What do you people think about this?

[Arkan]

Ashley Treatment' Questioned By Parents

NEW 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

[Fionavar]

Moved by request.

[Nartwak]

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

[metadigital]

Ashley Treatment' Questioned By Parents

NEW 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

[Laozi]

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.

[Big Bottom]

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.

[Rosbjerg]

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..

[astr0creep]

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.

[metadigital]

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.)

[Rosbjerg]

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..

[Laozi]

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?

[Nartwak]

First, there are ways to find out early...

If I remember correctly there isn't for static encephalopthy.

[theslug]

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.

[taks]

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

[metadigital]

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 ... "

[Azarkon]

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?

[Nartwak]

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

[Deraldin]

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.

[Azarkon]

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

[metadigital]

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.

[Azarkon]

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

[Nartwak]

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 abuse

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.

 

(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.

[Volourn]

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.

[Azarkon]

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

[metadigital]

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.