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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Because you need your legs for walking, but the breasts are technically useless if you don't plan on nursing a baby.

It's much more accepted in the medical community to do a preemptive mastectomy to ward off cancer, than it is to stunt the growth of a brain damaged child so she can be easily transported, cut out her uterus to save her the trouble of menstruation, and remove her breasts for reasons other than cancer prevention.

This is just so extreme, it goes way beyond a mastectomy to prevent cancer. I can understand a woman wanting to go that route, if her doctor tells her ~80% or ~90% chance of developing cancer in the future. Why wait?




posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Nancy Grace said something similar to, "Well why don't they just remove her legs, so that she doesn't get knee cancer too."


Having had breast cancer and having had a radical mastectomy, I can tell you from personal experience that I would have much rather had my breasts removed before the cancer appeared.

When a woman has a radical mastectomy due to cancer, they most often take lymph nodes as well, to be sure the cancer hasn't spread to the rest of the body. The aftermath of this surgery causes me a great deal of pain and discomfort every day of my life and it's been about 4 years. The lymph node surgery is much like taking a metal shoe horn and firmly scraping out all the nerves and other tissue underneath the arm. It's terribly painful. The recovery lasted about a year. The nerves under my arm are so messed up that I have to use baby oil almost constantly. It's also partially numb, so I can't tell if a rash is developing until it's so bad that the skin is starting to split. I have to keep a close eye on it. And the pain is constant.

Now, I can only speak for myself, but perhaps these parents did some research and found out some of this stuff, which I doubt Nancy Grace bothered to do. She's a sensationalist and I'd like to slap her.

Breast cancer ran in Ashley's family. It's well-known that it's hereditary. I commend them for making this decision.

WyrdeOne - As to the 'sexualizing' of the patient... I can also speak as a victim of childhood (and adult) sexual abuse. Sexual abuse and rape isn't about sex, it's about power. But the suggestion of breasts to a caregiver sexualizes the disabled person (Ashley) and makes her a 'woman' to the right (or wrong) person. Sometimes sickos get jobs in health facilities simply because the people are helpless and they can exert power over them. If I understand the parents' motives, removing the breasts would desexualize Ashley and make her not a woman to the caregivers, therefore decreasing the chance of sexual abuse of any kind.

Google "sexual abuse disabled". You'd be surprised.

And to those who think she wouldn't realize it anyway... Would it be OK then to sexually abuse any 3-month-old? Don't be so sure that she wouldn't realize or remember it. We don't know everything there is to know about the human mind.

I'm not telling you this for sympathy or anything (which many times seems to be the response when I tell people), I'm telling you this to help you realize that you don't know the whole story. Don't be so quick to judge these parents.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
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.


Raped? ... Sorry? .. I did not read anywhere on the thread that she was being raped? .. Must have missed that part.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
If her parents wanted to play God, maybe they should have aborted her when they found out she was going to be severely disabled. This is why I support the right to choose.

If the girl is as bad off as claimed, then she should definitely go to a facility for the mentally disabled. There she would be cared for by professionals and family could visit as much as they wanted.

I think this solution is far superior to disabling her body to fit her mind, solely for their own convenience. Although I feel for them, somehow what they did seems unethical.

Furthermore, if parents are given this kind of power over their children, whose to say others won't try to follow suit for more depraved reasons! I think this was a very bad thing for the media to expose. Let's face it, there are some religious extremists and other fanatics who might want to shield their daughters from what they perceive as sin. And of course a corrupt doctor can always be bought. I can see it now! Female circumcision taken a step further! No, this is wrong.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
If her parents wanted to play God, maybe they should have aborted her when they found out she was going to be severely disabled. This is why I support the right to choose.

If the girl is as bad off as claimed, then she should definitely go to a facility for the mentally disabled. There she would be cared for by professionals and family could visit as much as they wanted.

I think this solution is far superior to disabling her body to fit her mind, solely for their own convenience. Although I feel for them, somehow what they did seems unethical.


This is all your opinion. It is a valid argument that can be substantiated by countless facts. However, I can spit out facts that would validate the other side of the argument to support the actions of the parents. We should not allow our opinions to cloud the true picture. In your opinion this may be wrong and pulling the plug may of been a viable option. I would disagree 100%.

This is a sensitive and extremely ethical dilemma. We can have opposing opinions and both be correct.


Originally posted by dollmonster
Furthermore, if parents are given this kind of power over their children, whose to say others won't try to follow suit for more depraved reasons!


Well if we take the rights from the parents, who do we give them to? This child can not speak for herself, who is to speak for her? Seems the only logical conclusion would be next to kin, the parents.

In my opinion, you are failing to see these actions as a selfless approach to insure the greatest life possible for their daughter. Her safety is a prime issue, and the level of care is another. Seems like the parents are only going to find comfort if they are the care givers. How can we criticize parents for wanting to love and care for their child?

With that, the parents have to assure they can properly care for the child. Some drastic steps have been taken, with some ethical strings attached.

I would hate to think that this young child is suffering, but with the information given, I firmly believe the parents are doing the right thing.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by chissler]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I actually read this the first time yesterday, but didn't know what I should say about it. I'm very touchy on issues that relate to the welfare of special needs children.

My big issue in this case is the ethics of what was done here! Ashley is a child, a human being! No matter how sever her disability might be, we need to keep that in mind. Just because someone can't say No, doesn't make their feeling unimportant or Irrelivent. Years ago when I worked for Baltimore County Public Schools, I worked with special needs children, some of whom where a lot like Ashly.

Because of my experience in this feild, I can tell you that as hard as it is to accept this kind of stuff, it's more common then many people would like to believe. It's usually not taken to such an extreem, so it never makes it to the media. The bitter and sad truth of the matter is that the Ethical Issues surrounding Special Needs kids are very tricky.

As sad as it is to say, I have heard of things like this before! In fact in my personal library on special needs kids, I have a book called:
Your Down's Syndorme Child: Everything Today's Parents Need To Know About Rasing Their Special Child By:Eunice McClurg ,1986.

In this book it discusses simular ethical issues, including the subject of hysterectomies and sterilization for children for simular reasons to the ones raised here.

For the moment, I will keep my feeling out of this debate of ethics and just leave you with the facts I have preseted here!

Tim



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
I think this solution is far superior to disabling her body to fit her mind, solely for their own convenience.


If you read the article or the blog, you know this wasn't done solely for their convenience. Not by a long shot. It was done so they could give her a more complete experience of life. In fact, the most convenient thing to do would be to shuffle her off to a care facility where the parents wouldn't have to deal with the day-to-day issues of changing her diapers and they could visit her and leave her behind when they wanted to go skiing or whatever. As it is, they want to include her in their lives and not leave her with others to deal with her.



Let's face it, there are some religious extremists and other fanatics who might want to shield their daughters from what they perceive as sin.


If this is going to happen, it's going to happen. Ashley's situation has very little to do with some religious fanatic's warped desires.

I agree with chissler. When you say things like "she should definitely go to a facility for the mentally disabled", it's important to realize that perhaps that's what you would do, but there really is no universal "right" thing to do under these circumstances. Many would feel just as strongly that she should be with her parents who love her. And since she's their daughter, I think they should make the decision.

As regards 'playing God', isn't that what we do every time we use medicine to extend or save a life?



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I find it somehow disturbing what has happened to Ashley, but I think the parents of the young lady are two of the most loving people on Earth. Who else would willingly devote their entire life to intensively caring for their child--even going so far as to keep her weight down so they can move her around when they get old & feeble themselves, not to mention that the lighter weight will substantially lessen the possibility of bed sores developing.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Bed sores are a serious issue that some of us may not even begin to realize.

I had a family member who was in a coma for over a week at one time, shortly before he passed on, and bed sores were a serious issue. I had never even thought of it before this had happened in my life. Every few hours the nurses had to turn him to different positions to prevent the sores from becoming too extreme. They are inevitable though, especially with a situation that Ashley is in. Her weight is a serious concern when it comes to the bed sores. If she reached a certain weight, it would be a major detriment to the quality of care that her parents can offer.

Even if she was in specialized care, her weight would pose a serious problem if it was too high.

Good point.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The reasons that they do these things are SELFISH ... at best ... they wanna keep thier little angel in thier lifes forever .... I would not be surprised if that was what was holding thier relationship together .....


Originally posted by DJMessiah
I believe this has been discussed before, and yes, it is a terrible thing. Even if the parents aren't able to lift her when she's older, there are many charitable agencies out there that will either pay or volunteer people to pay for the child's nursing and care. The parents have not looked at all of their options, and yet they decide to take measures to prevent the worst.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
The reasons that they do these things are SELFISH ... at best ... they wanna keep thier little angel in thier lifes forever .... I would not be surprised if that was what was holding thier relationship together .....


They want to keep the child in their lives so SHE can receive the best possible care. There is no substitute for the genuine love one can receive from a mother and a father. Shipping their daughter off to a institute to receive specialized care is an answer that many of us may of taken, but these parents have selflessly made many sacrifices to insure their daughter can grow up in a positive home.

Your assumptions on the status of their relationship are unfounded and uncalled for. All that we can do is look at the facts and determine what we believe, you are basing your opinion on something you can not substantiate. I see a problem with that.

How is loving their child an act of selfishness? The decisions they have made can be construed as selfish, but in my opinion, one would only come to that decision if he/she had not properly examined all of the details pertaining to the situation. Ashley's parents have examined all possible courses of actions, none of which fit their needs, or Ashley's needs. They have made this decision, and it is their decision to make.

I support them on it, as do many others. If you wish to oppose their decision, then that is a right you are entitled to. But at least base your opinion on valid points, not a hypothetical scenario that you have concocted in your mind.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Because of my experience in this feild, I can tell you that as hard as it is to accept this kind of stuff, it's more common then many people would like to believe. It's usually not taken to such an extreem, so it never makes it to the media. The bitter and sad truth of the matter is that the Ethical Issues surrounding Special Needs kids are very tricky.

As sad as it is to say, I have heard of things like this before! In fact in my personal library on special needs kids, I have a book called:
Your Down's Syndorme Child: Everything Today's Parents Need To Know About Rasing Their Special Child By:Eunice McClurg ,1986.

In this book it discusses simular ethical issues, including the subject of hysterectomies and sterilization for children for simular reasons to the ones raised here.

For the moment, I will keep my feeling out of this debate of ethics and just leave you with the facts I have preseted here!

Tim


Ashley's case is in no way related to a child with Down's syndrome. Down's children are able to talk, walk, interact with others, process information, read (depending on their ability) and many are able to hold down regular jobs. Ashley reacts to people around her but doesn't interact with them ... she behaves as a 3 month old, is unable to hold her head up or roll over.

Without some of these procedures she would be unable to remain permanently at home ... where the family include her in daily life ... expose her to music and bright lights and other items that entertain 3 month old children. Things a private care facility will not do. They will only keep her alive ... meaning food, water and medicine ... her place is with mom and dad.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas
Ashley's case is in no way related to a child with Down's syndrome. Down's children are able to talk, walk, interact with others, process information, read (depending on their ability) and many are able to hold down regular jobs. Ashley reacts to people around her but doesn't interact with them ... she behaves as a 3 month old, is unable to hold her head up or roll over.


The point was that it gives you an insight into how ethics plays into caring for special neeeds kids!

Are you telling me that Ethics doesn't apply to Ashley?

Sorry I attempted to give you a general inside into the ethics of caring for children with special needs.

Tim



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas
Ashley's case is in no way related to a child with Down's syndrome. Down's children are able to talk, walk, interact with others, process information, read (depending on their ability) and many are able to hold down regular jobs. Ashley reacts to people around her but doesn't interact with them ... she behaves as a 3 month old, is unable to hold her head up or roll over.


The point was that it gives you an insight into how ethics plays into caring for special neeeds kids!

Are you telling me that Ethics doesn't apply to Ashley?

Sorry I attempted to give you a general inside into the ethics of caring for children with special needs.

Tim


Yes ethics go into play --- that's why an entire committee of medical professionals reviewed the case prior to any of the surgeries taking place.

I was trying to point out the fact that you can't abstractly compare Ashley's case as if it would be applied to a child with Down's syndrome. Something that in Ashley's case that some are considering questionable, at best, would be outright unethical in the case of a Down's child. Basically it's comparing apples and oranges.

In the case of most special needs kids they are able to at least somewhat articulate their wants / needs / feelings. I am aware of issues faced by special needs children ... I have a sister who is paraplegic from birth due to spina bifida and a brother who was born 3 months preemie and has many medical issues, including the mental ability of a pre-adolscent.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas

I was trying to point out the fact that you can't abstractly compare Ashley's case as if it would be applied to a child with Down's syndrome. Something that in Ashley's case that some are considering questionable, at best, would be outright unethical in the case of a Down's child. Basically it's comparing apples and oranges.

In the case of most special needs kids they are able to at least somewhat articulate their wants / needs / feelings. I am aware of issues faced by special needs children ... I have a sister who is paraplegic from birth due to spina bifida and a brother who was born 3 months preemie and has many medical issues, including the mental ability of a pre-adolscent.


Point taken!

Tim



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
The reasons that they do these things are SELFISH ... at best ... they wanna keep thier little angel in thier lifes forever .... I would not be surprised if that was what was holding thier relationship together .....


How is loving their child an act of selfishness? The decisions they have made can be construed as selfish, but in my opinion, one would only come to that decision if he/she had not properly examined all of the details pertaining to the situation. Ashley's parents have examined all possible courses of actions, none of which fit their needs, or Ashley's needs. They have made this decision, and it is their decision to make.


If they loved thier child they would give thier daughter a MIRACLE OF A CHANCE ... that she would get some other functions and lead a life that she could give alittle something to the world ... The way she is living currently is just rediculous ... Everything happens for a reason and if they cannot see that god put this girl in thier lifes ... for a reason and that he controls all things and they should not ever mess with certain things. such as the FOLLOWING ...

1. MENTAL HEALTH ... we should never introduce Xanax, Zoloft, Triazadone ... or other mental instability drugs to a minor as their bodies are still adjusting and growing and getting used to how much Seratonin and Dopamine and the other two chemicals that controls emotion in the human body ...

2. Is physical well being ... WHY IN THE HECK WOULD YOU TAKE away your childs ability to possibly one day become something ... Now they might as well put a label such as CHILD .. on her forever because they wil never let this kid grow up ... It will eventually become a problem and she will have to go into a home anyway when they get to old to take care of her themsleves .. Then what is she suppose to do ??? Do they want to outlive thier kid ??? OBVIOUSLY .... they have not thought about her future ONLY THIERS ... when they are here and in the coming up years to make THIER LIFES EASIER .. intead of giving her the best possible chances for HER LIFE !!!! ... anyways this may be MY LAST POST ON THIS ENTIRE BOARD ... THIS JUST MAKES ME SICK TO MY STOMACH that anyone could possibly take away the rights of ANYONE much less someone who you care .. or were suppose to care so much about ... SICKENING !



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas

I was trying to point out the fact that you can't abstractly compare Ashley's case as if it would be applied to a child with Down's syndrome. Something that in Ashley's case that some are considering questionable, at best, would be outright unethical in the case of a Down's child. Basically it's comparing apples and oranges.

In the case of most special needs kids they are able to at least somewhat articulate their wants / needs / feelings. I am aware of issues faced by special needs children ... I have a sister who is paraplegic from birth due to spina bifida and a brother who was born 3 months preemie and has many medical issues, including the mental ability of a pre-adolscent.

Tim

Point NOT taken 4 me!


What are you saying this child has no feelings ?? This child doesn't knwo what or where she is ?? She doesn't see the bright lights that a three year old would ??? What is goign to happen when all of this is taken from her .. be it now .. or 30 years from now ?/? What then ??? She will go through what should have happend when she was young and her body was ready for change ??



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon

Point NOT taken 4 me!


What are you saying this child has no feelings ?? This child doesn't knwo what or where she is ?? She doesn't see the bright lights that a three year old would ??? What is goign to happen when all of this is taken from her .. be it now .. or 30 years from now ?/? What then ??? She will go through what should have happend when she was young and her body was ready for change ??


For the record, I was only agreeing that different types of disabilities require different kinds of care and you can't compare two things that work on different planes!

Deus_Brandon did a good job arguing the fact that she is very much a living, breathing human child, not a sad medical experiment! Many of the things done here where dehuminizing if you really thing about it.


Let me give you another example that might fit better with this case:

I personally worked with a young boy in Baltimore County, he was non-verbal, had a form of CP that left his almost completely paralysed (he had limited head and facial movement), he was tube-fed, had seizures and the cognative ability of a 4 to 6 month old. most of the time you had to look at his eyes to see if he was asleep or not (he could open and close his eyes)

Ok, so how would you apply ethics to that example?

If you want to argue ethic, we'll take this to another level. For the record, I spent 2 years working in level 5 Special ED. Some of the kids I worked with had a nurse coming to class with them, that is one step above being confined to a hospitial.

Tim



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
If they loved thier child they would give thier daughter a MIRACLE OF A CHANCE ...


We can only say what we think we might do in their situation. To say "If they loved her, they would do this" is simply imposing your judgment on them. Perhaps if YOU had a daughter and had to make these decisions, you'd do it differently, but to suggest that they don't love their daughter because of the choices they've made is just a judgment on your part.



Everything happens for a reason and if they cannot see that god put this girl in thier lifes ... for a reason


Yes. In their lives, not my life or your life. Their lives. Do you think God perhaps made a mistake by putting her in their care? Is your judgment better than God's? If you think God gave her to them, then why don't you trust that he knew the decisions they'd make?



and that he controls all things


Then he guided them in their decisions.



WHY IN THE HECK WOULD YOU TAKE away your childs ability to possibly one day become something ...


She will never mature beyond THREE MONTHS. What do you think she's going to do? Write a book? Become a great leader? She can't even eat! She's TOTALLY dependent and ALWAYS will be.



Now they might as well put a label such as CHILD .. on her forever because they wil never let this kid grow up


They had nothing to do with "letting" her grow up. That was God's choice, remember?



she will have to go into a home anyway when they get to old to take care of her themsleves .. Then what is she suppose to do ???


She will be taken care of by the home then, I suppose, unless the parents have made other arrangements with family members, which is very likely. She will still have the faculties of a three-month-old and will live the rest of her life.

But most of her life, she will have been in the loving home of her parents. Sounds pretty great to me.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
If they loved thier child they would give thier daughter a MIRACLE OF A CHANCE ...


We can only say what we think we might do in their situation. To say "If they loved her, they would do this" is simply imposing your judgment on them. Perhaps if YOU had a daughter and had to make these decisions, you'd do it differently, but to suggest that they don't love their daughter because of the choices they've made is just a judgment on your part.



Everything happens for a reason and if they cannot see that god put this girl in thier lifes ... for a reason


Yes. In their lives, not my life or your life. Their lives. Do you think God perhaps made a mistake by putting her in their care? Is your judgment better than God's? If you think God gave her to them, then why don't you trust that he knew the decisions they'd make?





and that he controls all things


Then he guided them in their decisions.



WHY IN THE HECK WOULD YOU TAKE away your childs ability to possibly one day become something ...


She will never mature beyond THREE MONTHS. What do you think she's going to do? Write a book? Become a great leader? She can't even eat! She's TOTALLY dependent and ALWAYS will be.



Now they might as well put a label such as CHILD .. on her forever because they wil never let this kid grow up


They had nothing to do with "letting" her grow up. That was God's choice, remember?



she will have to go into a home anyway when they get to old to take care of her themsleves .. Then what is she suppose to do ???


She will be taken care of by the home then, I suppose, unless the parents have made other arrangements with family members, which is very likely. She will still have the faculties of a three-month-old and will live the rest of her life.

But most of her life, she will have been in the loving home of her parents. Sounds pretty great to me.


God is the decision maker ... in lifes ... we should not try and do that ... The should realize if god put them in thier lifes for a reason not for them to appose gods will and make her stop growing and give her hormones to do other things that we are basically be trying to play god in this childs life. I am sure that people a while back before we had techonology and the "KNOW HOW" that we do now ...said that Helen Keller was a lost cause .. Because she couldn't learn , things that other children could ... Because we didn't know very much on the subject of being blind or deaf ... Much less both of these ...together ... Yet she did great things ... This is just the same case to me exept on another basis that we do not yet have the know -how technology to fix. Although I personally hope we never do have the technology. Because if god gives us the know how of how he created us then we will think we are gods ... as some of us already do...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join