Originally posted by ivanhoeIt wasn't very publicised but in fact ivanhoe once recieved the 'ivanhoe treatment', a procedure used to prevent rebellion against religion by removing the part of the brain responsible for critical thought.
I also want the "Ashley treatment" .... these benefits are just great .... I wonder how much it costs ....
The first reason they give for the "Ashley treatment" is very appealing:
[b] "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 . ...[text shortened]... ions, are not planning to have any children and who do not want to be sexually abused.[/b]
Watch now as ivanhoe struggles to think about an appropriate answer.
Originally posted by XanthosNZWell, I was just thinking what the "Ashley Treatment" entails in case the "pillow angel" is a boy ......
It wasn't very publicised but in fact ivanhoe once recieved the 'ivanhoe treatment', a procedure used to prevent rebellion against religion by removing the part of the brain responsible for critical thought.
Watch now as ivanhoe struggles to think about an appropriate answer.
Sister X, is it possible in your enlightened way of thinking that a secular person has serious doubts about this treatment or is it necessary to be religious to look in a critical way at these blessings of science ? Whaddayathink ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhen I first saw the news article on this case I was dead against the procedures. And then I actually went and read about the specific case, the process involved in getting the procedures performed, the diagnosis of the child &c. and I changed my mind.
Well, I was just thinking what the "Ashley Treatment" entails in case the "pillow angel" is a boy ......
Sister X, is it possible in your enlightened way of thinking that a secular person has serious doubts about this treatment or is it necessary to be religious to look in a critical way at these blessings of science ? Whaddayathink ?
Sure it is possible for a secular person to have serious doubts about this treatment (you however are not a secular person). However, people much smarter and more knowledgable about the case have decided that this procedure is for the good of the child and I support their decision. There are many people out there saying that they would never do that to their child but yet, they still support the decision of the parents in this case.
Originally posted by ivanhoeYour sarcastic replies are made with the intent of garnering support through emotional response
I also want the "Ashley treatment" .... these benefits are just great .... I wonder how much it costs ....
The first reason they give for the "Ashley treatment" is very appealing:
[b] "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 . ...[text shortened]... ions, are not planning to have any children and who do not want to be sexually abused.[/b]
rather than appealing to rational discourse.
Remona has provided you with non-emotional explanation for the decisions. You have neither
provided a reason for rejecting them nor provided a reason for your own histrionic position.
Are you going to treat Remona like you treat me, ask for something and provide nothing in return?
I bet you are.
Nemesio
Originally posted by orfeoBrilliant post! I think this gets to the heart of the matter.
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 ration ...[text shortened]... ents, but the question is, does it also benefit the child? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are comparing Ashley's case with what you would apply to the average person. To do this to anyone without any thought would certainly be irresponsible. She is an exceptional case where a great deal of thought has been put into what is best for her.
I also want the "Ashley treatment" .... these benefits are just great .... I wonder how much it costs ....
The first reason they give for the "Ashley treatment" is very appealing:
[b] "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 . ...[text shortened]... ions, are not planning to have any children and who do not want to be sexually abused.[/b]
Why is her breast treatment so wrong? Some women have breast reductions because their breasts are impractically big.
Originally posted by DoctorDaraEugenics has been outlawed? Has someone told planned parenthood?
This sounds like eugenics to me which was outlawed in the US in the 1970s. Parents all want the best for their children, but this takes their own self-interest to a new level.
Originally posted by orfeoWhat are the costs to Ashley? Looking at this case specifically, what possible benefit could she
Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
derive from having a uterus? She is not even aware that she has a uterus, and will never be
aware of it. She is a three-month old trapped in a growing body, and her mental age will never get
beyond three months (hence 'static' encephalopathy). A permanent three-month old will never
benefit in any way from having a uterus, and will never lose anything by not having one. However,
menstruation to a three-month old is a serious liability.
Similarly, she will never benefit by having breasts, and she will not lose anything by not
having them. However, given the intrinsic sensitivity of breasts and given that three-month olds
do not respond well to extraordinary stimuli, there is a benefit from removing them.
Anyone who opposes this must set aside any normative understanding of uteri or breasts and focus
on the specific case at hand. Giving sugar to a hypoglycemic will save them, but to a
hyperglycemic, it will kill them; that is, a treatment's appropriateness is based on the individual at
hand. In order to make a rational, non-emotional case against these procedures, (like orfeo
suggests) one must make the case that Ashley will be harmed by the removals more than she
will benefit.
Since she is essentially three months of age, I cannot fathom any argument that she is being harmed.
Clearly, there are a lot of benefits to her specifically and indirectly to her parents (who are by
necessity, her caregivers).
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioNot necessarily.
b]In order to make a rational, non-emotional case against these procedures, (like orfeo
suggests) one must make the case that Ashley will be harmed by the removals more than she
will benefit. [/b]
Turning Ashley into her parent's plaything is also morally objectable, in my opinion. She may be mentally three months old, but that doesn't mean that everything she is unaware of is acceptable. For example, she would be unaware if her parents created a freak circus show to display her, but that wouldn't be morally acceptable, at least not to me.
In this particular case, and without knowing more, all I can do is simply presume the doctors had good reasons to accept their claims and move on. But I have to say the 'pillow angel' thing left me uneasy.
Originally posted by Palynka
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily what? I don't see how what you wrote after
disagrees with the part of my post that you quoted. Do you disagree
that one should make a rational case? Do you disagree that one
should consider what benefits Ashley? Do you disagree that one
should consider what harms her? Do you disagree that the benefits
must outweigh the harms?
If you don't disagree with those points, then what 'not necessarily?'
Turning Ashley into her parent's plaything is also morally objectable, in my opinion. She may be mentally three months old, but that doesn't mean that everything she is unaware of is acceptable. For example, she would be unaware if her parents created a freak circus show to display her, but that wouldn't be morally acceptable, at least not to me.
Would a freak circus be of benefit to her? No. Would a freak circus
harm her? Quite possibly, given that three-month olds rely on having
limited extreme stimuli that is generally a hallmark of freakshows.
Nothing in your example contradicts the claim I made.
In this particular case, and without knowing more, all I can do is simply presume the doctors had good reasons to accept their claims and move on. But I have to say the 'pillow angel' thing left me uneasy.
What, that they call her 'pillow angel?' I call my son a 'stinky little
elephant.' Do you think he's abused or something?
Or do you mean that this particular case made you uneasy? Of course
it should! It made me uneasy prima facie. Removing a girl's
healthy uterus isn't a trivial issue. It is because this particular
case is so extreme, and the poor girl in such a bad way that such a
procedure is even considerable.
However, given that which I know about it, it seems logically, emotionally,
and physically sound, and I hope that the doctors performing the
surgery and her parents are totally at peace with such a tragic situation.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI don't see why you're so upset about what I wrote.
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Not necessarily.
Not necessarily what? I don't see how what you wrote after
disagrees with the part of my post that you quoted. Do you disagree
that one should make a rational case? Do you disagree that one
should consider what benefits Ashley? Do you disagree that one
should consider what harms ...[text shortened]... ry and her parents are totally at peace with such a tragic situation.
Nemesio[/b]
Not necessarily meant that one can be against some procedures even in cases where the overall harm/benefit balance is neutral or irrelevant.
One can indeed envisage a freak show that could very well be not physically harmful and mentally it is possibly irrelevant as we've all been assuming that mentally she will not be aware of anything.
Calling the girl a 'pillow angel' can mean many things. Among the many positive things it can mean (like the parents love their child and thus show the affection they have for her) it can also mean that the parents are not psychologically ready to see her grow up and have a three-month-old brain. Can you be sure that this isn't the real reason behind their motives? That they 'prefer' to keep her looking like an infant? If so, I don't see how they would even be fit to take care of the child, let alone making a decision about changing her body.
This case makes me uneasy, because manipulating somebody else's body for reasons related with very indirect comfort is never a trivial matter. Like I said, I respect the decision and support it because I prefer to trust the doctors who decided and know much more about this case than me.
However, my whole point was that this issue is not as trivial as some people seem to be portraying it and more is at stake than a simple superficial cost/benefit analysis.
Originally posted by Palynka
I don't see why you're so upset about what I wrote.
I'm not upset.
Not necessarily meant that one can be against some procedures even in cases where the overall harm/benefit balance is neutral or irrelevant.
Then it doesn't pertain to what I wrote, because I said that there had
to be more benefit than harm.
One can indeed envisage a freak show that could very well be not physically harmful and mentally it is possibly irrelevant as we've all been assuming that mentally she will not be aware of anything.
One can envisage it, but that isn't the case with this particular
girl. But, even still, with a child who was utterly vegetative, say, with
no interests whatsoever, you couldn't make the case that such a thing
would be to the child's benefit because nothing benefits or harms
the child.
This is why I emphasized both benefit and harm. It must minimize
harm and maximize benefit. A child unaware of anything wouldn't
stand to benefit or be harmed by anything.
Calling the girl a 'pillow angel' can mean many things. Among the many positive things it can mean (like the parents love their child and thus show the affection they have for her) it can also mean that the parents are not psychologically ready to see her grow up and have a three-month-old brain. Can you be sure that this isn't the real reason behind their motives? That they 'prefer' to keep her looking like an infant? If so, I don't see how they would even be fit to take care of the child, let alone making a decision about changing her body.
I see nothing to make me draw such a conclusion, especially given the
exceptionally attentive and selfless care that they have provided for
the child when many other parents would have just thrown her in a home
and visited her on second Tuesdays. On the contrary, the interviews
that I've seen and the material I've read suggests to me that they
have agonized over this decision, that they do not take the matter
lightly, and that their primary interest is the well-being of their child.
This case makes me uneasy, because manipulating somebody else's body for reasons related with very indirect comfort is never a trivial matter. Like I said, I respect the decision and support it because I prefer to trust the doctors who decided and know much more about this case than me.
Would you remove a boil from her skin? Of course you would, and
without hesitation, because the boil has no benefit and some pain.
Yes, the uterus is bigger and more important than a boil (which is
why the decision requires far more consideration), but it comes down
to: 1) What benefit will she derive from having a uterus? None; and
2) What liabilities will she derive from having a uterus? Moderate, given
her three-month mentality.
Now, if you disagree that she will derive no benefit from her uterus,
then I'd be interested in hearing the justification. Similarly, if you
disagree that she will derive moderate liability from having a uterus,
then I'd be interested in hearing the justification.
However, my whole point was that this issue is not as trivial as some people seem to be portraying it and more is at stake than a simple superficial cost/benefit analysis.
What more is at stake than 1) the child's well-being; and 2) the well-
being of the caretakers?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou said this:
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]I don't see why you're so upset about what I wrote.
I'm not upset.
Not necessarily meant that one can be against some procedures even in cases where the overall harm/benefit balance is neutral or irrelevant.
Then it doesn't pertain to what I wrote, because I said that there had
to be more benefit ...[text shortened]... e child's well-being; and 2) the well-
being of the caretakers?
Nemesio[/b]
In order to make a rational, non-emotional case against these procedures, (like orfeo suggests) one must make the case that Ashley will be harmed by the removals more than she will benefit.
I said. Not necessarily, one must not need to make the case that Ashley will be harmed more than she will benefit.
You've answered:
I said that there had to be more benefit than harm.
No, you didn't. Would you like to rephrase the first quote?
As for your last question, the only point that should matter is 1. The well-being of thirds shouldn't be resolved through removal of body parts of the child. Let me put it like this, if the removal of arms would 'allow her to fit more easily in the tub' would you agree to it? If yes, up to what limit would you be prepared to go? If not, what modifications to her body would you agree with?
Originally posted by XanthosNZX: "However, people much smarter and more knowledgable about the case have decided that this procedure is for the good of the child and I support their decision."
When I first saw the news article on this case I was dead against the procedures. And then I actually went and read about the specific case, the process involved in getting the procedures performed, the diagnosis of the child &c. and I changed my mind.
Sure it is possible for a secular person to have serious doubts about this treatment (you however are ...[text shortened]... ver do that to their child but yet, they still support the decision of the parents in this case.
..... "much smarter and much knowledgable" ..... You're easy to convince, Sister X .... I thought this was a capacity attributed by you to "religious" people who had brain churgery to remove that part of the brain taking care of critical thinking.
... "much smarter and much knowledgable" ... than you, Sister X ?