I don't really see the problem with this, in this particular situation. Profound MR, a bedridden child, and a procedure that is basically physical change... Being short and not having periods are not going to hurt this child, and will probably help her. I can see this sort of thing being done for other bedridden kids, and I don't think it's a bad idea.
What the people who oppose this are worried about is that this may be done to kids with less severe disabilities... A child with a mental age of five years instead of five months; a child with quadriplegia; a child who is deeply autistic...
I don't really hold with that sort of "slippery slope" argument, though. It doesn't make sense to prevent things that will help people, because they might give folk ideas about things that will hurt people. They will get those ideas no matter what you do.
Wait, where did it say that the estrogen treatments would cause cancer? They removed the breasts because of a family history of breast cancer that would've affected her no matter what...
Anyone who supports this, i'd like to ask:
How would you feel about having it done to YOU when you were a child?
Yes. Good point, Gareth. I truly think it is disgusting that somebody would do this to a child.
Anyone who supports this, i'd like to ask:
How would you feel about having it done to YOU when you were a child?
I'd be incredibly disturbed by it, and I'd probably end up dead by now from the creepeh surgery. I'd also get ridiculed at school, and I'd probably also be an orphan for.....guess.
But meh, Ashley doesn't sound as psycho as me. I also didn't suport doing that surgery, since, well, the pedo-ish bits about the "pillow angel" creep me out, as can be seen a bit in a picture of mine relating to the article, called "Pillow Angel?".
Anyone who supports this, i'd like to ask:
How would you feel about having it done to YOU when you were a child?
I'd be incredibly disturbed by it, and I'd probably end up dead by now from the creepeh surgery. I'd also get ridiculed at school, and I'd probably also be an orphan for.....guess.
But meh, Ashley doesn't sound as psycho as me, I never hd any of that type of surgery done to me, and my parents also aren't pedo-ish NT surgery-lovin' freaks. I also didn't suport doing that surgery, since, well, the pedo-ish bits about the "pillow angel" creep me out, as can be seen a bit in a picture of mine relating to the article, called "Pillow Angel?".
I find it disturbing that this "intervention" seems more about reducing the costs and difficulties of care, then anything else.
A person no matter what their future prospects are, should be treated as a person, not some compacted unit to be moved around.
There isn't even any good evidence to indicate that this does improve quality of life:
""There really is no solid evidence to suggest what the right thing to do is, or to confirm that it has had the desired outcome," says Robert Sade of the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston."
Forever young: Operating in whose interest? 13 January 2007, New Scientist
"Still, there is a yawning gap in the decision-making process. We do not know if bedridden people with profound mental impairment who are short and light live happier lives than their taller, heavier peers."
Editorial: Keeping a patient forever young, 13 January 2007, New Scientist
I saw this article on the net a little while ago, in a crime site believe it or not. The little girl was very cute and had a lovely smile. She was in a kind of pusher chair with foam pads to hold her chin up.
If I had a child like this, I wouldn't want to leave her in bed all the time. She would be sitting on my lap quite a bit of the time.
I also thought that hoists were available to lift bedridden people. There are lots of these people who are heavy and large.
But the main thing that worries me is the bad precedent it will set.
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!
I think it would be OK for a profoundly disabled, bedridden child being cared for at home. There are probably fewer than a thousand such children in the US; but the benefits outweigh the risks. Bedsores and atrophy are real dangers for the bedridden--in fact, they can cause death.
For anyone who is capable of moving around on his/her own, or has the potential to do so, it would be abuse. But... I can see the point for children like Ashley.
Re. Ashely remaining a "permanent child": The actual point of the hormones was to hasten puberty, not to keep it from occurring, resulting in a very short adult. Removal of breasts and sex organs results in a childlike appearance.
"Misguided paranoia"? - refer again to what Gareth said - "would you like it done to you"?
Oh, and I meant to add - if anybody is being paranoid about all of this it isn't me.
If you can't see what's unethical or inappropriate then you can't have been reading all of the other pages. 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 retarded. I can't see why she should get bedsores if she is on a waterbed or a lambskin pad.
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.