Aspies For Freedom

Ugh. I guess it's okay to turn kids into port-a-babies when they can't defend themselves.

article

Specifically, she will end up what she would have ended up anyway--totally under her parents' control.  Generally, she is one more precedent that proves to society that authority can get away with these kinds of acts; that defenseless children can be tailored.  Sadly, this is unsurprising.

No, she's profoundly *** though... The article says she has the mental ability of a baby, so that means she has emotions, she has the usual five senses, and she can probably feel her parents' love or sadness the way a baby can. Chances are she recognizes her parents and maybe even her own name; she almost certainly feels comforted by soothing touch and sound.

So that would be a conscious (if limited) existence, not a vegetative state.

I don't know what I think about this... it is definitely unnecessary surgery; but beyond the pain involved in the surgery itself, it isn't detrimental to her health. Not going through puberty isn't going to affect her negatively; and being short isn't going to affect her negatively, either. (Actually, being female myself, I think she's lucky not to have to have menstrual cramps.)

I think perhaps in this situation, with someone who needs constant care as this girl does, it may be worthwhile to make it possible for her parents to be able to lift and move her around, rather than having to put her into an institution for that purpose... A 200-pound adult, which she may become without the surgery, would be harder to take care of. (I used to read my mom's occupational therapy journals... there are a lot of articles on lifting and moving patients, and injuries you can get if you don't do it right.)

I think this surgery on this particular girl is in a moral gray area, something the girl's parents had a right to make a choice on. What worries me is that the same sort of procedure might, now that there's a precedent, be used on children who are not so disabled, children who may need one day to defend themselves. Ashley, who is bedridden acording to the article, is already defenseless--but some disabled children are not; and if they were made smaller, they would also be made more vulnerable.

I should note first that this is not a personal attack; but that I do very strongly disagree with your opinion.

I certainly hope you are either not serious about this, or haven't thought about it deeply... This girl might be handicapped and developmentally delayed; but she's just as capable of happiness as the rest of us. She isn't in pain; she has parents who love her... and you are saying she should have been denied the tube-feeding she needs to live, when she was born? This is murder... Her handicaps are not life-threatening and do not affect her quality of life. Just having a very low IQ and physical disabilities does not doom this child to an unhappy, worthless life.

If she were LFA with spina bifida resulting in quadriplegia... Would you have said the same, that this child's life is not worth living?

You know, in a case this extreme then maybe it is in the family's best interests. From what I can tell, the girl will have a better quality of life not having menstrual cramps and such, and I think she will probably be more comfortable with parents moving her than outside carers anyway.

I'm just wondering how much longer this girl will live for? A normal life span?

I'm a pro-choice guy. It's not about what "should" have been done. It's about what the parents chose.
And while I don't think anyone likes abortion, it would be a lot more cruel for the state and/or moral majority to force a woman to give birth to a child when she doesn't feel she can deal with it.
I know I wouldn't like to have that done to me.

The argument is that it benefits her because it allows Ashley to be cared for by her parents rather than professionals, because her parents can lift and move her if she stays smaller.

Ashley's life expectancy is probably not as long as most people's, because she is prone to problems caused by having to be fed via a tube and not having the benefits of physical exercise. How much shorter, I can't tell from the information given.

Honestly, I wouldn't have minded not having breasts or a uterus myself... being short isn't a problem for anyone, handicapped or not; and she won't be tiny--just somewhere between 4 and 5 feet, barely into "dwarf" category. I have a friend who's 4'8" tall, an adult, and has no problems from being short.

Like I said before... it's a gray area, one I'm not sure of. It's neither a horrible travesty nor something wonderful.

Yeah, I don't understand why they removed her breasts... the uterus made sense; but breasts only add 1-2 lb. extra, and don't do anything else unless you're nursing a baby.

You have to remember that these are NT parents; and they're going to be hugely motivated by emotional things like "cuteness". With a child with the mental abilities of a baby, why not interact with her at her mental instead of physical level? That seems to be the effect that Ashley's "cuteness" has on her parents, anyway. The only danger I see in it is that if Ashley's development begins to progress, they may still treat her as less capable than she is... for example, if she learns a few words, they may feel subconsciously threatened by her new abilities, while outwardly (and consciously) they're proud of her. It's kind of a weird version of the way parents feel when their children become teenagers and start to distance themselves, becoming less dependent; and in response the parents put more restrictions on them, treat them as younger than they are... The usual conflict of the teen years could occur with Ashley, despite the lack of puberty!

I can't see why this girl had to be operated on. She's already being watched all the time so is hardly likely to be sexually assaulted. I think this is definitely wrong. If she is bedridden, it is possible to construct a sling to put over the bed to help with moving her.

Easy enough to rule out that possibility... Check for purposeful movement. Eyes, head, etc.... the closer to the central nervous system, the more likely she's going to be able to control those things. She's not completely paralyzed, so it should be possible to find out whether she can control her body to enough of an extent to allow communication.

Are your responding to chamoisee's post or to the original topic. "this" is a little unclear.  

In response to the people that scorn these parents I would ask people to not make such snap judgements. You tried, sentenced and executed these without even seeing their faces. I worry that due to some of our experiences  with some parents, we have become a bit prejudiced against them.

My first reaction to this was outrage too. But when I began to read the parents account it began to see their reasoning.  If this is go to make it easier to move this girl around more often, then that is better for her health, physical and mental. If you have experience or training with care for people who are bed ridden for long periods of time you would know that laying down for such long time can have health risks.

I don't know if this justifies this extreme measure or not, but I definitely don't think that it was done to keep her "Cute".  Although I know there are parents out there that would unfortunately.

One thing that bothers me is the possibility that this might be used for Autisitics as a way to manage behaviours. I disagree with that strongly. We must remain vigilant for when this will happen(As I am sure it will).

Last night, I read this news article on a website I go to sometimes. Among other things it said this little girl was to be kept small by feeding her massive doses of hormones. That alone is very unsettling. Years ago, hormones were given to tall girls to make them stop growing and many ended up with uterine and ovarian cancers and problems falling pregnant or maintaining pregnancies.

I would imagine all Ashley's reproductive organs were removed because of the dangers of hormonal treatment. Giving such high doses often leads to nausea and high blood pressure and while the blood pressure could be tested, I don't know how this little girl could communicate if any other bad side effects were happening.

It is a shame that such invasive treatment was used to keep this little girl small. I can see that her parents wouldn have wanted to keep her little so she'd be easier to look after but I still don't agree with the means that were used to do it.

The fact that it has happened even once is a matter of grave concern.

Can you give me an example?

Well, don't know how this kind of mental retardation, but , for example, Down's Syndrome doesn't always lead to MR. There are several recorded people with the Down's who successfully graduated university (Pablo Pineda is a name coming to my mind first). So, as bad as the prognosis for a child can be, it doesn't mean it really will grow disabled.