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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
A hysterectomy - and the obliteration of anything that would have made her into the woman she'd have grown into naturally - is not essential. Nothing I have read or heard has convinced me otherwise, it is an issue of convenience. I don't doubt that they love their child and have provided her with excellent loving care, but it doesn't change the fact that I think it is a bad decision on their part and absolutely on the part of the doctors involved.
This is all within the confines of one case, too, it is even more terrifying to think what this could mean for thousands of others born with myriad disabilities. This is not a step in the right direction.
It would've been lovely and convenient if she'd just stayed all portable and baby-sized eh. But unfortunately that is not the nature of growth, even for someone who isn't developing as normal mentally.
Can't you see that this isn't about convienience?
It is about convenience. Whether you consider the main convenience to be to the child or the parents is the issue.
She WAS growing naturally, and the bare bones are that they have stunted her natural, physical growth in order to make life easier... for them... for her... for someone. That fact isn't easy to swallow when you think of what it could mean for thousands of others. Sure, maybe not in this country, but most definitely in the US where you can get whatever you can damn well pay for.
With all due respect, it means fuck all for other disabled people. This is such an unusual case I don't think it means anything for others, and it certainly opens no floodgates.
It's all well and good to have principles- let her grow naturally- but sometimes that isn't best for either the person or their carers. In this case it isn't in the carer's interests or in the child's interests. And "natural" seems to have such a strange definition- forcing plastic tubing down her throat is "natural", but having a hysterectomy for her comfort is not "natural". Maybe my mother's unnatural too, for having a hysterectomy to combat her endometriosis? It wouldn't kill her, after all.
I understand the view that humans should be allowed to grow naturally, but in some cases I don't think that is best for the person. This is one of those cases, IMHO.
I think that claiming its all about convenience is utterly wrong, and grossly unfair on the parents. If it was all about the convenience of the parents she'd have had her feeding tube removed a long long time ago.
Then you'll be aware that it is a serious surgical procedure :thumb:
To be honest, I'm not sure why you think this is such an hugely unusual case. There are many, many people who are born with the same disabilities as Ashley, and worse. Once you start stunting the growth of one person whose mental growth won't match their physical growth then you are on a slippery slope. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is an isolated case and that it won't have ramifications for other disabled people, already alive or yet to be born.
As for removing her feeding tube, well surely that would be some complex legal issue (though once again, that is essential to her continued life where a hysterectomy is not). I personally am more interested in the ethics of the case.
If the facts had been any different I wouldn't advocate it, and if the facts had been any different I doubt approval would have been given. I think its a one-off where the usual rules don't apply.
So surely the issue then is to make sure that the care is available, rather than to perform surgery?
Perhaps they cant afford the care, it is the US after all. But then I'm guessing this surgery wasnt exactly free.
That's exactly the point though- her carers have cared for her for ten years now, so to condemn them as lazy and self-centred is utterly wrong. If they were so self-centred and bone-idle they wouldn't have cared for her.
Regardless of the merits of the surgery, I think they were doing what they felt best, and I doubt the idea was plucked out of thin air. It may not be right (though I think it is), but it being wrong doesn't mean that it was done through laziness or self-interest. Those who say its been done cynically for their convenience are showing a shocking lack of understanding.
It means a huge amount because people like you are effectively saying that someone with a disability shouldn't be allowed to mature in the same was as anyone else.
Integration, inclusion and treating them like another human being is pretty important, wouldn't you say?
There is nothing in anything I have read which suggest that this treatment offers the child any benefits. It's all been about the parents ability to care for her.
In both of those examples you are talking about treatment, that is a huge difference to what has happened in this case.
Not so, that would be murder/manslaughter. Death is a huge step to take, you are talking about euthansia there.
The parents have decided to look after her themselves, partly because the cost of nursing care is so high but also because the state is fucking useless out there. So that they can do this they have had her operated on. Fine the hysterectomy may save her from "suffering" peroid (thus suggesting that this isn't a natural part of life but is an ailment which all women suffer from), but removing her breasts/appendix and giving her hormone treatment so that they can lift her?
Why not remove old peoples limbs so that they are lighter when we care for them at home?
Ashlee is a human being, she should be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone else. So what if she has the mental age of 9 weeks?
Which is kind of my point.
For me this is a deep failure on many levels and that is just one of them. Sure the NHS isn't great but I am currently paying £250k per year for a child to be cared for...
That's the point though, technically she isn't really a human, horrid as it sounds but she has no cognitive thought. It's easy for us to look at her and say "she should be this" and "they shouldn't do that," it's not as if poor Ashlee will ever hear your opinions. The parents obviously think that this will improve the quality of her life and make it more convienent to care for her. So what, what's the big deal?
Of course she fucking well is. Cognitive thought isn't what makes us human FFS.
Jeez. I thought we have moved on from that kind of thinking a century ago.
Ah fuck up you know what I mean. I don't mean she's not human as in she's not a person, she's just not human as she's in a state of condition very very few people in the world are in.
So what difference do that make?
The mark of a socity is how well we care for people like that, not how much of their body we can cut off/out.
Kermit asked why this case was seen as relevant to disabled people generally. Your comments show why. Disabled people just have different potential and abilities to others and there is a huge number of people who have some form of disability - whether that is mental health or something physical (and I include a long term condition like diabetes, herat disease and respiratory disease in there). In the main we try to treat these people to aleviate their symptoms or we care for them when this is not possible.
This case is exactly the same, of at least should be.
Put the care in place because the next step from this is accepting euthansia because well we're not talking about "real people" here...
I think nature has already decided that, to be completely honest.
If there is no benefit to the operation then that is a different matter, but in the opinion of her carers and her doctors there is enough benefit to the operation to undertake it. Chopping old ladies limbs off is completely different, as you well know, and not just because they have the cognitive awareness to know what is happening.
I don't think its unfair to say that someone with the mental abilities of a nine-week-old baby is not in a position to cope mentally with the extra physical problems that adulthood brings. I don't think that menstruation is an affliction but I'm reliably told that it is painful and uncomfortable- painful and uncomfortable enough to use pills and coils to avoid it.
Would you complain if the parents had put a Mirena coil inside her? That's invasive, that's painful, that's not "natural".
With all respect, I would trust the opinion of her parents and doctors far more than the opinion of people who read about it second and third-hand on a website somewhere.
I understand the arguments about nature, and normally would agree with them, but some cases are so exceptional that the rules don't apply. This is one such case.
YOU are ?
Which is the way it should be really...
There's the rub though. I haven't seen anything which talks about the benefit to her, just her parent ability to cope with her. Which is why I mentioned the limbs bit (an extreme I know)...
It can be and many women have hysterectomy to assist. That is after the fact though.
You see, I don't. We had the case in this country where the parents went to court to keep their child alive, only to walk away from her later and doctors (though I'm loathed to admit it) don't always have the patient's interestst at heart but can be more concenred about how "interesting" the case is. Witness the press conference with the doctor involved in this case - it was more about the "case" than the person involved. Some doctors have a habit for forgetting that attached to every interesting medical condition is a human being.
So, would you be happy for this to be done on the NHS?
Yes.
Didn't say I was spending my own money
Exactly, and if the parents believe (backed with doctor/medical consent) that cutting out organs/postponing growth will be the best way to care for the child then so be it. Until you have a child with static encephalopathy I don't think you are in a position to judge.
Doesn`t that mentality go with the job ?
Mostly beneficial I would have thought :chin:
... becuas ethey couldn't afford assistance and none was provided by the state. had those been available then they would not have taken such a drastic step.
Unless you are a woman you cannot judge people on abortions... unless you are an alocoholic you cannot judge etc.
You absolutely can judge and in fact objectivity is vital.
No, because you don't just treat the condition you treat the person. In many cases you cannot separate the two...
If you work with / come across people with problems then it'll start to make sense. I know very autistic girl who has more and more problems as she gets older because she can't be looked after nearly so well now she is getting bigger.