Anyone who supports this, i'd like to ask:
How would you feel about having it done to YOU when you were a child?
Well, I think my parents would have a BIG enemy in their own family...
In my opinion, stuff like that is a violation of human rights e.g. human dignity. This human being will never be able to do things that normal people can do EVEN IF she might not want to do 'em.
But think about it... Similar reasons could be used for manipulating other groups of human beings because they are diseased...
and soon people will talk about PND and stuff like that... It's all the same talk, isn't it? I don't like the thought of methods like these becoming normal for diseased human beings.
Another thing is, imagine the outcry if instead of a little girl, this child was a little boy and was castrated and fed female hormones so he would not go through adolescence and grow big!
That's just what I wanted to say. Imagine the little girl was... aspie/autie and was treated like this because "she will never be able to have social contacts or sexual actions..." (OK, these are prejudices, but if some people think like this, it would be possible). I HOPE THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN but the idea of manipulating people who are diseased just to save money already exists... as you can see. We have to think about what such happenings can cause... you know, billions of people out there think we're all diseased, weird and crazy.
I don't like the thought of this becoming normal... as I said.
Eric
I wish more of these people who complain about what others do would be willing to volunteer to take care of this little girl. I mean if you're so concerned about her welfare, why don't you put some bucks out there rather than the taxpayers. You can lift her to change her when she is older, buy the equipment she needs out of YOUR money. I have worked with high school students with severe-profound disabilities. I think too many of us think these students are so cute when they are younger, but when they have the mentality of a 6month old in an almost adult body it's not cute anymore. It's very tiresome, physically exhausting and most of the people who complain about their welfare have NEVER even worked with this population. Before people are quick to judge about what is right and what is wrong, be quick to foot the bill if you want everything to be "normal!" I got out of that field of special education because it was very depressing and very physically draining. It's not for me, but I have to give kudos to the teachers who have more understanding of this population.
AspieTeacher
They did what they had to do. That's all I can say, I don't want to judge them because I wasn't in their situation and I didn't have to make that decision, nor can I understand what if must have been like for them.
Anyone who supports this, i'd like to ask:
How would you feel about having it done to YOU when you were a child?
If I had the mental functioning of a three-month-old, as Ashley does, I wouldn't have had any feelings about it. This girl is so profoundly brain-damaged she cannot even keep her head up or roll herself over in bed, so I doubt that reproducing or physical appearance are high on her list of priorities. In fact, according to the site:
There was one legal issue that we needed to investigate related to “sterilization” of a disabled person. Upon consultation with a lawyer specializing in disability law, we found out that the law does not apply to Ashley’s case due to the severity of her disability, which makes voluntary reproduction impossible. The law is intended to protect women with mild disability who might chose to become pregnant at some future point, and should have the right to do so. Furthermore, “sterilization” is a side effect of the “Ashley Treatment” and not its intent.
I think what her parents did is a good idea. The fact is, this is an extremely mentally handicapped girl we are talking about - imagine having a full-grown, 130 lb baby, who you have to constantly have to move, change, clean etc, almost all day, every day.
Ashley's family aren't trying to make things "easier" - making things easy would be sending her to a home and letting strangers deal with their child. Instead, they want to be the ones to take care of her for as long as they can, rather than having to put her in a home when they're too old and physically weak to look after her. What's more, Ashley's parents have other children who need attention and parenting, too.
As for removing her mammary glands (not her breasts - remember, they hadn't developed yet) and uterus - as someone's already pointed out, her family has a history of breast cancer. Furthermore, the pain and discomfort of menstrual cramps, periods and large breasts (according to the site, it's a genetic trait in her family; an aunt had a breast reduction at 19) would be plain distressing for someone with the mental development of a 3-month-old. Babies that old cry and fuss enough as it is if they're even slightly uncomfortable - how could they possibly rationalise period pain for several days on end, every month, or cope with the discomfort of large breasts when lying down?
Ashley's disability is very extreme and the treatment makes perfect sense for children who are that profoundly handicapped; she can only benefit from it. She certainly won't suffer as a result, so I don't see what the problem could be - except perhaps for some people's misguided paranoia.
"Misguided paranoia"? - refer again to what Gareth said - "would you like it done to you"?
I already answered that.
That's fine but obviously some people are outraged and they have a right to their opinions too. It's a hard situation but I fear the kind of precedent it might have set.
I'm sure it hasn't set any sort of sinister precedent. Ashley's condition is so extreme, plus that's what hospital ethics comittees and the law (such as laws against forced sterilisation) are for. 
But six month old babies can hold up their heads by themselves and roll themselves over. She seems to have the physical development of a newborn baby but the intelligence and emotional development of a somewhat older baby.
I've never doubted that her condition is "extreme" but just question if the "solution" was entirely ethical or appropriate. I can see why the parents want her to be easily cared for in case they die and somebody else is called upon to look after her. It's just a shame that it had to come to the point where she had such invasive treatment to make her stay small.
Physically, she is perfectly fine. Mentally, she has the development of a three-month-old (not six).
What's unethical or inappropriate about it?
If you can't see what's unethical or inappropriate then you can't have been reading all of the other pages.
Yes, I have been (also on other forums, too). Enlighten me.
Most babies can hold up their head by about 6-7 weeks of age so if she can't do that, she is very physically ***. I can't see why she should get bedsores if she is on a waterbed or a lambskin pad.
Yes - but most babies her mental age are lying down, not sitting in a wheelchair.
As for the bedsores... *shrug* I have no idea, but I'm sure the doctors would've pointed that out if it were so.
Who says that she doen't understand what's been done to her? I believe in intelligence - even of the newborn babies. They just can't show it.
Do you remember understanding anything at three months of age?