Have any of the people who oppose the procedures on this girl ever been involved with the daily care at home of such a person - I think not.
If anyone has, they will know the practical AND emotional issues go hand-in-hand. It really is a case of not knowing how you would handle this unless you are in that position.
This thread could go round in circles for a long time!
Originally posted by Pawn QweenYou mentioned the word emotional! Therefore your entire post is an appeal to emotion!
Have any of the people who oppose the procedures on this girl ever been involved with the daily care at home of such a person - I think not.
If anyone has, they will know the practical AND emotional issues go hand-in-hand. It really is a case of not knowing how you would handle this unless you are in that position.
This thread could go round in circles for a long time!
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou have yet to address my other rational arguements that are not an "Appeal to Pity."
X says ..... in unbearable suffering for the rest of their life with no prospect of real improvement.
That´s what they claim, but collegues have argued that the human beings being killed ( .... they are after all human beings, don´t you agree ?) do not suffer at all in the way they, the killers, claim.
... by the way, the above claim of unbearable suff ...[text shortened]... ing is the same. In both cases it is an irrational and therefore unacceptable way of reasoning.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWe'd best not discuss whether or not our government can torture people. There's great suffering involved in torture and therefore any discussion of the entire topic is an appeal to emotion. Right, hoe?
X says ..... in unbearable suffering for the rest of their life with no prospect of real improvement.
That´s what they claim, but collegues have argued that the human beings being killed ( .... they are after all human beings, don´t you agree ?) do not suffer at all in the way they, the killers, claim.
... by the way, the above claim of unbearable suff ...[text shortened]... ing is the same. In both cases it is an irrational and therefore unacceptable way of reasoning.
In order to address whether or not the decisions are moral, we must ask ourselves if the removal
of this child's breasts and uterus will result in a diminished quality of life. What are a uterus and
breasts for? Primarily child-bearing and child-rearing. Also, these things often serve as focal
points for gender identity in a woman.
In regards to child-bearing and -rearing and with respect to gender identity, this child will not have
any diminished quality of life because none of these things will ever come into play: she will never
have an opportunity to recognize her own woman-ness much less engage in a meaningful relationship
in which children will be born. No harm will come to this child as a result of these procedures, so
no violation of the hypocratic oath takes place.
So, what good will come of it? Clearly, not having a uterus will be of a benefit to her given
that she will never experience the discomforts of menses, discomforts she, as a 3-month old would
have difficulty processing. Furthermore, given that she essentially does not move, the sensitivity
that fully-developed breasts do her no benefit and stand to present her with increased discomfort.
Lastly, it is obviously to her advantage that she have loving caretakers. Things which cause no harm
to her and aid the caretakers are to her advantage since she is utterly dependent on them. Being
large or small is of no intrinsic value to her as she has no concept of the meaning or advantages of
height. However, being large is to her disadvantage as it pertains to the facility of the tremendous
care that she requires.
Anyone who is opposed to these procedures has to make the case why the actions taken by her
parents are harmful. I've seen nothing but indignation from those criticizing her parents who have
been nothing but courageous and diligent in attending to her needs.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI will now rebutt your points in song form:
In order to address whether or not the decisions are moral, we must ask ourselves if the removal
of this child's breasts and uterus will result in a diminished quality of life. What are a uterus and
breasts for? Primarily child-bearing and child-rearing. Also, these things often serve as focal
points for gender identity in a woman.
In regards to ch ...[text shortened]... rents who have
been nothing but courageous and diligent in attending to her needs.
Nemesio
Oh, girl I've known you very well
I've seen you growing everyday
I never really looked before
But now you take my breath away.
Suddenly youre in my life
Part of everything I do
You got me working day and night
Just trying to keep a hold on you.
Here in your arms I found my paradise
My only chance for happiness
And if I lose you now I think I would die.
Oh say you'll always be my baby
We can make it shine, we can take forever
Just a minute at a time.
More than a woman, more than a woman to me
More than a woman, more than a woman to me
More than a woman, oh, oh, oh.
There are stories old and true
Of people so in love like you and me
And I can see myself
Let history repeat itself.
Reflecting how I feel for you
Thinking about those people then
I know that in a thousand years
I'd fall in love with you again.
This is the only way that we should fly
This is the only way to go
And if I lose your love I know I would die.
Oh say you'll always be my baby
We can make it shine, we can take forever
Just a minute at a time.
More than a woman, more than a woman to me
More than a woman, more than a woman to me
More than a woman, oh, oh, oh.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ?
I will now rebutt your points in song form:
Oh, girl I've known you very well
I've seen you growing everyday
I never really looked before
But now you take my breath away.
Suddenly youre in my life
Part of everything I do
You got me working day and night
Just trying to keep a hold on you.
Here in your arms I found my paradise
My only chan ...[text shortened]... woman to me
More than a woman, more than a woman to me
More than a woman, oh, oh, oh.
Australian law prevents parents and doctors making the decision to sterilise a child. A court order is required for a sterilisation to be legal.
There is some debate as to whether the law is being breached or circumvented, however. The disabled community generally supports the law, and the main concern is whether it is in fact being applied.
The rationale for the requirement for a court order is that the interests of the child and the self-interest of the parents can easily conflict, and the consequences of the procedure are drastic. Parents could easily convince themselves that what makes *their* life easier is also in the child's best interest, when this might not actually be true.
This case suggests to me that the same concerns can arise with other procedures besides sterilisation. Keeping the child small clearly benefits the parents, but the question is, does it also benefit the child? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Originally posted by orfeoI would say it benefits the child in that continuous care can be given within the family. I'm sure there is much more to this case than indicated in the news article, and the parents have convinced a panel that the procedures should go ahead. We don't have all the details about the girl's medical history so we cannot judge the parents right or wrong.
Keeping the child small clearly benefits the parents, but the question is, does it also benefit the child? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?[/b]
And, XanthosNZ, I didn't use the 'e' word this time!!!
Originally posted by ivanhoeTheir site says examples I didn't think of, but generally the same thing. They have medical reasons for removing certain things, and also so Ashley is more comfortable:
... and those are ?
1- She will continue to fit in and be bathed in a standard size bathtub. Since Ashley can’t sit, she needs to lie down in the bathtub. Without the treatment eventually she would stop fitting in a standard size bathtub and would need a different arrangement for bathing.
2- Ashley is more comfortable lying down and does not like to sit in her wheelchair, she fusses and cries if she is in it for more than a short time. We move her around the house while lying down in a regular double-stroller (we face the chairs together, cover them with a thick double natural sheepskin and set the back of one to a reclining angle). The system works remarkably well; however, Ashley is already at the weight limit for which this stroller is designed (two babies).
Recently, a doctor suggested that Ashley will be less prone to infections as a result of her smaller size. Bedridden individuals are more susceptible to potentially fatal infections. Both the reduction in size in itself, and the increased movement and resulting blood circulation are expected to reduce the occurrence and magnitude of such infections including:
1- Skin sores: larger body weight leads to pressure skin ulceration or bed sores, providing an inlet for deadly bacterial infections (another way to look at this is that adults are more susceptible to bed sores than children).
2- Pneumonia: increased body weight increases the pressure on the chest and reduces the lungs’ ability to expand, causing fluid build up in the lungs that increases the chance for pneumonia and breathing complications.
3- Bladder infection: similarly, increased body weight causes increased pressure on the bladder outlet, resulting in urinary retention and an increased risk for bladder infections.
Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children. This procedure will avoid the menstrual cycle and all the bleeding/discomfort/pain/cramps that are so commonly associated with it.
The procedure involved removing Ashley’s uterus but keeping her ovaries to maintain her natural hormones.
Additional and incidental benefits include avoiding any possibility of pregnancy, which to our astonishment does occur to disabled women who are abused. The hysterectomy also eliminates the possibility of uterine cancer and other common and often painful complications that cause women later in life to undergo the procedure.
Ashley has no need for developed breasts since she will not breast feed and their presence would only be a source of discomfort to her. This is especially true since Ashley is likely destined to have large breasts, given her maternal and paternal female lineage; for example, an aunt had a breast reduction operation at age 19. Large breasts are uncomfortable lying down with a bra and even less comfortable without a bra. Furthermore, breasts impede securing Ashley in her wheelchair, stander, or bath chair, where straps across her chest are needed to support her body weight. Before the surgery Ashley had already exhibited sensitivity in her breasts.
1- Avoiding the possibility of painful fibrocystic growth and future related surgeries. Women in Ashley’s lineage have a history of fibrocystic growth.
2- Avoiding the possibility of breast cancer. Ashley has breast cancer history in her family.
3- Large breasts could “sexualize” Ashley towards her caregiver, especially when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse.
Originally posted by Remora91I also want the "Ashley treatment" .... these benefits are just great .... I wonder how much it costs ....
Their site says examples I didn't think of, but generally the same thing. They have medical reasons for removing certain things, and also so Ashley is more comfortable:
1- She will continue to fit in and be bathed in a standard size bathtub. Since Ashley can’t sit, she needs to lie down in the bathtub. Without the treatment eventually she would stop ...[text shortened]... y when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse.
The first reason they give for the "Ashley treatment" is very appealing:
"She will continue to fit in and be bathed in a standard size bathtub.... "
In particular the last reason they give to remove, amputate, her breasts is very .... uh .... feminist ....
"Large breasts could “sexualize” Ashley towards her caregiver, especially when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse."
This is a whole new level of ..... thinking .... , opening surprisingly new and unexplored landscapes in the realm of National Healthcare.
I want to advise the "Ashley treatment" for all woman who do not want any infections, are not planning to have any children and who do not want to be sexually abused.