I don't even know what to say.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that was obvious. I seem to remember when I last heard about this that it sounded horrible but logical at the same time. You were able to tell, at the time, that it was a bad idea? Well, go you then.

Actually, I would kind of like a pocket daughter. I predict they will become very trendy.

Well parenting is SO inconvenient. Hey, ask me about my cats!

/jk
//People are pretty sick though.

Is else anyone here really creeped out by the term "Pillow Angel"?

breast buds haha

Quit fscking around and suck it up and bring out the euthenasia.

*jaw drops*

Wow. Just... wow.

The opposition lost when they said "Eugenics". She's a permanent INFANT developmentally.

I retract my Boobies, agree with JE255J.

/maybe I should RTFA next time

That child was born with said organs, its possible the organs worked, and then the organs were removed. Why? for convenience? that seems peculiar.

dammit, TrimBandit, ya beat me to it....

/Breast Buds is my new term of the day

LincolnLogolas: The opposition lost when they said "Eugenics". She's a permanent INFANT developmentally.

Yeah, it's not like she was going to need those things, and it probably would make life easier for both parties.

soakitincider

The important organ - her brain - doesn't work. As far as I'm concerned, letting kids that are so far disabled (permanent infancy in her case) live is freaking charity. A few modifications here and there to make it a little more convenient seems sensible.

This is an impossible call to make. Has this affected the daughter's quality of life? Well, severely mentally disabled and in an infantile state, nobody is ever going to know how she feels about it. She isn't even aware of what happened. There's nothing normal about the situation.

This is a totally subjective judgement call. Possibly the only positive indicator is that the parents are willing to still care for this girl instead of dumping her into some veggie ward.

tehvodak 2007-05-09 10:02:31 AM
I retract my Boobies, agree with JE255J.

/maybe I should RTFA next time

Oddly enough, thats exactly what happened to this girl.

It's a child, not a bonsai!

Sad tag surrenders.
shaking head

I support abortion...


of PARENTS

Bonsai'd!!!!!

I submitted this with a better reference to Kill Bill

"My name is Buck, and I'm here to..."

soakitincider: That child was born with said organs, its possible the organs worked, and then the organs were removed. Why? for convenience? that seems peculiar.

but what does someone with the mind of an infant need sexual organs, that would result in changes that would make care and living more cumbersome, that he/she would never be expected to use?

This gives a little better description of the procedures.

/first search result

Not this again. I am sure all the liberals will come in here saying how terrible it is to remove your daughters sex organs in order to keep her in a prepubescent state. I am tired of this position and if this is going to be part of the next Democratic Party platform there is no way they are going to get my vote.

The parents are thinking about having her legs removed so they will have easier access for putting in catheters. They want bowel, and urine removal tubes; as well as a feeding tube that pumps food into her stomach automatically. That way she will be easier to care for, they can just come by twice a week and fill the food machine, and toss the waste containers. I am sure the libs will have some problem with that saying parents don't have the right to decide what is best for their children or something. Stupid nannystaters, you are chipping away at our rights one by one.

FTFA: "On their blog Tuesday, Ashley's parents"...

Next time I intentionally stunt my disabled child's growth, I'm gonna blog about it. W.T.F.

TheWizard: ehvodak 2007-05-09 10:02:31 AM
I retract my Boobies, agree with JE255J.

/maybe I should RTFA next time

Oddly enough, thats exactly what happened to this girl.

Yeah, yeah pwned by the filter.

Ashley was diagnosed with severe brain damage shortly after birth, and her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk.

According to other articles, there was basically no hope of improving her mental condition or keeping her from being bed-bound. Regardless of therapy and care, there would be a natural atrophy of muscles and a growing collection of bed sores that will drastically reduce her life span, and these will be far worse the larger she is, reducing her lifespan further still. Excepting euthanasia, stunting her growth may have been the best thing for her, probably resulting in a longer, less painful life. Don't know if that was the reason for the decision, but it is the result.

Old-link is old. This was posted on Cnn back in January.

Ashley, 9, has a condition called static encephalopathy, which means an unchanging brain injury of unknown origin. When she was 6 her parents and doctors agreed to have her uterus and breast buds removed so she'll never reach puberty. She was given estrogen treatments and will never be more than 4 feet 5 inches and 75 pounds.

It's been called "the Ashley Treatment".

reason # eleventy billion not to have kids---they could be born handicapped---actually this should be reason number 2 because reason number 1 is because kids are a pain in the arse and a handicapped kid would be even more of a pain in the arse--- i should know because i've been a kid (no not handicapped) one for quite some time and i would never want to take care of something like me.

Do you know how many women that are developmentally unable to care for themselves end up being pregnant in care facilities because they get "raped" by careworkers.
It isn't like they can stop or are even aware of such an attack.
Her parents aren't likely to be able to care for her for her entire life.
As much as it makes me shudder I can see why they did what they did and the rational behind it

Oh, and declaring this an "illegal sterilization" is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard of. She is pretty much in a persistent vegetative state, and has been since birth. Her parents wanted to make her into a "permanent child" PRECISELY because they didn't want a "Kill Bill" scenario happening to her (caretaker Buck deciding to f*ck their daughter).

It's asinine for them to say that the hospital "took away her reproductive rights". SHE'S A FARKING VEGETABLE. The only way she's gonna reproduce is if a horny sicko caretaker decided to rape her, and by doing what they did to her, they spared her that awful fate.

eqtworld

trolling? or being clever?

The whole thing creeps me out. The only "pillow angel" involved should have been a brick and a pillowcase.

eqtworld

Pretty weak troll... way too over the top.

-shrug- You guys seem to find this sad because they've neutered her like a pet, but really she is just a pet. A fairly dumb pet at that.
What is it really that makes a pet a pet? The second my dog starts discussing Wall Street trading with me, I stop finding it acceptable that he drinks from the toilet bowl. Until that point, I just got 'oh you silly being of lesser intelligence'.
That's all she is. She's not furry, and she won't even be crawling about, but she's just a pet. So they neutered her.
Not all people are equal, sorry guys, she's only like 1/4 human.

passiontiger74: Do you know how many women that are developmentally unable to care for themselves end up being pregnant in care facilities because they get "raped" by careworkers.

Probably not that many.

Perhaps I am just a cold bastard, but logically, what is the point in even supporting a creature like this? It can do nothing, it will never be able do to anything, at least according to the information FTFA. I know I am not going to make any friends here by saying this, but frankly the child should be put down. Its existance is nothing but a burden - a financial burden upon the parents and family, a burden upon the medical system, and likely also a burden on the taxpayers. Some retarded/developmentally-disabled people are capable of some learning, and capbable of being good people who are able to *do* something. I am not a proponent of widespread euthenasia of anyone that is "not quite right" ...for one thing, its likely that I would have been euthanized as a child, and I am rather thankful that I am still here. But, if this "person" is stuck in a permanant infant state where they will never be able to so much as utter a word or sit up on their own, then there is absolutely no logical reason to keep this body alive, as it seems like basically that is what it is - a body without a functional brain. I know it sucks, but thats life.

Approves.

/Still pretty farked up...
//I will shrink you...

I just go* 'oh you silly being of lesser intelligence'.

/blah
//am i 95% human now?
///slashies

Anyone here clucking their tongues at how horrible this is willing to take care of this retard when she gets pregnant after some orderly rapes her?

I didn't think so.

That thing (not willing to really call it human, my dog functions at a higher level) is their responsibility and they're doing the best they can. They're far better people than I am. I'd give it to the state as their problem.

I don't understand what the opinions of "people with disabilities" have to do with anything here. Okay, so maybe let all the literally brain dead people speak for her. I don't really think it's fair for the people who are missing a leg or are deaf to think they really understand what this kid is going through.

When I first heard about this, I thought it seemed pretty lousy. "Let's put this kid through a ton of elective procedures just to make life easier for us" does not smack of good parenting.

Then, I realized, NOTHING is ever going to make life easy for these parents. They don't want her wasting away in some nursing home. She has the mentality of a three month old. Most of us have dealt with a 3 month old and been fine, but I'd bet the farm that none of them were 100 lbs. and menstruating.

I'm still not sure it was the right thing to do, because this has slippery slope written all over it. At the same time, I try not to judge, because they really do have her best interests at heart. I wouldn't want to have to deal with this.

Ok, permanent "infant state" goes a little beyond "disability". Is anencephaly a disability, too?

soakitincider

That child was born with said organs, its possible the organs worked, and then the organs were removed. Why? for convenience? that seems peculiar.

Hormones. Look up the concept of "castration", as she underwent effectively the female equivalent. When performed at that young of an age, it will effectively prevent the person from ever going through puberty, going through growth spurts, and so on.

The daughter is effectively permanently a vegetable, and this was done for the sake of convenience to parents that at least care enough to care for their child (if you can call it that) rather than foisting the child off to some veggie ward. In the long run, it will be much easier to care for and clean up after a vegetable that is child-sized than full-adult-sized - there's also a significantly higher risk of self-injury if someone permanently stuck with the brain of an infant were to be allowed to grow to adult size.

FTA: Ashley was diagnosed with severe brain damage shortly after birth, and her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk.

But she's an expert at 'staying' and 'heeling'.

/Sit UBU, sit.
//good dog

what a farking nightmare