Parents Surgically Keep Their Daughter Child-Size

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
if I am reading you correctly

I seriously doubt that you are. You seem highly agitated with me simply because we have a difference of opinion.

I have already answered your question. I said I wish euthanasia were an option for parents like these. Not slitting the child's throat (a little dramatic and emotional, don't you think?) but death with dignity for the parents who wouldn't want to put their child through what they consider to be a life of suffering.

Now, do you mind answering my question with an actual answer instead of answering it with a question?

APOLOGIES ... that I appear frusturated ... because I am ... But I will try and give you an answer to the best of my ability ... My child could be borned with one hand on it's lower extremity's and one foot growing out the side of it's head ... and half a brain .. But I would be doing research myself even if I had to go into Mexico ... and do Experimentation research taht could possibly help teach the world just alittle more than they already know about that certain diasease ... These parents are doing the opposite of that ... and that is what perturbs me.

Ben .... I will tell you this .. thank you for your prospective because I see that these parents are not bad people and are not neccisarily trying to kill thier child they are just stressed and did not know what to do ... with this child that they were planning to be so much ni thier lifes that is now unable to do most of anything ... I see that they have just made poor choices in "MY OPINION" but then again God did not bless me with such a child in my life ...

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
What happens when ashley's parents .... Are unable to care for her anymore

It is a harsh reality that they will have to face when the time comes. At this point, they have to make decisions that serve their immediate needs. Both parents are relatively young, so I am sure they have plenty of years ahead of them to properly care for their child. In the very distant future, it is a question they will have to answer. Surely they can not base their decisions today on an issue that may not arise for another twenty, thirty, or forty years.

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
I would never give up hope that something may happen that may cause scientist to be able to change things that have happened.

Which is probably why they are not turning their back on their child. They have not pulled the plug, they have not shipped her off, they have kept her within in reach to share their lives together. The surgeries they have performed, or the adjustments they have made with her hormones, have only assured the proper care of her on a short-term level. Her mental progress has stopped since she had reached the age of three months of age, what have they done since to prevent it from kick starting in the future?

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
They aren't even giving her the time to grow up ... and become whatever miracle baby that she could possibly become ... They basically lost thier faith in her overcoming any adversary

Your opinions are clouding the situation. This is your "opinion", your "opinion" is not "fact". They have not prevented any possible miracle from occurring, they have only assured their able to treat her on a daily basis.

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
... That is like telling someone they can't do SOMETHING ... TRY TELLING YOUR KID THAT THEY CAN'T DO SOMETHING ... See how they respond ... And if you don't believe in your kid .. What good are you !?!?!

Ashley can not comprehend her surroundings. The question you are asking is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand. And if you do not believe in your kid, then you are a terrible parent. However, construing the facts we have before us and saying these parents do not believe in their child, is a completely unjustified. In my opinion, of course.

How can you deny the effort Ashley's parents have put forth? How can you say they have given up on her when they have pushed forward on every opportunity? They could of ended her life, they could of shipped her off to specialized care, they could of picked an endless amount of scenarios that all would of ended up with them living a normal life. They chose none of them, they chose to keep their daughter at home and hope for a miracle.

Remember, these are all of our opinions. None of which are facts. We should try to refrain from confusing opinions for facts.

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
My child could be borned with one hand on it's lower extremity's and one foot growing out the side of it's head ...

And you wouldn't have them surgically removed??? They serve no purpose and your child could live a more normal life and you'd subject him to the taunting of other children and the stares of ignorant people all his life??? You'd choose the pain of living a life as an outcast for your child instead of doing what you could medically to make him more 'normal'?

And you're calling Ashley's parent's cruel?

And you DIDN'T answer my question. I didn't ask about your hypothetical child. I asked

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What negative effect will this have on Ashley's life? For those of you who oppose it, how do you think this is hurting the child?
...
I mean how specifically is Ashley going to suffer over and above letting her develop 'normally'.

SPECIFICALLY about Ashley, not about a hypothetical case.

I think specialized care may have been the best thing for this kid ... So what they wouldn't be able to spend every minute with thier child ... IS thier any chances that she may have gotten 1% ... better .??? If not Then why are there specialized care for her ??? WHY ? When it would do no good .. because people know that love makes everything better even things that Scientist can't explain ... The same reason you feel whnever your wife gets home in the evening and you don't know why you know .. You just know ... Or the same reason my mom will call me in the middle of the night when I was out partying and she was dead asleep ... because there is a sense there that science can't measure .. The same reason .. Why you should never doubt the will power of your child and the love that they should have given ... and I am sure you can tear this down by saying they did what they thought was best .. But the FACTS are is that NOONE has ever done this surgery before ... and that the response to this is unknown ... What do these drugs that stop your puberty from coming do to you in long term affect ... Or thats right they aren't thinking about long term they are thinking about right now ... and whatever shance she had for something to happen may have been taken away by these simple facts ... and if some miracle happens ... She will not be able to have kids of her own because her parents basically GAVE UP ON THAT FOR HER ... What then ??? IS all I am asking ... IN the circumstance ... that that was to happen what would you tell your kiDD !!

YOUR ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ... I would have the foot removed to make him .. " NORMAL: in your eyes ... But then again ... I may not ... Because I was raised that "NORMAL" to this world is not good 90% of the time ... I don't belong here I am just passing thru.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
My child could be borned with one hand on it's lower extremity's and one foot growing out the side of it's head ...

And you wouldn't have them surgically removed??? They serve no purpose and your child could live a more normal life and you'd subject him to the taunting of other children and the stares of ignorant people all his life??? You'd choose the pain of living a life as an outcast for your child instead of doing what you could medically to make him more 'normal'?

And you're calling Ashley's parent's cruel?

And you DIDN'T answer my question. I didn't ask about your hypothetical child. I asked

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What negative effect will this have on Ashley's life? For those of you who oppose it, how do you think this is hurting the child?
...
I mean how specifically is Ashley going to suffer over and above letting her develop 'normally'.

SPECIFICALLY about Ashley, not about a hypothetical case.

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
She will not be able to have kids of her own because her parents basically GAVE UP ON THAT FOR HER ... What then ??? IS all I am asking ... IN the circumstance ... that that was to happen what would you tell your kiDD !!

In that impossible circumstance, I would tell my kid that that we did what we thought was the very best thing for her. We have a 99.9999999999% chance that she will never develop. Why plan and act as if we're counting on the .0000000001% happening, when there are so many downsides to that?

Brandon, this child will never develop beyond 3 months old. If, by some miracle, by some minute chance that defies all odds, she should happen to break out of this disease and continue to mature mentally, I would explain to her that everything we did was done out of love for her and to allow her to have the best experience of life possibe.

And if your scenario would develop and she decided she wanted to have kids, she could adopt. I can't have kids and if I really wanted to, I'd adopt. It's not the end of the world.

So, is that the answer to my question? What the parents have done that hurt Ashley is taken away any chance for her to bear children (in that impossible scenario that she should happen to somehow "overcome" her diagnosis)?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What specifically is wrong with what these parents did? What negative effect will this have on Ashley's life?

This is an excellent point you're making BH.

I can see benefits and drawbacks to both sides of this argument.

I could never put my child through any medical procedure which isn't absolutely necessary. I know how bad it hurts when you first wake up from surgery and what it feels like while you are recovering. I worry that Ashley can't communicate her pain level during this time and may suffer uneccesarily.

I also feel that this case might set a terrible precedent for what we are willing to do to those who have disabilities. Surgical alteration could easily become socially acceptable for people with disabilities. I am concerned as well that we don't know what the long term effects of Ashley's treatment might be. I can't call this anything but a science experiment.

However, Ashley's quality of life could be much better at home with her parents than it might be in a hospital-like facility. I toured many group homes, hospitals, etc during my sister's life. Professional caregivers can be wonderful, but they rarely love their patients as much as a parent loves a child. That emotional investment can make a difference. If Ashley's treatment makes it possible for her to stay in her own home longer and be cared for by her own family, then I feel it could be beneficial.

Also, we must to some degree, respect the rights of parents to make decisions for their own children. I have made some unpopular decisions for my son, but I have that right and I refuse to give it up. If someone can tell Ashley's parents how to care for their child, then it is only a matter of time until they start telling me how to care for mine.

I still stand behind my idea that euthanasia should be an option, but one thing is clear: there is no simple, easy way to deal with this situation and I can see valid points on both sides of this fence.

The more I think about this, the more I think these parents were selfish for what they did. Two people can easily handle one emaciated person. I think stunting her growth and natural development was solely for their own benefit. Keeping her "baby like" throughout her life makes it a lot easier for them not to become disgusted caring for her year after year.

I have a friend who's sister is also severely mentally disable. Her parents kept her up until she outgrew being little and babyish. This is the norm.

I won't dispute the fact a child is probably better off in the care of her family, but if this type of manipulation is advocated, will future patients be kept portable for the sake of their caregivers? What's next, colostomy bags so patients don't have to have the discomfort of wearing diapers and caregivers don't have to bother with the mess?

Yes, I still think if this type of action is advocated, it could open the door to all kinds of horrors.

Originally posted by dollmonster
The more I think about this, the more I think these parents were selfish for what they did. Two people can easily handle one emaciated person. I think stunting her growth and natural development was solely for their own benefit. Keeping her "baby like" throughout her life makes it a lot easier for them not to become disgusted caring for her year after year.

But you have clearly laid out the problem in itself. "Both" parents may not be home or present all of the time, which is going to leave the brunt of the responsibility on one of the parents. If the mother is not capable of moving a full grown child, then Ashley is going to be forced to remain in one position for the majority of the day. Bed sores will be sure to develop and leave the child in possible agony. The pain the sores themselves are going to inflict is hypothetical at best, but the sores themselves can be guaranteed. If both parents were going to be home all of the time, then I would agree with what you have to say. But the fact is, they need to assure that one parental guardian can care for this child as well as two can.

If you are completely bedridden, would you prefer to be 200 pounds or 75 pounds? Would you want sagging breasts to add to the discomfort? What of menstrual cramps?

Exactly how does Ashley's parents benefit from her not having menstrual cramps? How do they benefit from any of this? Making strides to donate the rest of your life to a cause, is selfish?

In my opinion, it is anything but.

Edit:

Has it been made clear that a board of Ethics actually examined this case before any of the surgeries were performed? The ethical content of this case had been thoroughly examined and they still decided to perform the surgeries.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by chissler]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
She will not be able to have kids of her own because her parents basically GAVE UP ON THAT FOR HER ... What then ??? IS all I am asking ... IN the circumstance ... that that was to happen what would you tell your kiDD !!

In that impossible circumstance, I would tell my kid that that we did what we thought was the very best thing for her. We have a 99.9999999999% chance that she will never develop. Why plan and act as if we're counting on the .0000000001% happening, when there are so many downsides to that?

Brandon, this child will never develop beyond 3 months old. If, by some miracle, by some minute chance that defies all odds, she should happen to break out of this disease and continue to mature mentally, I would explain to her that everything we did was done out of love for her and to allow her to have the best experience of life possibe.

And if your scenario would develop and she decided she wanted to have kids, she could adopt. I can't have kids and if I really wanted to, I'd adopt. It's not the end of the world.

So, is that the answer to my question? What the parents have done that hurt Ashley is taken away any chance for her to bear children (in that impossible scenario that she should happen to somehow "overcome" her diagnosis)?

YOu say that so easily ..." Yes, daughter I gave up on you .... "

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by dollmonster
The more I think about this, the more I think these parents were selfish for what they did. Two people can easily handle one emaciated person. I think stunting her growth and natural development was solely for their own benefit. Keeping her "baby like" throughout her life makes it a lot easier for them not to become disgusted caring for her year after year.

But you have clearly laid out the problem in itself. "Both" parents may not be home or present all of the time, which is going to leave the brunt of the responsibility on one of the parents. If the mother is not capable of moving a full grown child, then Ashley is going to be forced to remain in one position for the majority of the day. Bed sores will be sure to develop and leave the child in possible agony. The pain the sores themselves are going to inflict is hypothetical at best, but the sores themselves can be guaranteed. If both parents were going to be home all of the time, then I would agree with what you have to say. But the fact is, they need to assure that one parental guardian can care for this child as well as two can.

If you are completely bedridden, would you prefer to be 200 pounds or 75 pounds? Would you want sagging breasts to add to the discomfort? What of menstrual cramps?

Exactly how does Ashley's parents benefit from her not having menstrual cramps? How do they benefit from any of this? Making strides to donate the rest of your life to a cause, is selfish?

In my opinion, it is anything but.

Edit:

Has it been made clear that a board of Ethics actually examined this case before any of the surgeries were performed? The ethical content of this case had been thoroughly examined and they still decided to perform the surgeries.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by chissler]

The day we start using ETHICS that we have learned ... Through SCIENCE instead of ETHICS that were given to us by COMMON SENSE ... is the day we will take "In God we Trust" off our money and that is not to far away ..

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
The day we start using ETHICS that we have learned ... Through SCIENCE instead of ETHICS that were given to us by COMMON SENSE ... is the day we will take "In God we Trust" off our money and that is not to far away ..

Pardon my ignorance, but can you please translate exactly what you are trying to say?

What I have grasped is that we should not use our "ethics" in "scientific matters", even though by your own admition, it is "common sense". Is it just me or is this a complete contradiction.

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
YOu say that so easily ..." Yes, daughter I gave up on you .... "

You say that so dramatically.

I wouldn't have given up on my daughter. I would have forfeited her .00000001% chance of having a child in exchange for giving her a much richer experience of life. An easy decision from where I stand.

And I would gladly take the negative, holier-than-thou judgments of people like you who would stand outside the situation and judge me for the decisions I made for MY daughter out of pure love.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
The day we start using ETHICS that we have learned ... Through SCIENCE instead of ETHICS that were given to us by COMMON SENSE ... is the day we will take "In God we Trust" off our money and that is not to far away ..

Pardon my ignorance, but can you please translate exactly what you are trying to say?

What I have grasped is that we should not use our "ethics" in "scientific matters", even though by your own admition, it is "common sense". Is it just me or is this a complete contradiction.

What I am saying ... Is the way that "our" scientists these days Measure life ... Is in a way that we have learned how to measure it whether it be ... or What not ... and What is really going on is God has control of us ... and he says when we are going to die. And the god-given ability for us to learn and be able to take what knowledge he has given us and learn from that ... But we can only learn so much ... Then we start going off off THEORY ... and when that happens ... there is no good that comes from it ...SUCH AS Whenever we think we can figure out how the universe got here for example ... Anyways I think this thread is over with .... Thanks for the insights ... I have changed my views alittle at least towards the parents .. I don't feel they were just lazy and selfish as I did whenever I started posting in this thread.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Deus_Brandon
YOu say that so easily ..." Yes, daughter I gave up on you .... "

You say that so dramatically.

I wouldn't have given up on my daughter. I would have forfeited her .00000001% chance of having a child in exchange for giving her a much richer experience of life. An easy decision from where I stand.

And I would gladly take the negative, holier-than-thou judgments of people like you who would stand outside the situation and judge me for the decisions I made for MY daughter out of pure love.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

This I understand

They want to prevent cancer.. by pumping her full of hormones..? They want to prevent her going through the trauma and mess of menstuating.. by giving her post op pain to deal with? They want to prevent her being sexually abused.. by guarenteeing her rapist won't get her pregnant and thus caught? [makes me wonder what type of household they have] They want to prevent pain of having breasts.. by carving her breast buds out?
She'll outlive her parents and it's very possible that with stem cell research and other medical advances in 20-30 years they'll know enough to be able to repair some forms of brain damage. I think it would be horrible for her to be genuinely helped only to have her realise that her parents denied her the basic right of growing up. What type of life would that be to be a grown woman in a childs body? One day they might be able to fix her brain but I doubt they'd be able to reverse the damage these doctors have inflicted on her. What happened to their oath?

[edit on 20-1-2007 by riley]

All of which is your opinion. I would think that it would take more than your own opinion to come to any conclusions on another individual. Especially two people that have made the efforts that they have. They can not make decisions today based on what might be possible in ten, twenty, or thirty years. If their child continues to grow, they will not be able to provide the proper care. The mother can not maneuver Ashley if she weights much more than eighty pounds.

Having made the decision, or had they not, we can only speculate to the degree of suffering Ashley is enduring. Speculation is hardly enough to make any definitive conclusions.

Originally posted by chissler
All of which is your opinion.

Funny that.. it is a discussion board..

I would think that it would take more than your own opinion to come to any conclusions on another individual.

How about the opinion that all people, including the disabled, are entitled to basic human rights? She is her own individual. Where do people draw the line.. chopping the legs of paraplegics or only the paraplegics with low IQs? Chissler.. I'd like to know under what circumstances you think it's okay to deliberately [further] disable someone. How disabled do they have to be before it becomes morally okay?

Especially two people that have made the efforts that they have.

The 'effort' of maiming their daughter. I know many people who care for disabled relatives.. it's never occured to them to injure them further. Are you even going to address the other points I made? The post op pain. The pumping full of hormones? Imagine the outcry if this was done to a normal child. I can guarentee it would be called inhumane. How is this not inhumane?

They can not make decisions today based on what might be possible in ten, twenty, or thirty years.

In fact they did.. at least waiting doesn't permanently damage her. In regard to medical advances.. there is that much money being poured into stem cell research and into brain damage that it's a probabilty that many disabled people could be cured.
I doubt much money is being poured into reversing injury to growth.

If their child continues to grow, they will not be able to provide the proper care. The mother can not maneuver Ashley if she weights much more than eighty pounds.

They won't be there to give her proper care anyway.. they will eventually die and someone else will care for her so that argument only works if they intend to outlive her. They have changed her when they won't be the ones looking after her anyway. I know of no carers that would request their clients to be physically altered to make their job easier so the benefits of this only last for their lifetimes. Again.. she still has human rights and that includes growing up.

Having made the decision, or had they not, we can only speculate to the degree of suffering Ashley is enduring. Speculation is hardly enough to make any definitive conclusions.

They carved out her breast buds, her uterus, pumped her full of hormones and are making sure she stays the size of a child for the rest of her life. Theres no speculating here; only stating the obvious.

Originally posted by riley
Funny that.. it is a discussion board..

Where did I say you were not entitled to your opinion? But your clouding your opinion with facts.

Originally posted by riley
How about the opinion that all people, including the disabled, are entitled to basic human rights? She is her own individual. Where do people draw the line.. chopping the legs of paraplegics or only the paraplegics with low IQs? Chissler.. I'd like to know under what circumstances you think it's okay to deliberately [further] disable someone. How disabled do they have to be before it becomes morally okay?

You have no idea how much I agree with you. Believe me, you and I are in the same corner doing battle for one another. I am a firm believer in every individual having rights, hence my stance on capital punishment and my leniency on crime. But, with this scenario, some grayness has been injected. The parents are attempting to further their daughters life by taking the steps they have. They are not violating any rights because Ashley can not speak for herself. We can only accept the judgment of the parents, who would know what Ashley would want more than anyone.

Our difference of opinion comes from the fact that I do not see this as a violation of any rights. In fact, I see this as a solidification of Ashley's right to life.

Originally posted by riley
The 'effort' of maiming their daughter. I know many people who care for disabled relatives.. it's never occured to them to injure them further. Are you even going to address the other points I made? The post op pain. The pumping full of hormones? Imagine the outcry if this was done to a normal child. I can guarentee it would be called inhumane. How is this not inhumane?

Because Ashley is not a "normal" child. She can not function whatsoever. This post op pain, you can only speculate to the degree of suffering she is enduring. And yes, many people do care for disabled people. But are they 100% immobile? Ashley is dead weight, she can not support herself at all. Her mother can not properly care for her if she reaches a certain weight.

It is obvious that Ashley's parents can not properly care for her if she were to grow to a standard size. So they have two options. Send her off to "specialized care" where you can only hope that she receives the treatment she deserves. Opening the door for possible abuse, sexual assault, etc. Or, take a few steps to insure the proper care on behalf of the parents and provide an adequate level of care for the child.

It is a fact that Ashley is in better care with her parents rather than institutionalized.

Originally posted by riley
In fact they did.. at least waiting doesn't permanently damage her. In regard to medical advances.. there is that much money being poured into stem cell research and into brain damage that it's a probabilty that many disabled people could be cured.

But waiting would result in so many other problems. Ashley's mother would be incapable of physically moving her. She would be forced to remain in one position for most of the day, and severe bed sores would surely develop.

I don't mean to take a one sided approach here. I fully see where you are coming from, and I can only hope you see where I am coming from.

The parents had a very tough decision to make. No matter what they decided, there were some serious pros and cons to both scenarios. They weighed the facts and ultimately made a decision. As "one-sided" as I am appearing to be, I am merely trying to defend the parents and the decision they made.

Originally posted by riley
They won't be there to give her proper care anyway.. they will eventually die and someone else will care for her so that argument only works if they intend to outlive her.

Do you realize how absurd that actually sounds? They will eventually die? I mean, C'mon, they would live for another forty years. Who are we to say anything of the sort?

Originally posted by riley
They carved out her breast buds, her uterus, pumped her full of hormones and are making sure she stays the size of a child for the rest of her life. Theres no speculating here; only stating the obvious.

Terms like, "carved" are slightly dramatic.

You have your opinion, I have mine. The fact is, this was the parents right to make the decision. You are taking an approach to this situation that is overtly one-sided. You make it seem that this was an easy decision that the parents obviously messed up. When the truth is actually quite the opposite. This was a very tough ethical dilemma. And as any ethical question is, neither option had a perfect outcome.

I'm not prepared to fault someone for trying to make the best out of a bad situation. I think some of us should be more open-minded and respectful to the problems of others.

I don't think the parents have taken much "relief" from their decision.