Arkan Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Ashley Treatment' Questioned By ParentsNEW YORK, Jan. 6, 2006(CBS) Her name is Ashley and she's 9 years old. But she has the mental and physical abilities of a 3-month-old, and will for the rest of her life. Two years ago, her parents made a decision to essentially freeze her in time with a treatment called growth attenuation therapy. CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports. "What they were asking to do was something that many of us hadn't thought about doing before," says Dr. Dough Diekema of Seattle Children "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionavar Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Moved by request. The universe is change; your life is what our thoughts make it - Marcus Aurelius (161) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/06/...in2335079.shtml I find this utterly vulgar. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, won't somebody think of the breast buds? I don't consider that someone with the intellect and physical capacity of a three month old needs to physically mature, though I hope Ellie Stein enjoys lifting Isaac and Chavi when they're hundred and sixty pound sacks of meat with raging menstration and boners. Edited January 22, 2007 by Nartwak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Ashley Treatment' Questioned By ParentsNEW YORK, Jan. 6, 2006(CBS) Her name is Ashley and she's 9 years old. But she has the mental and physical abilities of a 3-month-old, and will for the rest of her life. Two years ago, her parents made a decision to essentially freeze her in time with a treatment called growth attenuation therapy. CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller reports. ... But some parents of disabled children disagree with the choice. "Just to put them through surgery for what it seems like your own convenience seems severe," says Ellie Stein, whose two children, Chavi and Isaac, both suffer from a rare genetic disorder that has left them immobile and unable to speak. ... Ethicists, like Dr. Chris Futner of the Children OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laozi Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 As someone not having to deal with a scenario like this I find it difficult to judge. This is a case of medicine being able to keep someone alive that probaly shouldn't live. I hate to say it that way, but its difficult to view it any other way. People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bottom Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 At first I thought the article was saying they were going to literally freeze her, which I found a little alarming. Upon further inspection I realised what a numb-nuts I am and finished the article. I guess my opinion on this is down to how much trauma the ops will cause her. If she's going to be 3 months old mentally and physically (spiritually?) and the ops aren't hellish then I guess it's the families decision, even if it seems a little weird. The best flash game ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosbjerg Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 The parents aren't commissioning the surgery for their own benefit (from what I read), they are helping to prevent unnecessary complications for their daughter. If she will never have a mental age above an infant, then sexual maturity is completely unnecessary and inappropriate. In short, they are acting in their child's best interests (as far as I can tell from this). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I completly agree.. Fortune favors the bald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astr0creep Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Isn't this a bit like wanting a kitten to stay a kitten? I don't know about this. I think my thought on this is very much like Laozi's. As some of you may know, my wife is pregnant. Early on she asked me what we would do if the child wasn't... normal. First, there are ways to find out early and then the parents(ok the mother but that's another debate...) can decide to abort or not and then to give it up for adoption or not. Personnally and completely selfishly, I said abortion would be better for everyone including the child. My wife opted for adoption as for her, no matter how screwed up a baby is born, he/she still has a right to live a life. But since she has already delt with children with heavy dissabilities like this, she would never want to raise one of her own. For me, and excuse me if this sounds horrible, any human born that can never attain a certain level of autonomy in society should be immediately put to rest. But apparently, when your child is born everything changes. So we still really don't know what we would do. http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 The parents aren't commissioning the surgery for their own benefit (from what I read), they are helping to prevent unnecessary complications for their daughter. If she will never have a mental age above an infant, then sexual maturity is completely unnecessary and inappropriate. In short, they are acting in their child's best interests (as far as I can tell from this). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I completly agree.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey! That's my opinion! Get your own! It's true, though, the parents are doing what is best for their daughter; the fact that it is more convenient for them in their capacity as carers for her is of lesser importance, but still a minor factor. (Think of an extreme case where the carers would be unable to care for someone without some intervention.) OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosbjerg Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Hey! That's my opinion! Get your own! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I completly agree.. -- I would rather look at what's best for the girl.. Imo this is the best thing - and if it's also good for the parents - well even better! but the child's needs come first and I believe they are being served to the best of both medical sience and the parents abilities.. Fortune favors the bald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laozi Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Isn't this a bit like wanting a kitten to stay a kitten? I don't know about this. I think my thought on this is very much like Laozi's. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is it too late to state that I meant to say completely the opposite of what I said? People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 First, there are ways to find out early... If I remember correctly there isn't for static encephalopthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theslug Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I kind of hate to say it but i somewhat agree with astrocreep. I mean it's kind of heartless and I honestly wouldn't know if I would do the same if my kid had a serious problem. I mean if a child has no chance what so ever at an attempt to have any sort of normal life where they can provide for themselves, be happy, and function then nature naturally takes care of problems like that and maybe thats how we should handle it. It's tough, I mean if you can do anything you can to save your kid ofcourse you'd do it but there has to be a line. I personally would not want to live a life where I have to be supervised 24/7, bathed, fed, etc by someone. That's not a life to me. There was a time when I questioned the ability for the schizoid to ever experience genuine happiness, at the very least for a prolonged segment of time. I am no closer to finding the answer, however, it has become apparent that contentment is certainly a realizable goal. I find these results to be adequate, if not pleasing. Unfortunately, connection is another subject entirely. When one has sufficiently examined the mind and their emotional constructs, connection can be easily imitated. More data must be gleaned and further collated before a sufficient judgment can be reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Isn't this a bit like wanting a kitten to stay a kitten? no, she's going to stay a kitten regardless. the procedures merely prevented her kitten mind from having to deal with a cat's body. But apparently, when your child is born everything changes. So we still really don't know what we would do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> more than you can know at the moment, tough soon enough you'll see... oh, and for the record, this isn't a discussion about something that may happen in the future, it is already done. the father has posted a VERY long comment on a website somewhere that everyone should read. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I kind of hate to say it but i somewhat agree with astrocreep. I mean it's kind of heartless and I honestly wouldn't know if I would do the same if my kid had a serious problem. I mean if a child has no chance what so ever at an attempt to have any sort of normal life where they can provide for themselves, be happy, and function then nature naturally takes care of problems like that and maybe thats how we should handle it. It's tough, I mean if you can do anything you can to save your kid ofcourse you'd do it but there has to be a line. I personally would not want to live a life where I have to be supervised 24/7, bathed, fed, etc by someone. That's not a life to me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Careful, you're teetering on the brink of hedonistic economics there: where old and infirm people, those who have (through injury, illness or accident) become useless to society, are abandoned by society ... " OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azarkon Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Okay, this isn't entirely on topic, but she's not going to be "frozen in time," is she? She's still going to mature, to age - just at the physical size of a nine year old and with no sexual development, to speak of. Isn't this like creating a freak? There are doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) As far as I know she's still mortal, so yes, there is going to be aging involved. Can I infer you think a physically mature three month old isn't a freak then? Edited January 22, 2007 by Nartwak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deraldin Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Okay, this isn't entirely on topic, but she's not going to be "frozen in time," is she? She's still going to mature, to age - just at the physical size of a nine year old and with no sexual development, to speak of. Isn't this like creating a freak? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But she has the mental and physical abilities of a 3-month-old, and will for the rest of her life. [sNIP] Two years ago, her parents made a decision to essentially freeze her in time with a treatment called growth attenuation therapy. Before the procedures her body was developing but her mind wasn't. They are just preventing the body from developing any more than it already has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azarkon Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) As far as I know she's still mortal, so yes, there is going to be aging involved. Can I infer you think a physically mature three month old isn't a freak then? Nope. Nothing nature creates can be considered a freak. What man makes, on the other hand, is debateable. This plays into the central ethical issue of this debate - how does becoming chemically neutered and physically small help the child? The parents talk, on their blog, about issues such as sexual abuse by future caregivers - but from my perspective, Ashley is likely going to get more abuse (or at the very least, disgusted stares) by virtue of being a man-made deviant than a mentally retarded adult. Before the procedures her body was developing but her mind wasn't. They are just preventing the body from developing any more than it already has. That's what the article says. It's not, from what I understand of biology, what the treatment does. You cannot prevent aging. What the parents are doing is "dwarfing" Ashley and making her sexually unable to develop. What the result will be of this procedure... Only time will tell. Edited January 22, 2007 by Azarkon There are doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 As far as I know she's still mortal, so yes, there is going to be aging involved. Can I infer you think a physically mature three month old isn't a freak then? Nope. Nothing nature creates can be considered a freak. What man makes, on the other hand, is debateable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is a blatantly obvious and poor fallacy. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azarkon Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) Not at all. There are no ethical issues with nature, nor would anyone make a thread about what do people think about this if Ashley was "frozen in time" by nature, rather than man. Freak of nature is an oxymoron, where I'm coming from. Edited January 22, 2007 by Azarkon There are doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nartwak Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Nope. Nothing nature creates can be considered a freak. What man makes, on the other hand, is debateable. Humans are not seperate from nature in any regard. This plays into the central ethical issue of this debate - how does becoming chemically neutered and physically small help the child? Do you have any idea the difficulties and dangers caring for an invalid involves for all involved? Did you just wonder whether or not menstration would be good for her? Are you aware that women in her family have a history of fibrocystic growth and breast cancer? The parents talk, on their blog, about issues such as sexual abuse by future caregivers - but from my perspective, Ashley is likely going to get more abuseI don't see how you conclude that sane or humane people would be more inclined to abuse her because of this so called deviancy; though from your comments I guess I can infer that you'd be more inclined to abuse her, so I guess I answered my own question. (or at the very least, disgusted stares) by virtue of being a man-made deviant than a mentally retarded adult. Holy ****ing ****. Did you say mean stares would be worse abuse for a three month old than rape? Yeah, okay. I'm done. Don't bother replying to me. I'm putting you on ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 This is disgusting. Cowardly parents are taking the selfish way out. They claim it's to make it easier on the duaghter; but that's bull. It's to make it easier on them. As a human being she has the RIGHT to grow like any other human. Pathetic. Children are people; not possessions. Disgusting. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azarkon Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 (edited) rolleyes.gif Humans are not seperate from nature in any regard. Of course they are, at least for the purpose of debate. As I said, no one would question the ethical qualifications of nature, but we are all too capable of doing so towards man. Do you have any idea the difficulties and dangers caring for an invalid involves for all involved? Did you just wonder whether or not menstration would be good for her? Are you aware that women in her family have a history of fibrocystic growth and breast cancer? Of course. But that does not make my point any less salient. I did not argue, you see, that what the parents did was wrong, all things considered. I did, however, argue that certain aspects of their argument are wrong, and that a strong argument against their point of view is that Ashley will be seen as a grotesque guinea pig of human modification. I don't see how you conclude that sane or humane people would be more inclined to abuse her because of this so called deviancy; though from your comments I guess I can infer that you'd be more inclined to abuse her, so I guess I answered my own question. Let me pull a metadigital here and point out to you the dangers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Please respect me, and I will respect you. Fail to do so, and I will do one of two things: ignore you or say things that are likely to get this thread closed down. Your choice. Holy ****ing ****. Did you say mean stares would be worse abuse for a three month old than rape? mellow.gif Yeah, okay. I'm done. Don't bother replying to me. I'm putting you on ignore. Pure idiocy. The risk of rape is minor, but the risk of disgusted stares is extremely high. And by ignoring me, you demonstrate your own ignorance Edited January 22, 2007 by Azarkon There are doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Not at all. There are no ethical issues with nature, nor would anyone make a thread about what do people think about this if Ashley was "frozen in time" by nature, rather than man. Freak of nature is an oxymoron, where I'm coming from. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Where you are coming from is your own little world. And just because you hold the opinion doesn't make it justified. I might think I'm the King of All Undinia and wear a shiny hat, that doesn't make it true. If some poor person is born without a fully functional heart, say, then they will die. Unless a team of medical experts intervene to CHANGE nature. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now