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.
Options
Disabled girl artificially kept from growing up
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6229799.stmParents 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.
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.
0
Comments
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.
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.
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?
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.
Also apparently it'll reduce her weight by 40% meaning her dad can carry on lifting her instead of using a mechanical weight.
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.
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
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.
What is going to be more comforting for whats basically a six month old baby, a mechanical hoist or the arms of her parents?
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.
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.
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
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.
Agreed.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
No, they are removing the risk of her getting pregnant.
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.