider would be?

It's easy to cast stones at people when you have no understanding of their daily lives. We can theorize about the dangers of starting down this road or other slippery slope issues but personally I don't think these parents care about that. They care about what is right for their daughter and them in their specific case.

I for one would not want to walk a step in their shoes let alone a whole mile.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Whether or not the parents themselves care about the slippery slope issue, it is relevant to the discussion IMO.

Where does this lead? Autistic kids have been mentioned...

Some parent comes along and says, I want to lobotomize my baby and have his/her limbs removed so I he/she can receive adequate care. There's something wrong with that...

Now, I realize this is touchy, but it has to be said - the justification that the procedures were 'for her' seems to be the lynchpin of the whole construct, but to me, at least, it seems as though these procedures are just making it easier to care for her. She could still be cared for (maybe not well enough, or maybe not by her parents) without the procedures.

So isn't a question of the ability of the caregivers, rather than a question of the patient's relative difficulty level? I mean, there are some folks who are incredibly hard to care for, for whatever reason (obesity, anger, incontinence, etc.) and we expect, in every other case, for the caregivers to rise to the occasion - we don't bring the patients down to the ability level of the caregivers, that's just not how it's done these days.

As far as the removal of the breasts, that can be done with or without the mental incapacitation, as a precautionary measure against breast cancer - I knew a woman who had both breasts removed after her doctor told her she had ~80% chance of developing a cancer in one or both. It's still not something I would do, but at least I can understand the logic behind that decision - if it's going to happen now or later, why not do it now to save a bundle of money and curtail the chance of a tumor growing undetected.

The removal of the uterus though, seems so wrong to me for so many reasons. So someone is saved the trouble of cleaning up her mess, and that's wonderful, but I don't think it's a good enough reason on its own. The whole rape/pregnancy argument doesn't wash with me either. You don't remove breasts and a uterus to prevent rape, you pay attention to the people who come in contact with your child.

Again, I think that while these procedures are ostensibly for the child, they seem to be more geared towards easing the job of caregivers, and some things aren't easy and aren't supposed to be easy...

My other question is about the diagnosis. It was static encelopathy, right? Isn't that a waste-basket diagnosis? In other words, it's the label placed on medical issues that don't have a clear cause or a clear resolution? Just because it hadn't gotten better doesn't mean it never would have gotten better - how can doctors predict the progression of a disease if they don't even understand its roots?

Anyone ever read The Man with a Shattered World by A.R. Luria? Obviously the case is very different, the man in that book had a fully functional brain that was damaged, but my intent is to point out the amazing ability of the human body/will to defy medical professionals' predictions and assumptions.

Sometimes people in so-called permanent comas will just wake up one day, look around, and start asking questions - like they just needed a long nap to re-map their brains. Sometimes catatonic patients just 'snap out of it' for no apparent reason. And sometimes terminal cancer patients, given a month to love, will outlast their doctors and die of something completely different.

Maybe there was hope for this girl. If there wasn't hope, why bother preserving her life?

Seriously, why bother preserving her life if there is no hope of recovery? I realize that's a whole 'nother sticky situation, but I can't help but open that door. If the parents can't or won't care for their child (as God made her), and don't believe she'll ever get better, let her die.

Using their same logic, parents would be advised by their doctors to amputate the limbs of coma patients, right? Makes them easier to move, reduces their weight and their food requirements. It's logical, isn't it? Except when the coma patient wakes up and wants to know why mom and dad are carrying him/her around in a duffel bag for their convenience.

Caring for a child with special needs is so hard - you either can, and do it, or you can't, and don't, I don't see the wisdom in cutting the child apart to make them easier to handle.

I really want to know where this line is drawn, and who drew it. Do we, as a society, want parents to have the right to tinker with the development of their children to make caring for them easier? Do we want parents amputating legs and removing genitals and carving out little sections of brain that can cause pesky behaviors?

I realize this is a BIG debate, a very complex, and emotional issue, and it was not my intent to try to oversimplify it, or to demonize the parents or the people defending their position. I just disagree, is all. If someone convinces me, that's fine too - I'm just calling it as I see it from where I'm standing.

I don't have a child, nevermind a special needs child, and I can only imagine how truly difficult it is to make these sorts of decisions for someone else.

So, anyway, I applaud my fellow members who have managed to debate this thorny issue with passion and mutual respect. I'm very impressed with the level of dialogue that's going in this thread - very inspiring.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murphs

The issue I just can't grab, is the one re: sexual abuse. I know it happens but in her own home..This was a major problem for the parents..Do they fear/know someone we don't know about.
If she was going to daycare or long term institutional care--we know it happens there but at home.!
I can't get my head around the reasons but I am a firm believer of walking a mile in another persons shoes before making judgements.


When she out lives those parents, what then?? There will be no more 'at home'.

As you say, till we walk a mile in their shoes, we should be careful how brashly we judge their motives......we might get a chance to find out how 'selfish' we would be, or how wrongly our actions might be perceived.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
frayed


When she out lives those parents, what then?


Then she may end up at the mercy of some sicko (sad to say), and it won't make a bit of difference whether or not she has a uterus, or whether she's 75 or 125 pounds.

I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. If some wierdo wants to have sex with an invalid, I imagine his standards are pretty low to begin with, wouldn't you say? He's probably not in it for the procreation, and I doubt he's going to hold out for a centerfold model.

Seems like once a week there's a story in the news about a senior citizen who was raped by some psycho. Nothing against senior citizens, but they hardly fit the contemporary image of 'sexy', yaknow? Maybe we could have prevented that by decapitating them and preserving their brain in an electrified brine solution housed in a mason jar...

This logic confuses me, can someone explain it to me in different terms? What am I missing about this argument? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand.


What's the likelyhood of a woman in a nursing-home type situation suffering an attempted rape? Last I heard, the chance of an American woman being targetted for rape is 1 in 5. I'm willing to bet that that chance is less than a quarter of that for women in assisted-living environments, like nursing homes - I'd bet on 1 in 20 or fewer.

No good statistics are available, but hopefully that will change soon, now that some more light has been shed on this ugly situation.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Well.... it's not like shes going to know right?

Is that mean?

Oh well..

If she cannot act like an adult, and it would be easier to treat this vegitable as a child then a full grown vegitable then why not make the parental burden less on these poor folks and let them keep her child sized? Is it not enough they care for her?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
A little uncalled for, in my opinion.

Her mental awareness to her surroundings and the sexual attack she may, or may not face, is irrelevant to the situation. If she is not aware that she is being raped on a regular basis, what is the problem? Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly see a need to refer to this young child as a vegetable? In case you missed it, her name is Ashley.

If we would begin to treat complete strangers as if they were our own loved ones, maybe this world would be a better place.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Whether or not the parents themselves care about the slippery slope issue, it is relevant to the discussion IMO.

Where does this lead? Autistic kids have been mentioned...

Some parent comes along and says, I want to lobotomize my baby and have his/her limbs removed so I he/she can receive adequate care. There's something wrong with that...


I wasn't saying the parents should care about the slippery slope issues. I was more amazed at the people who are abile to quickly decide that these parents were doing this out of laziness. If these parents were lazy they would have told someone a long time ago they are unable to provide intensive ongoing care for this child and she would be off in some facility; Not only not getting the same level of care she has no but getting it at our tax dollars.

The discussion of the slippery slope issues is intereseting and debatable. Of course there should be concern as to what parents are allowed to do in the interest of their children. I believe most medical professionals would refuse to perform these operations on children with even limited cognitive ability.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
frayed


When she out lives those parents, what then?


Then she may end up at the mercy of some sicko (sad to say), and it won't make a bit of difference whether or not she has a uterus, or whether she's 75 or 125 pounds.

I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. If some wierdo wants to have sex with an invalid, I imagine his standards are pretty low to begin with, wouldn't you say? He's probably not in it for the procreation, and I doubt he's going to hold out for a centerfold model.

Seems like once a week there's a story in the news about a senior citizen who was raped by some psycho. Nothing against senior citizens, but they hardly fit the contemporary image of 'sexy', yaknow? Maybe we could have prevented that by decapitating them and preserving their brain in an electrified brine solution housed in a mason jar...

This logic confuses me, can someone explain it to me in different terms? What am I missing about this argument? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand.


Having read the entire article and a good portion of Ashley's blog there is no mention of sexual abuse being part of the decision to remove the uterus. They said it was to avoid the pain of cramps and helped to arrest her growth but halting her development.

Excerpt from the Ashely blog:



In addition to height and weight issues, we had concerns about Ashley’s menstrual cycle and its associated cramps and discomfort. We also had concerns about Ashley’s breasts developing and becoming a source of discomfort in her lying down position and while strapped across the chest area in her wheelchair, particularly since there is a family history of large breasts and other related issues that we discuss below. The estrogen treatment would hasten both the onset of the menstrual cycle and breast growth. Bleeding during the treatment would likely be very difficult to control.

It was obvious to us that we could significantly elevate Ashley’s adult quality of life by pursuing the following three goals:

1- Limiting final height using high-dose estrogen therapy.

2- Avoiding menstruation and cramps by removing the uterus (hysterectomy).

3- Limiting growth of the breasts by removing the early breast buds.

The surgeon also performed an appendectomy during the surgery, since there is a chance of 5% of developing appendicitis in the general population, and this additional procedure presented no additional risk. If Ashley’s appendix acts up, she would not be able to communicate the resulting pain. An inflamed appendix could rupture before we would know what was going on, causing significant complication.


Ashleys Blog



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 05:37 AM
link   
My bad, they removed her uterus to prevent cramps, they removed her breasts for the sex issue (partly). Still not such a hot idea, in my opinion.

From the original link:



The decision to remove her breast buds was partly to avoid sexualizing Ashley in the eyes of her caregiver



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   
They were discussing this story on Nancy Grace. She raised a good point. The parents claim that breast cancer has occurred in the family's history before, and it was for this reason that they removed her breasts. Nancy Grace said something similar to, "Well why don't they just remove her legs, so that she doesn't get knee cancer too."




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join