Ashley Treatment

November 2006, a surgery case study was published on an anonymous girl, known only as Ashley, to permanently stunt her growth. This was done only after extensive examination, at the end of which it was concluded that her condition would neither get better nor worsen.

What is her condition exactly? Even at the age of six, she was unable to raise her head, sit up, hold anything, talk, or feed herself. She must be tube-fed. Her parents began to worry because she was showing signs of early puberty, which is apparently normal for disabled children. So, after consulting a panel of ethics-people and other doctors, surgery was conducted on the parents request.

In July 2004, Ashley had a hysterectomy to prevent menstruation and pregnancy, removal of her nascent breast buds to prevent development, appendectomy, and an estrogen treatment to stunt growth. Her parents argue that keeping her at a small size would keep her easy to care for and was thus in the child's best interest. Menstruation would also be a problem (I don't know why it would be any different from changing diapers). Large breasts apparently run in Ashley's family and development would cause the child discomfort. And apparently, preventing her from developing secondary sexual characteristics would reduce the chances of sexual abuse.

Debates have been circulating since the release of this story. The doctor who performed the surgery recently commited suicide. And the question on everyone's minds is : Is this fair? Is it fair to Ashley to have her entire growth stripped away for the sake of her parents' convenience? Would it have been fair to Ashley and her family to let her grow normally?

Personally, my mind is divided. Her parents do have some fair arguments. It is probably fairly easier for them to take care of her now that they don't have to worry about puberty and her getting bigger. It's also a fair point to say that she has the mind of an infant--she won't notice the difference.

However, it's also a violation of human rights. Infants and children have rights. And it is intolerable to turn a child into a bonsai plant for convience's sake. And if there was a surgery available to keep her small forever, had they waited a few years, a surgery might be available to allow her some basic motor skills and sit upright or crawl. And who would sexually abuse her anyway if she was under the constant care of her family? How on earth do they assume she would get pregnant?

Links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15517226/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment

Discuss.

That's fucked up.

I think that's terrible. Amazingly selfish of the parents to do such a terrible thing to their child. They made the decision to bring the child into the world, and they should have been prepared to care for it.


I'm actually almost crying, tbh. I can't believe anyone would do something like that to their child.

That makes me sick to my stomach.
There is absolutely NOTHING just about that decision.

That's...horrible.
The stresses of caring for a disabled child are obviously huge, but the stresses of caring for any child are huge. Different but huge. If they couldn't care for their daughter wouldn't it be easier to seek help with looking after her rather than putting her through surgery? There's no reason to change your child like that.

lyrical_mess:

It is probably fairly easier for them to take care of her now that they don't have to worry about puberty and her getting bigger.

Gosh, this sounds like they have to take care of an annoying animal or whatever. ._.


Idk I obviously don't know what's it like to take care of a disabled child, I try to see it from the parent's view but it's just sounds so ... sick to me.

lyrical_mess:

How on earth do they assume she would get pregnant?

Exactly, if she's under constant care, I don't think that would happen.
I pretty much agree with everyone else.

Ol' Blue Eyes.:

They made the decision to bring the child into the world, and they should have been prepared to care for it.

I agree, but for the debating point ... maybe they didn't know she was going to be disabled?!

If your child is disabled and still grows at the rate of another child, it becomes way more strenuous on you, and you most likely have a high probabily of having major problems with yourself.

However, if it was my child, I wouldn't stunt their growth just for my well being. That just sounds so selfish to me.

This whole Ashley Treatment thing is so horrible. Like Mary, I'm almost crying.

OH MY GOD I WAS GOING TO MAKE A TOPIC ON THIS!!!!!

I was cleaning out the extemp box, and I found an article on it. it was an interview with her parents. It really interested me. I can't say exactly how I feel because I'm not sure.

By the way, she didn't have a hysterectomy to prevent pregnancy, it was more to prevent menestrual discomfort and things like that. They knew she wouldn't get pregnant, unless she was raped or something.

And if there was a surgery available to keep her small forever, had they waited a few years, a surgery might be available to allow her some basic motor skills and sit upright or crawl.
Yes, but people have been studying neurological development for years, and we aren't any closer to that then we were 20 years ago. The best advancement we have had is stem cell research, and that isn't exactly excelling at the moment.
And who would sexually abuse her anyway if she was under the constant care of her family?
Children with mental and physical disabilities are at a signifigantly higher risk for sexual abuse than those who aren't. People can just be disgusting,
How on earth do they assume she would get pregnant?
They didn't.

And it is intolerable to turn a child into a bonsai plant for convience's sake
This is where Im divided. I don't know how I feel about that. People with physical handicaps can be cared for at full size, it happens daily. But... it would be alot easier for her parents to care for her if she remained "small". I honestly don't know how I feel about taking someone right to grow away.

Legally, in the US, it isn't a specified type of child abuse, and her parents are allowed to make medical choices for her by law. They had a meaningful cause.... I don't know. it just seems wrong to me, but I can't say why, you know? I really cannot find a legitimate reason why I find this wrong, other than its weird. Im thinking.

Billie's Willie:

However, if it was my child, I wouldn't stunt their growth just for my well being. That just sounds so selfish to me.

But I don't think they did it just for their well being, they wanted to be able to provide her with the best care possible. i think their hearts were in the right place but.... this seems cruel to me.

Kurtni:

But I don't think they did it just for their well being,

I didn't mean to insinuate that they were just doing it for their well being. I was talking about how taking care of a full grown human could cause severe health problems to yourself and how I would risk having those health problems for my child.

Kurtni:

they wanted to be able to provide her with the best care possible.

Personally, I don't believe stunting growth would make it so you can provide a disabled child with better care. People are perfectly capable of providing great care to a growing child.

This whole topic is too personal to me, tbh. It's bringing up sad memories, and I'm starting to regret ever posting in here. This is probably my last post on this topic.

Rollerpig:

Ol' Blue Eyes.:

They made the decision to bring the child into the world, and they should have been prepared to care for it.

I agree, but for the debating point ... maybe they didn't know she was going to be disabled?!

True, but I've been told that most doctors run tests, and sometimes can tell from said tests whether or not the child will be disabled. If they knew ahead of time, they have no damn excuse at all for such selfishness. They should have thought about that before having the child.

I looked it up. They didn't realize until she wasn't developing any skills. If you look at it from their point of view, its plausible to say that they didn't think about surgery until they realized that the damage wasn't going to heal at all.

Okay as said in the first post, my mind is divided.

This girl can't do anything for herself, correct?
So to be honest, isn't it fair to make it as easy for the parents to take care of her?
And since she has the mind of an infant, she doesn't actually .. care does she now?

On the other hand, though. This is still a human being and doesn't deserve to be preserved a little child for convinience.

Dude....that's just wrong.
It's a person,not a plant.
I don't think it's fair to her to stop her growth just so her parents won't have so much trouble with her growing up and becoming bigger.

lyrical_mess:

I looked it up. They didn't realize until she wasn't developing any skills. If you look at it from their point of view, its plausible to say that they didn't think about surgery until they realized that the damage wasn't going to heal at all.

I still think it's heinous.

My aunt has a child with downs syndrome, and the child is now in her thirties. Yes, my aunt has had to make sacrifices and such, but she didn't feel the need to stunt my cousin's growth.

I mean, it's your child. How could you do something like that to your own flesh and blood?

You know, it makes you wonder where the medical limits should be....

if you have a paralyzed child, would it be ok to remove their legs because they can't use them? It's scary to thnik about how far this could go...

Ol' Blue Eyes.:

My aunt has a child with downs syndrome, and the child is now in her thirties. Yes, my aunt has had to make sacrifices and such, but she didn't feel the need to stunt my cousin's growth.

Downs syndrome isn't the same as what this girl had. She was severely brain damaged, and had no mobility. That doesn't necessarily make it acceptable, but you can't really compare her condition to downs syndrome.