What do you people think about this?

[Surreptishus]

So keeping the body from it's natural growth cycle is not a change  ?

 

mkay.

 

 

It's the best available legal choice in a difficult situation, but the main problem here is that all this is being done for the benifit of the parents. Who is considering what kind of life being entombed in a doll's body is going to be. Is she aware enough to suffer from it. If she isen't aware at all, then really whats the point of living.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With respect to awareness and discomfort a lot of these questions are answered in the father's blog.

 

http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/

[metadigital]

So keeping the body from it's natural growth cycle is not a change  ?

 

mkay.

 

 

It's the best available legal choice in a difficult situation, but the main problem here is that all this is being done for the benifit of the parents. Who is considering what kind of life being entombed in a doll's body is going to be. Is she aware enough to suffer from it. If she isen't aware at all, then really whats the point of living.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So preventing a tumour from traversing "it's [sic] natural growth cycle" is an "unnatural" change, too, then?

 

She will continue to have the body she already has. Hence, "no change".

[Gorgon]

You are mincing words, of course stunting a persons's growth with a number of different treatments is a change. just listen to yourself.

[metadigital]

You are pretending that the little girl will grow, her mind learning and adapting to a changed body. Her mind will not change, so her body needn't.

[~Di]

These parents have made a difficult decision based on the best interests of the child. This child will never have the mental ability beyond an infant... and her parents will probably not be able to care for her for all of her life. A sexually mature female body can be impregnated, as all too many have been in the horrible care facilities where this child will be relegated if her family cannot care for her. Also, sexual maturation unleashes hormones that raise the risk of cancers, benign tumors, cists and other serious, painful diseases of the breasts, uterus and ovaries.

 

Try not to be too judgmental toward these poor people. They are honestly doing the best they can.

[LoneWolf16]

Sooo, why do people have children when they know, through testing pre-birth, that it's going to be deformed, stunted horribly, or otherwise ****ed out of a normal life just because of the way it is?

 

It's selfish.

[Sand]

Pre-birth testing and accuracy of such testing is not as prevalent a decade ago as it is today. However if such problems were detected and there was no way to correct them prior to birth it would be a prime case for abortion, however it is a little late now for this family.

[alanschu]

Surely the one stop shop is for the rest of us to be less judgemental.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's like wishing the rest of us turned into ocelots due to magical space beam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*Gasp*

 

Orbital mind-control lasers!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sounds like a game of Illuminati.

[~Di]

Sooo, why do people have children when they know, through testing pre-birth, that it's going to be deformed, stunted horribly, or otherwise ****ed out of a normal life just because of the way it is?

 

It's selfish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What makes you think these people knew in advance the kind of problems their child would have? Even today only a small percentage of pregnancies are subjected to risky and invasive amniotisis, and only when a high degree of suspicion based upon ultrasound or family history of genetic disease is worth the risk. The diagnosis ability of amniotisis is also quite limited. Most children with severe autism or mental retardation are not diagnosed until the symptoms began to surface, and the children are not developing normally.

 

Calling people selfish for making the best of a sad situation seems a bit uncalled for, in my view. Although I myself am pro-choice, and if I knew that a child I was carrying would suffer severe mental and physical handicap for life, I might choose abortion if I found out early enough in the pregnancy. Others, however, would not... and that is what being pro-choice is all about, allowing others to make decisions for themselves and their own families without being coerced or forced into doing what others want them to do.

[Sand]

Di hits it on the mark.

[Laozi]

Calling people selfish for making the best of a sad situation seems a bit uncalled for, in my view.  Although I myself am pro-choice, and if I knew that a child I was carrying would suffer severe mental and physical handicap for life, I might choose abortion if I found out early enough in the pregnancy.  Others, however, would not... and that is what being pro-choice is all about, allowing others to make decisions for themselves and their own families without being coerced or forced into doing what others want them to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, I think this is one case where both the doctors and possibly the state should have intervened as much as possible to convince her to either abort the baby, or basically pulled the plug on any life substaining aid given to the child. In the case of the state it would be like an insurance company buying a home that is constantly falling victim to flooding and instead of paying out money each time it rains heavily, buying the house because its cheaper in the long run. I hope this couple can manage to pay for this little experiment on their own, and they find it a rewarding endevour, since their child will certainly not.

[Sand]

With their child being stuck at a three month old mentality I don't think she will mind too much.

[Pop]

It should be pointed out that the hospital in which this is being done is considering making this kind of thing standard policy in regard to the treatment of severely disabled children. What happens when we get a case in which the decision to enact this "freezing" procedure becomes bureacratic, instead of familial? Will it be just as acceptable? What happens when we get an Ashley who's an orphan?

 

I can completely understand why this was done. But making it a public policy is a mistake, and there are just way too many slippery slopes to go down here.

[Sand]

It should be done by case by case basis, and not policy till we know the long term affects will be.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Sand

[~Di]

No medical procedure should be "public policy" in my view. I do not want a bunch of bureaucrats deciding who in my family can have what medical care and under what circumstances such care can be given. Families should make those decisions with their personal physicians on a case-by-case basis. Nobody has the right to tell another family that their loved one doesn't deserve wanted treatment; nor do they have the right to tell another family that their loved one must be forced to undergo unwanted treatment.

 

Physicians and families make medical decisions, not bureaucrats, not lawyers, not religious leaders. To me, it's rather a simple and logical concept.

[Sand]

Good point.

[Walsingham]

Well, i stil say that it sets a weird (not dangerous) precedent. I tihnk the focus should be on getting the rest of us norms' to treat the disadvantaged better.

 

However, Di has convinced me that as usual we need two horses in the running. The poor girl will be most confused and unnecessarily troubled by hormonal changes she is utterly unable to take advantage of. Not to mention made more vulnerable. I repeat that we should not be in a position where someone like this should be in danger from anyone, but they are.

[Pop]

No medical procedure should be "public policy" in my view.  I do not want a bunch of bureaucrats deciding who in my family can have what medical care and under what circumstances such care can be given.  Families should make those decisions with their personal physicians on a case-by-case basis.  Nobody has the right to tell another family that their loved one doesn't deserve wanted treatment; nor do they have the right to tell another family that their loved one must be forced to undergo unwanted treatment.

 

Physicians and families make medical decisions, not bureaucrats, not lawyers, not religious leaders.  To me, it's rather a simple and logical concept.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's all well and good, but it doesn't cover orphans, or anyone without a person who would have a legitimate right to decide anything for them. A disabled orphan might live in a group home where he / she wouldn't have a primary caregiver, and all he / she'd be to all involved would be a body in a bed. That's when public policy would dictate what should be done.

[metadigital]

No medical procedure should be "public policy" in my view.  I do not want a bunch of bureaucrats deciding who in my family can have what medical care and under what circumstances such care can be given.  Families should make those decisions with their personal physicians on a case-by-case basis.  Nobody has the right to tell another family that their loved one doesn't deserve wanted treatment; nor do they have the right to tell another family that their loved one must be forced to undergo unwanted treatment.

 

Physicians and families make medical decisions, not bureaucrats, not lawyers, not religious leaders.  To me, it's rather a simple and logical concept.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's all well and good, but it doesn't cover orphans, or anyone without a person who would have a legitimate right to decide anything for them. A disabled orphan might live in a group home where he / she wouldn't have a primary caregiver, and all he / she'd be to all involved would be a body in a bed. That's when public policy would dictate what should be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reminds me of the similar issues involved in foster care, too.

[Colrom]

I would rather the parents left the physical development of the child alone.

 

I think I understand their rationalizations.

 

I just don't agree that they should mutilate the child because they think this will eliminate problems in the future.

 

I actually wonder if they should even be allowed to do this.