• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Parents defend decision to keep girl a child

Delusions Of Concern

"Delusions Of Concern"

The world is full of cowards, relieved in subconscious superiority that the situtation is not their grief, yet they are willing to enforce altruistic requirements of despair.

The expectation to live forever without a baseline for quality of life idolizes cruelty.
 
doughgirl said:
I understand that. But don’t they already have to deal with cleaning her after bowel movements and when she urinates? And if she is not aware of what is going on then why take her period away? Would she even wonder why she is getting a period.
Click to expand...

I was going to post this exact point on the other thread on this subject, til 1069 told me about this one.

I understand that it was easy (relatively) to stop the menstruation process, but the girl will still defecate, urinate, and sometimes vomit. Was it necessary to go that far, to perform a hysterectomy to avoid only one of the natural processes?

And the breast bud removal. Breasts are so painful, right? Hundreds and hundreds of millions of women on the planet experience pain from them all the time, I guess. I feel for you guys (figuratively, of course).

Actually, the parents only did a half-assd job. The girl only needs one lung and kidney, remove the extras. Yank the gall bladder, like they did the appendix. Does she really need the legs? She'll never walk. I assume she can hold a baby's bottle, so she will need one arm. Figure out whether she is right or left handed, and mark that arm with 'do not remove,' but the other...

This situation is screwed up on several levels.

By the way, you and I have never agreed on anything until this. Keep up the good work!



http://www.debatepolitics.com/466331-post23.html
 
"Quality Of Life"

"Quality Of Life"
tryreading said:
Actually, the parents only did a half-assd job. The girl only needs one lung and kidney, remove the extras. Yank the gall bladder, like they did the appendix. Does she really need the legs? She'll never walk. I assume she can hold a baby's bottle, so she will need one arm. Figure out whether she is right or left handed, and mark that arm with 'do not remove,' but the other...
Click to expand...
Perhaps your moral superiority can be excised, it seems to be interfering with objectivity.
Within endeavor to procreate likeness in kind, please explain how the child adds to that objective.
Is a fear asserted that a floodgate of disregard would open?

The parents asked for relief.
Perhaps they deserve absolution.
Freedom of worry requires the child mortis.
A coward could not be strong enough to grant it to them.
Where lay the virtue of compassion?
Maybe you are being selfish, blind.
 
Last edited:
Re: "Quality Of Life"

Monk-Eye said:
"Quality Of Life"
Perhaps your moral superiority can be excised, it seems to be interfering with objectivity.
Within endeavor to procreate likeness in kind, please explain how the child adds to that objective.
Is a fear asserted that a floodgate of disregard would open?

The parents asked for relief.
Perhaps they deserve absolution.
Freedom of worry requires the child mortis.
A coward could not be strong enough to grant it to them.
Where lay the virtue of compassion?
Maybe you are being selfish, blind.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you are saying or asking.
 
Re: "Quality Of Life"

Monk-Eye said:
"Quality Of Life"
Perhaps your moral superiority can be excised, it seems to be interfering with objectivity.
Within endeavor to procreate likeness in kind, please explain how the child adds to that objective.
Is a fear asserted that a floodgate of disregard would open?

The parents asked for relief.
Perhaps they deserve absolution.
Freedom of worry requires the child mortis.
A coward could not be strong enough to grant it to them.
Where lay the virtue of compassion?
Maybe you are being selfish, blind.
Click to expand...
He's speaking Yoda.:darthgunny
 
tryreading said, "Actually, the parents only did a half-assd job. The girl only needs one lung and kidney, remove the extras. Yank the gall bladder, like they did the appendix. Does she really need the legs? She'll never walk. I assume she can hold a baby's bottle, so she will need one arm. Figure out whether she is right or left handed, and mark that arm with 'do not remove,' but the other..."
Click to expand...

People can sometimes find common ground and agree on things.........:lol:

I totally agree. Why not cut her legs off then she wouln't get leg cramps while laying in bed.....and she would be even easier to carry.

The breast issue is absolutely ridiculous. My breasts never were uncomfortable......sore.........except when I breast fed my children. What a lame excuse. Actually the parents said they wanted to reduce the size of her breasts so the workers that might take care of her woudn't get sexually turned on. Have you ever in your life heard something so ridiculous? Absolutely incredible.


Take out organs to prevent cancer? Hell we all have that one in common, cancer. She is no different. Should all woman now have radical mastectomies to avoid breast cancer? Should all men have their prostrate out to avoid cancer. Lets all go in and take our appendix out just in case we have an appendix that bursts and we cant feel it. Come on woman lets get our uteruses out to avoid cancer, just in case that is.

Gee the parents at least could have given her that Lasik eye surgery, just in case she needed it......so she would not have to wear glasses. You know, the bridge of the nose gets a bit sore after the glasses are on for a while........and they wouldnt have the inconvenience of putting them on her.

"I actually agree with everything these parents did. However if that was my child I would go one further and remove the feeding tube and let Nature or God (or whomever you want to blame her situation on) take it's course. I wouldnt' let my dog live in a situation like that much less a human."
Click to expand...

Hitler would have agreed too so you are not alone. He like you would have let her die, or he would have put her down. The handicapped are just so inconvenient to have around aren't they?

So you think Christopher Reeves should have been starved to death because he was completely incapable of doing anything?
 
doughgirl said:
Should all men have their prostrate out to avoid cancer.
Click to expand...



It's "prostate", Doughgirl. "Prostate".

Prostrate means "lying down".

... :sigh:

You're worse than Jerry, with his ubiquitous phrase "Of coarse".
I appreciate the fact that you guys use spell-check, although I wish there could somehow be a "definition check" as well; that way you wouldn't always get it wrong.

Although admittedly, it was rather comical when you said "Nine out of ten men are walking around with prostrate cancer", which would of course be a contradiction in terms, as one could not possibly be walking around and prostrate at the same time.

:lamo
 
galenrox said:
not to chime in too late, but yeah, :twocents:

I support the parents fully. I don't see any benefit Ashley would receive in growing up. It's a shitty situation regardless, and considering that Ashley is never going to grow up in the ways that matter in the course of a human life, in maturing, learning about the world, learning how to interact with the world, then there's no significance in whether she physically grows up to an adult body, and considering that there are many benefits to her not having an adult body, I'd do the exact same thing.

And I wouldn't poopoo ideas of convinience, unless increased convinience led to less attention being paid to Ashley. Because as things are more convinient, if the same attention is getting paid to her, then they'll be doing more for her, because convinience increases efficiency.
Click to expand...

But there are other suggestions below that would increase 'efficiency.' Why did the parents stop where they did? Would you have supported them in removing more body parts if the parents thought they would be unnecessary or potentially painful to the girl?

And convenience could be further served by permanently removing all of her hair. Drool and vomit could ooze into the hair on her head and require an extra bath for her. This is no more arbitrary than the breast bud removal decision.
 
tryreading said:
But there are other suggestions below that would increase 'efficiency.' Why did the parents stop where they did? Would you have supported them in removing more body parts if the parents thought they would be unnecessary or potentially painful to the girl?

And convenience could be further served by permanently removing all of her hair. Drool and vomit could ooze into the hair on her head and require an extra bath for her. This is no more arbitrary than the breast bud removal decision.
Click to expand...

In fact, you may have noticed that Ashley's hair is quite short.
Since she is sentient (able to feel) but incapable of thought or of performing the slightest deliberate or purposeful movement (such as reaching up to brush aside a hair that is in her eyes or is tickling her face), it does make sense to shave her head... not for hygienic reasons, but because hair is bothersome, and she is incapable of removing it from her eyes and face.
Keeping her hair long and pulled back is not an opinion either, because ponytails and/or barrettes are uncomfortable to lay on, and all Ashley ever does is lay on a pillow (when she's not strapped into a sitting position and propped up on a pillow, that is; her parents state in their blog that they rarely sit her up, because she doesn't like it, and fusses).
In the facility for the mentally disabled that I worked at, all of the patients- male and female- had cropped or shaved heads. It was the only thing that made sense. Hair would've annoyed them, fallen over their faces, made them uncomfortable.
 
1069 said:
In fact, you may have noticed that Ashley's hair is quite short.
Since she is sentient (able to feel) but incapable of thought or of performing the slightest deliberate or purposeful movement (such as reaching up to brush aside a hair that is in her eyes or is tickling her face), it does make sense to shave her head... not for hygienic reasons, but because hair is bothersome, and she is incapable of removing it from her eyes and face.
Keeping her hair long and pulled back is not an opinion either, because ponytails and/or barrettes are uncomfortable to lay on, and all Ashley ever does is lay on a pillow (when she's not strapped into a sitting position and propped up on a pillow, that is; her parents state in their blog that they rarely sit her up, because she doesn't like it, and fusses).
In the facility for the mentally disabled that I worked at, all of the patients- male and female- had cropped or shaved heads. It was the only thing that made sense. Hair would've annoyed them, fallen over their faces, made them uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

But I was responding to the convenience issue that was brought up. If her hair were permanently removed, there'd be no need for regular haircuts. That would be more convenient, and therefore, I gather, more efficient. Or vice-versa.
 
tryreading said:
But I was responding to the convenience issue that was brought up. If her hair were permanently removed, there'd be no need for regular haircuts. That would be more convenient, and therefore, I gather, more efficient. Or vice-versa.
Click to expand...

If there was a permanent way to remove their hair, I'm sure Ashley's parents (along with most residential facilities for the profoundly mentally disabled) would implement it.... particularly as pertains to the facial hair of male patients.
 
1069 said:
If there was a permanent way to remove their hair, I'm sure Ashley's parents (along with most residential facilities for the profoundly mentally disabled) would implement it.... particularly as pertains to the facial hair of male patients.
Click to expand...

Laser hair removal is advertised in my local paper. I assumed that would work.
 
tryreading said:
Laser hair removal is advertised in my local paper. I assumed that would work.
Click to expand...

It might work, but would not be cost-effective on a large scale (for use, say, on the tens of thousands of vegetative patients currently in state institutional care). It is also not for use on one's head (laser hair removal zaps each hair individually, killing the root), and I'm not sure it can be used to remove a man's entire beard- I've heard of transsexuals using it for this purpose, but not until after they've thinned their facial hair down considerably by taking hormones for a long period of time.
Of course, if this "Ashley Treatment" catches on, perhaps it can be used on males too, and then their beards won't be an issue, because they won't go through puberty and won't develop facial hair.

The Ashley Treatment as outlined in the news, however, is a long way from being cost-effective enough for the state to routinely use on patients in residential care, at tax-payer expense. I don't foresee it ever being used that way.
If anything, it will be used only by private individuals, by families, who wish to keep a vegetative patient out of institutional care and keep them at home, and who are willing to absorb the expense of the treatment themselves.
 
1069 said:
It might work, but would not be cost-effective on a large scale (for use, say, on the tens of thousands of vegetative patients currently in state institutional care). It is also not for use on one's head (laser hair removal zaps each hair individually, killing the root), and I'm not sure it can be used to remove a man's entire beard- I've heard of transsexuals using it for this purpose, but not until after they've thinned their facial hair down considerably by taking hormones for a long period of time.
Of course, if this "Ashley Treatment" catches on, perhaps it can be used on males too, and then their beards won't be an issue, because they won't go through puberty and won't develop facial hair.

The Ashley Treatment as outlined in the news, however, is a long way from being cost-effective enough for the state to routinely use on patients in residential care, at tax-payer expense. I don't foresee it ever being used that way.
If anything, it will be used only by private individuals, by families, who wish to keep a vegetative patient out of institutional care and keep them at home, and who are willing to absorb the expense of the treatment themselves.
Click to expand...

I understand, but my point is that there is a lot more stuff that could have been removed if the parents had wanted to continue the surgery. The arbitrary point where they decided to stop could have been sooner or later in the process.
 
tryreading said:
I understand, but my point is that there is a lot more stuff that could have been removed if the parents had wanted to continue the surgery. The arbitrary point where they decided to stop could have been sooner or later in the process.
Click to expand...

It's not really arbitrary, because they aren't really changing anything about Ashley; what they're doing is preventing an imminent change that would inevitably have occurred without intervention, ie, puberty and the sexual maturation of Ashley's body.
She didn't have breasts to begin with.
The removal of her (invisible to the naked eye) breast buds, which contained milk glands and were inside her chest, about the size of almonds, is not "the removal of her breasts", because she had no breasts. Yet.
It was a measure undertaken to prevent her from developing breasts.
The removal of her uterus and ovaries did not take away her menstrual cycle or her fertility, because she did not yet menstruate and wasn't yet fertile.
The surgery will merely keep her as she is, rather than allowing her to change.
You presume that, if cognizant, she would want to change.
But you are not in a position to know that.
Only her parents and medical staff know her limitations, and they are the only ones in a position to decide "what Ashley would want", in the hypothetical event that Ashley was capable of wanting anything.
Apparently, her parents have decided that Ashley would prefer comfort to a chance at sexual maturation.
Apparently, they've decided that Ashley would prefer to remain small enough to be carried around like a baby- a mode of transportation from which she may or may not derive some measure of pleasure, comfort, or security- rather than become a large, sexually-mature, adult-sized invalid who can no longer be picked up or carried, and must lay in bed forever or be tied into a wheelchair.
They've stopped Ashley from changing into a sexually mature woman, and from growing to the size of an adult.
They're keeping her as she is, instead.
Chopping off her legs wouldn't be "keeping her as she is", as she'd no longer be intact then.
She is still intact, despite the removal of her uterus and breast buds, because these organs have been dormant all her life; but without intervention, they were about to become active.
I believe they are trying their best to honor their daughter's wishes, as they interpret them (of course, in reality she lacks the cognition to wish anything; but on the basis of the preferences- and displeasures- she's been able to express, either through contentment or through fussing, her parents are gauging her wishes).
Ashley has always been a little girl. She's never been anything else besides a little girl. Her mind will never be anything else except the mind of a little girl (or, more accurately, a newborn baby).
Her parents have elected to keep her as she is now; physically, a little girl. This is more in keeping with her mental and emotional maturity.
They have elected not to allow her body to change into that of a sexually mature adult.
So sue em.
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
It's not really arbitrary, because they aren't really changing anything about Ashley; what they're doing is preventing an imminent change that would inevitably have occurred without intervention, ie, puberty and the sexual maturation of Ashley's body.
She didn't have breasts to begin with.
The removal of her (invisible to the naked eye) breast buds, which contained milk glands and were inside her chest, about the size of almonds, is not "the removal of her breasts", because she had no breasts. Yet.
It was a measure undertaken to prevent her from developing breasts.
The removal of her uterus and ovaries did not take away her menstrual cycle or her fertility, because she did not yet menstruate and wasn't yet fertile.
The surgery will merely keep her as she is, rather than allowing her to change.
You presume that, if cognizant, she would want to change.
But you are not in a position to know that.
Only her parents and medical staff know her limitations, and they are the only ones in a position to decide "what Ashley would want", in the hypothetical event that Ashley was capable of wanting anything.
Apparently, her parents have decided that Ashley would prefer comfort to a chance at sexual maturation.
Apparently, they've decided that Ashley would prefer to remain small enough to be carried around like a baby- a mode of transportation from which she may or may not derive some measure of pleasure, comfort, or security- rather than become a large, sexually-mature, adult-sized invalid who can no longer be picked up or carried, and must lay in bed forever or be tied into a wheelchair.
They've stopped Ashley from changing into a sexually mature woman, and from growing to the size of an adult.
They're keeping her as she is, instead.
Chopping off her legs wouldn't be "keeping her as she is", as she'd no longer be intact then.
I believe they are trying their best to honor their daughter's wishes, as they interpret them (of course, in reality she lacks the cognition to wish anything; but on the basis of the preferences- and displeasures- she's been able to express, either through contentment or through fussing, her parents are gauging her wishes).
Ashley has always been a little girl. She's never been anything else besides a little girl. Her mind will never be anything else except the mind of a little girl (or, more accurately, a newborn baby).
Her parents have elected to keep her as she is now; physically, a little girl. This is more in keeping with her mental and emotional maturity.
They have elected not to allow her body to change into that of a sexually mature adult.
So sue em.
Click to expand...

It is arbitrary. The parents have decided to alter the girl's physical body to a degree. Why did they stop there? And, this begs the other question, why didn't they go any further? I can't answer those questions, and neither can you. Only the parents know why.

None of the surgery would have been done if the parents had not wanted it, and more would have been done if they had pursued it. The parents made a decision to do these things because they wanted to, and there is no other reason these things were done.

I'm not presuming anything about what the girl would want if she were aware. That's not part of my argument. I'm judging the parents. I question their reasoning.

Its got nothing to do with what the girl would prefer as far as this debate goes. It doesn't make sense to me to consider the subject from that angle. Its about what the parents did.

One other thing, the surgery the girl had caused her pain afterwards. Operations always do. Does the fact that the pain only lasted for a week or two make it okay to have performed the unnecessary surgeries?

Felicity said below that hormone treatment increases cancer risk. What if she develops cancer directly due to them? That will be painful, a lot more so than normal breasts and periods. And it was another choice made by the parents to start this treatment. Another option on some strange list.
 
The parents have decided to alter the girl's physical body to a degree.
Click to expand...

The girl's physical body was about to alter on its own.
They prevented it. They're keeping her as is.
Which makes sense, when the mind shackled to that body will always remain as is.

None of the surgery would have been done if the parents had not wanted it, and more would have been done if they had pursued it.
Click to expand...

Evidence for this...?
Each of these procedures was scrutinized by an ethics committee before the treatment was allowed to procede.
On what do you base your assertion that "more would have been done if the parents pursued it"?
What "more" do you think would've been done?
Ashley already eats through a tube in her abdomen; she can't swallow.
I have no idea how elimination is handled; the article doesn't mention this.
I know that some bedridden and immobile tube-fed vegetative patients (the type, like Ashley, who have to be manually turned every few hours because they can't even roll over in bed, and will develop sores) have difficulty with bowel movements because of their lack of mobility, and either end up with colostomies or have to be routinely given laxatives or enemas.
There are several technically "elective" surgical procedures that Ashley had already undergone prior to this, with an eye to making her more comfortable and manageable (I presume she wasn't born with a feeding tube).
There may be more she has to undergo in the future, in order to keep her comfortable and prolong her life.
Vegetative patients often develop circulatory problems. That's one of the reasons caregivers have to turn them frequently and perform daily "range of motion" exercises with them, moving their limbs.
Ashley may eventually need to have one or more of her limbs amputated, if she develops sepsis in them due to poor circulation.
All this is less likely, however, if she can remain as she is now; a small child carried around by her mother.
As a full-grown, sexually mature vegetative patient, she might receive more attentive care at home than in a facility, but no amount of individualized care can prevent the inevitable complications that come from being immobile and bedridden.
Only being smaller and lighter will prevent these problems, or at least help her avoid them for longer.
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
The girl's physical body was about to alter on its own.
They prevented it. They're keeping her as is.
Which makes sense, when the mind shackled to that body will always remain as is.
Click to expand...

That's wrong. They altered her body with three surgeries. They removed breast buds, reproductive organs, and an appendix that were part of her body. What they did was alter her to keep her as is.
 
tryreading said:
That's wrong. They altered her body with three surgeries. They removed breast buds, reproductive organs, and an appendix that were part of her body. What they did was alter her to keep her as is.
Click to expand...

I've expanded on my post above.
Read it.
Obviously, these surgeries were not the first "alterations" Ashley has undergone to improve her quality of life.
And they probably won't be the last, either.

And as far as the appendix, it is routine for doctors to offer patients the option of having their (healthy) appendixes removed any time they undergo abdominal surgery for any reason.
It's an unnecessary organ, a vestigal one, and is likely to become infected and need removing at some point, potentially endangering the person's life (more likely if the person can't move, communicate, or think, and has no way to indicate to her caretakers what hurts).
Any time the abdomen is open for any reason, it's prudent to take out the appendix, thus avoiding having to reopen the abdomen later.
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
I've expanded on my post above.
Read it.
Obviously, these surgeries were not the first "alterations" Ashley has undergone to improve her quality of life.
And they probably won't be the last, either.

And as far as the appendix, it is routine for doctors to offer patients the option of having their (healthy) appendixes removed any time they undergo abdominal surgery for any reason.
It's an unnecessary organ, a vestigal one, and is likely to become infected and need removing at some point, potentially endangering the person's life (more likely if the person can't move, communicate, or think, and has no way to indicate to her caretakers what hurts).
Any time the abdomen is open for any reason, it's prudent to take out the appendix, thus avoiding having to reopen the abdomen later.
Click to expand...

Its too late for me to respond to everything you said, but...

I don't think I need evidence to prove the operations on the girl were the parent's decision, and they would not have been done if the parents didn't want them done. Likewise, if they decide to do more, I'm sure it will happen. Why wouldn't it? I don't know what more they would have done, don't think they should have done as they did.

I understand there may be complications in the future requiring surgery, but it looks like the possibilities you mention are normal everyday procedures.

Regarding the appendix, the abdomen was already opened, but wasn't that for an elective procedure?

Have to go-I'm out of town on a project, got to get up early, (waaah waaah).
Hope to talk to you tomorrow.
 
Have to go-I'm out of town on a project, got to get up early, (waaah waaah).
Hope to talk to you tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I hope so too; it may SNOW tonight, in which case I can stay home from work tomorrow!
I'm so excited. I've only seen real snow once in my whole life, and I was five years old.
:mrgreen:
 
1069 said:
I hope so too; it may SNOW tonight, in which case I can stay home from work tomorrow!
I'm so excited. I've only seen real snow once in my whole life, and I was five years old.
:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

How's the weather?

I don't see snow much anymore. Moved from Memphis, where it snowed a lot, to Central Florida, where there was one brief flurry in 1987 - you could barely see a snow flake or two in your headlights. Last time I saw it was in the Smoky Mountains a few years ago.
 
tryreading said:
How's the weather?

I don't see snow much anymore. Moved from Memphis, where it snowed a lot, to Central Florida, where there was one brief flurry in 1987 - you could barely see a snow flake or two in your headlights. Last time I saw it was in the Smoky Mountains a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it snowed! Not much, but a little. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom