Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Disabled girl artificially kept from growing up

Parents of a severely disabled girl in the US have revealed that they are keeping her child-sized in order to give her a better life.
The nine-year-old, named Ashley, has the mental ability of a three-month-old baby and cannot walk or talk.

Along with hormone doses to limit her growth, Ashley's parents also opted for surgery to block breast growth and had her uterus and appendix removed.

They say the treatment will help to improve her quality of life.

Ashley's parents, Seattle residents who have not given their names, went public over their daughter's treatment in a blog launched on 1 January.

Their decision came after information about Ashley's case was published in a US medical journal last year, triggering considerable debate and criticism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6229799.stm


If the girl will never be in any pain or discomfort as a result of this, perhaps the parents are doing the right thing. I don't know really... This is a tough situation and one of those cases when sitting on the fence becomes a very attractive prospect.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1345

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the brain condition is set and there is no hope of it improving then I can see why this would be better for both the kid and the parents. An adult with the brain of a 6 month old is going to be difficult to care for.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thats just weird.
    I cant quite believe that they would just perform hysterectomy and breast removal for such ridiculous reasons. Keeping her childlike forever just to make it more convenient for the carers. Those operations shouldnt have been authorised, but hey, if you can pay for it in the states, I guess theyll do anything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I honestly don't think it has anything to do with convenience, and I think its very unfair to claim that it is.

    The girl has the mind of a three-month-old baby, she isn't going to get better, and I think that having someone like that growing into a full adult, with all the physical problems that causes, isn't a good idea if it can be avoided.

    She is a little baby, she will always be a little baby, so I really don't see the problem with preventing menstruation and breast growth.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    do you think maybe they should give hysterectomys and breast removals to all severely disabled people in care homes too?
    Maybe they could give her a colostomy too so they dont have to wipe her arse?
    I think its just because its icky to clean up an adult compared to a child, but that doesnt mean she should be unnecessaerly operated on.
    I dont see how having breast removal before theyve even deeloped will make her more comfortable lying down either, unless theyre planning on never turning her?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    do you think maybe they should give hysterectomys and breast removals to all severely disabled people in care homes too?

    If the severely disabled people have the mental capacity of a newborn baby then yes, I really don't see the issue with doing it.

    I don't think it has anything to do with it being "icky"- wiping her arse every day is far more icky than a bit of menstruation- and everything to do with the comfort of the girl. She is to all intents and purposes a newborn child, and I honestly think that the pain of menstruation and general adulthood would be very distressing to her, and a hysterectomy doesn't matter to the girl. She doesn't have enough cognitive awareness to notice, let alone care.

    The mental capabilities of the child make it a special case IMHO.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Periods are horrible, so if I were never ever ever ever going to have kids I'd have a hysterectomy now. So it follows that because it's completely inappropriate for this girl to ever have children, she should undergo surgery. More to the point "never turn" so she'd be in discomfort from lying on her boobs 50% of the time, or never really be in that kind of discomfort.

    Also apparently it'll reduce her weight by 40% meaning her dad can carry on lifting her instead of using a mechanical weight.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6229799.stm


    If the girl will never be in any pain or discomfort as a result of this, perhaps the parents are doing the right thing. I don't know really... This is a tough situation and one of those cases when sitting on the fence becomes a very attractive prospect.
    I agree.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    She is a little baby, she will always be a little baby, so I really don't see the problem with preventing menstruation and breast growth.

    I agree. I don't see the logic in letting nature take its course here, because if nature had truly been allowed to take its course from the outset she'd probably have died long ago. I think the main point is that they want to keep her small enough for her dad to carry her around, and if you think about what 3 month old babies like, being carried by their parents is one of their few pleasures... so if you think about it that way, it would be more cruel to deprive her of that by letting her grow into an adult. Not many disabled people have the brain of such a small child, so this is a specialised case, of course it shouldn't be practised as a matter of course or anything.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How would they know whether she was going to have real trouble with her periods tbh. I dont have any trouble with mine, why make it so they never start? If shes that much of a bloody inconvenience, maybe they should bring back euthanasia rather than this.
    Tbh, if they had given her a hysterectomy only for the periods reason, id be less shocked than the fact they also dont want her to grow breasts, which just screams to me that they cant handle looking after the intimate needs of someone who looks like an adult, and to keep her 40% lighter to reduce needs for mechanical hoists!!!!!!!!!!!!! fucking hell. Bonsai people now?
    I mean really they could remove her arms and legs, she really wouldnt know the difference and shes never gonna need them, but THATS different because its something you can see rather than internal organs.
    She might have only the mental capacity of a baby, but shes still human and hasnt done anything to warrant someone giving her a general anaesthetic and removing anything that might make her grow sexual characteristics under the false pretence it is in her best interests
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So why do you think that they've done it then? Because they're lazy? :rolleyes:

    Interestingly enough, though, they can't afford the care bills of an adult and the state won't pay for them. Maybe that played a part; personally I accept their reasoning, as stated on their blog, that letting her become an adult will be the worst thing for her for many reasons. If she can't be held because she's too heavy, if she suffers pain from menstruation, that all contributes more to her well-being than some misguided notion that she should be left as she is "because she's human".

    She isn't an adult, she can't be an adult, she can't reproduce with consent, so I really don't see the issue. It looks a lot worse than it is, but its an exceptional case and sometimes one bad course is better than the others.

    I don't think letting this child grow into a full adult is in anyone's best interests.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    keep her 40% lighter to reduce needs for mechanical hoists!!!!!!!!!!!!! fucking hell. Bonsai people now?

    What is going to be more comforting for whats basically a six month old baby, a mechanical hoist or the arms of her parents?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why the appendix aswell?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What are you on about SCC?

    The treatment will improve her quality of life, in my books quality of life is much more important than how she lives it. The girl is gonna be in a child-like state for the rest of her life, do you really think she's gonna have the conscience to think "why don't I have periods or breasts?" Wise up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote:
    Why the appendix aswell?
    I guess once they're going in, if they're 'passing by' the appendix it makes sense to remove it now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can totally see where her parents are coming from and I agree with them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm with you 100% SCC, as unpopular as the opinion probably is in these days of super-speed and completely inconsequential surgery I definitely hold the same view.

    I have a cousin who is of a similar mental and physical capacity to this child, if not even younger/less developed. She has the body of an adult, and I find any alternative to allowing the body to develop naturally to be unimaginable and very distressing. Of course she will never utilise her reproductive organs and her periods will have no "use" but this does not mean that they should not develop as nature intends. It is worth mentioning that she may not even get her period, and even so I think unnecessary butchery to prevent them is extreme and disturbing.

    It really really sticks in my craw that the issue of lifting and moving her is a factor in this. My aunt and uncle have to use a mechanical hoist occasionally but mostly she can still be lifted by her parents in her "adult" state as they are still young and vital enough. If - fate permitting - she survives to an age where she her parents cannot lift and move her easily then they will use the hoist. I see no problem with that, it is standard practise in hospitals, care homes and the familial homes of carers and I personally am yet to meet a handicapped person (either mentally, physically or both) who has rejected the practise or been caused any harm [in any sense] by it. I have to say I find it very upsetting that anyone would essentially twist things around to somehow suggest that people who don't keep their disabled child in a physical state of suspended childhood are somehow depriving their child of the comfort of their parents' arms or similar.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also on that link it says that part of the reason for removing her uterus was so that she couldn't become pregnant if sexually abused, and (this was in the Times paper that I glanced at while at work) removing her breasts was to prevent her being sexually abused. I don't have a link for that bit, sorry.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My school is right next to a school for kids with severe disabilities, and we share our 6th form center with the older ones. Some of them are very much like her, can't walk, talk, or really communicate at all. They get taken to and from school every day, and seem to do just fine. There are millions of people that look after people like that, and they can cope. So i don't see what's stopping them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mental age of a baby these kids that come to your centre are they?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    in all regards she should be dead by now, she's fed through a intergastro tube....

    personally if i was one of her parents i'd stop keeping her alive, but in all fairness this si their choice, and if they feel comfortable with what they've done, i wish them the best the luck
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tbh, as horrible as it is... and despite how much I understand where those who say it's not necessary are coming from.... I side with the parents.

    The young girl has the mental age of a three month old. She has no idea she's supposed to get periods and breasts in a couple of years, and never will. She cannot move for herself, so will need her parents, and mechanical methods will only work so far.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Periods are horrible, so if I were never ever ever ever going to have kids I'd have a hysterectomy now. So it follows that because it's completely inappropriate for this girl to ever have children, she should undergo surgery.

    Agreed.
    Also apparently it'll reduce her weight by 40% meaning her dad can carry on lifting her instead of using a mechanical weight.

    This makes sense I guess. In one way it could be seen as convient for the parents and in one way, it could be easier for her, not having to deal with period pains.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's all well and good making life as easy and stress-free as possible for carers, anything that can be done in terms of helping them to care for their child should be done without a moment's hesitation. But I [and before reading this thread I thought anyone] would draw the line at pencilling your child in for several operations of serious consequence so they are easier to pick up, and I think it is utter bullshit the way the parents, doctors etc concerned are talking about mechanical lifts being "impersonal" and awful as if they aren't used with great success by millions of people who have no problem with it.

    It truly is the ultimate in convenience culture... in fact I wonder why I am at all surprised. Actually putting your child through serious, invasive surgery so she can "still go on family trips" does not compute with me. Reading about the removal of her nipple buds was just too much. I think it fucking stinks, and of course have to wonder where exactly this will end. The disability activism spokesperson I heard before is right, it is a Pandora's Box situation.

    Oh, and just out of interest, do the majority of women really consider periods to be such a horrible affliction. I'm surprised (and not being facaetious). This isn't particularly in reference to Ashley as obviously her experience of it would be different to that of an emotionally mature woman, but I am very surprised to hear all this talk of periods being something so utterly horrendous and unwanted. I've never felt like that, well maybe at a very young age... but not so now... even when I have had awful pains and cramps or whatever.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They call her 'Pillow Angel'??

    The operation also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said.
    Seems a bit of a strange prediction?
    The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse,
    Not having breasts isn't going to protect her from sexual abuse and I don't mean to sound disrespectful but aren't there plenty of flat chested women in the world? Not to mention paedophiles.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    Mental age of a baby these kids that come to your centre are they?
    I never said they were exactly the same, but there are ones that have very similar problems. I could understand removing her womb, but that is really intensive surgery. Would tying her tubes do the same thing? I don't see the point of giving her hormones to stop her growing and removing her breasts though. :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dont understand why there stopping her breasts developing. I can see how if she has large breats then lying on her front might be uncomfortable, but they dont know if she will or not so why not just leave it. Also I dont know how they did the operation, but wouldnt she have a wound from it that will then be a scar, which is going to cause discomfort. I dont understnad why there saying that there stopping her breasts growing to stop sexual abuse because some twisted people abuse children whos breasts havent developed, and also if she needs constant care then when will she be in a situation where she could be abused, asuming her parents wouldnt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Magic.Emma wrote:
    and also if she needs constant care then when will she be in a situation where she could be abused, asuming her parents wouldnt.
    that's what i thought, they're probably just being over dramatic and paranoid
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well no, the abuse of seriously disabled people is definitely an issue to - and worry for - their carers. They have no way of communicating anything that may happen to them either at the hands of a family member or during any respite care they may have. What is actually the problem is the fact that they think they feel they are removing this risk by removing her sexual organs. I wonder if they had her circumcised, surely that is necessary too if it is believed she should be living life in freeze frame as a child and not experiencing anything of adulthood (even if just physically).

    There are so many excuses/reasons being shot out by the family and doctors that I feel it makes the entire thing lose any credibility it may have initially had - medically or otherwise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    What is actually the problem is the fact that they think they feel they are removing this risk by removing her sexual organs.

    No, they are removing the risk of her getting pregnant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Riight. So that would explain away the hysterectomy. Oh, but I thought that was in order to remove the supposedly traumatic and life-destroying fact that she will get a period. I'm confused now, what with all these "explanations".

    So the removal of her breast tissue is for what purpose exactly? Heaven forbid a disabled dependent female grows a pair of tits, we'll none of us be able to control our predatory urges!

    Vasectomies for males in similar situations then? Don't want to risk their getting someone up the spout, that'd never do.
Sign In or Register to comment.