Log in

View Full Version : Treatment keeps girl child sized



Jojo
04-01-2007, 19:33
Parents 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

'Frozen girl' medical debate

Ashley's parents say that because she will remain the weight of a child, it will be easier for them to move her around, bathe her and involve her in family activities - movement that will benefit her physical and mental well-being.

Dr Douglas Diekema from the University of Washington in Seattle, who was on the ethics committee that gave the go-ahead for Ashley's treatment, told the BBC that the panel agreed "because the parents convinced us it was in fact in this little girl's best interests".

"If she were smaller it would be much easier for them to continue to provide a much more personal level of care," he said.

But Agnes Fletcher of the UK's Disability Rights Commission said is was "unnecessary medical treatment to deal with what is essentially a social problem", referring to "the poverty and lack of support" faced by families with disabled children.

'Improve her life'

Ashley's parents wrote in their blog: "A fundamental and universal misconception about the treatment is that it is intended to convenience the caregiver.

Ashley has static encephalopathy, a rare brain condition which will not improve. Her parents call her "Pillow Angel", because she does not move from wherever they put her, usually on a pillow.

The couple decided three years ago to take steps to minimise their daughter's adult height and weight.

In July 2004 Ashley began hormone treatment, through patches on the skin, that is expected to reduce her untreated height by 20% and weight by 40%.

Abuse fears

Ashley's parents said the decision to remove their daughter's uterus and breast buds was for the girl's comfort and safety.

"Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they said, adding that the decision means she will not experience the menstrual cycle and the bleeding and discomfort commonly associated with it.

The operation also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said.

The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse, but was carried out primarily so she would not experience discomfort when lying down, the parents said.

The couple emphasised their love for their daughter and said the amount of criticism their choice of treatment attracted had surprised them.

"If the concern has something to do with the girl's dignity being violated, then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity," they said.

"The oestrogen treatment is not what is grotesque here. Rather, it is the prospect of having a full-grown and fertile woman endowed with the mind of a baby."

--------------------------------------------

Right or wrong??

Behemoth
04-01-2007, 21:23
Very difficult. If her parents and an ethics committee think that this really is the only way to give her a good quality of life, that's their decision. I'm slightly confused as to why they think she would be a victim of sexual abuse as, from what the article says, she'll need constant, round the clock care and wouldn't be left exposed to this sort of thing. Using it as a reason to remove her uterus and prevent her breasts developing, to me, is quite disturbing.

This quote has hit the nail on the head, IMO:
"Opponents have accused Ashley's parents of "Frankenstein-esque" behaviour - of maiming the child for the sake of convenience."

Siobhan
05-01-2007, 09:46
I seen this last night on Sky.. they had both sides of the argument.. One man lost his son cause when he grew his spine ruptured his lungs. The father said last night that if the treatment had been available to him, he would have taken in (in hindsight)

This is probably going to sound disturbed but removing her uterus and breast bud, I feel is a good idea. The girl has a mental age of 3 months but is developing "physically" at a normal rate. There is sick sick people out there who would have sex with her and with normal body parts, it is possible to become pregnant... do you think she would cope with that.. she is only 3 months old remember

Having said all of the above, I don't think the parent have the right to play God for "conviencience" and as for improving her quality of life, I am not sure about that either. At the end of the day, who are we to judge? We have not been in that suitation!!!

Katy
05-01-2007, 11:23
but shes going to outlive her parents anyway and end up in care, so why could they let her grow and have qualified people to look after her. I personally think its wrong as its not natrual.

Kim
05-01-2007, 19:39
I completely agree with that. If she's got the mental ability of a 3 month old baby and she's 9, she's never going to have the mental ability of a 16 year old, at which time very few, if any, are ready to have a family. The reason that you have to be 16 to have sexual intercourse is because you cannot understand the implications of it.

Also, she'd be picked on for her lack of understanding, and probably couldn't even understand what was being done. At least, this way, the amount that she looks over her mental age is as low as is possible, under the circumstances.