10 Jan 07
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, there is a slight difference between the two. The point in either
You said this:
[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: ...[text shortened]... t would you be prepared to go? If not, what modifications to her body would you agree with?[/b]
case is that the 'helping' aspect should be optimized and the 'harming'
aspect should be minimized. I'm hardpressed to imagine something
neutral, given that surgery, in and of itself, is harmful -- that is, the
removal of arms, say, which poses a minimal benefit is easily outweight
by the fact that she benefits by having them (through the intimacy of
casual touch which all three-month olds enjoy) and the harm of going
through a traumatic surgery (arm removals are hardly trivial) and the
results of once having arms and no longer having them, which all
amputees report (shadow pain, confusion, and so forth).
As for your claim that only #1 matters, such a thing is silly. Yes,
number #1 is the primary concern -- a parent shouldn't cause
minimal harm to the child in order to gain moderate personal benefit --
but something which causes no harm to the child and benefits
the caretaker is ultimately beneficial to the child. Certainly, you
recognize the truth of that statement.
Nemesio
10 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioBut my point here is mostly with what legitimacy. With what legitimacy can you remove a body part from a mentally disabled person to benefit the caretaker?
As for your claim that only #1 matters, such a thing is silly. Yes,
number #1 is the [b]primary concern -- a parent shouldn't cause
minimal harm to the child in order to gain moderate personal benefit --
but something which causes no harm to the child and benefits
the caretaker is ultimately beneficial to the child. Certainly, you
recognize the truth of that statement.
Nemesio[/b]
Should such decisions be left for such an (inherently subjective) utilitaristic computation? If it directly benefits more the child than it harms her, then of course I agree with you. If the benefits to the child are purely indirect through an hypothetical possibility (let's not forget that it isn't sure) of better care then I'm not so sure.
10 Jan 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's hard to pee without a penis.
I'm still not sure the "Ashley treatment" does not entail the removal of the clitoris and in case the "pillow angel" is a boy the removal of the testicles and the penis. I cannot see how they can reason against this. What would be the reasons not to remove these organs ?
11 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't know about removing the testicles -- there may be analogous
I'm still not sure the "Ashley treatment" does not entail the removal of the clitoris and in case the "pillow angel" is a boy the removal of the testicles and the penis. I cannot see how they can reason against this. What would be the reasons not to remove these organs ?
advantages to preventing puberty in a male in Ashley's condition --
but a clitorectomy would pose no benefit and force the individual to
undergo a surgery and a recovery period. Consequently, the harm
outweights the good. I have a similar reaction to the idea of removing
a penis from a male in Ashley's condition.
Your fascination with genetalia is indicative of sexual repression, Ivanhoe.
You should do something about that.
Nemesio
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeAshley can't lay down. It would be extremely expensive to buy a bathtub that was 6 feet in length. Plus, where would they install it? It would also take more water to fill, which would run up their bill after a while. On the other hand, the procedure is probably covered by either insurance or the government.
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]
Ashley is probably more prone to infection because she's probably not as healthy as a normal child. She also isn't able to take care of herself as a normal nine year old would.
Not having children is not the reason for removing her sex organs. It's so she won't have cramps when she's on her period. And since she won't be having children, she doesn't need her uterus. Surgery to remove any other woman's would be extreme because they have the mental capability to handle the pain. A 3 month old wouldn't be able to cope with feeling like it's being stabbed with a hot knife.
Because Ashley is unable to defend herself and unaware of her surroundings for the most part, it makes her more likely to be sexually abused. She can't tell anybody or run away. Not having breasts would make her look more like a child, and probably less likely to be raped.
- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
11 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree. Just because somebody is mentally unaware of their body or surroundings it does not justify an assault to the body. However, i recognise that they claim to have researched this thoroughly i only wonder whether there was an independant advocate who acted absolutely, in the interests of Ashley.
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 no ...[text shortened]... accept their claims and move on. But I have to say the 'pillow angel' thing left me uneasy.
The parents in writing their blog should have stuck to the medical benefits of such treatment rather than confuse it with benefits to them because it opens it up to debate. No doubt they were attempting to gain understanding from the wider public on what parents of children in these situations go through and why they chose this course.
To relate any of these procedures as a deterrant for sexual abuse is poppycock. Children get abused everyday whether they have a disability or not and whether they have breasts or not.
I was also disappointed with the Dr on the ethics panel to describe being a 3 month old in an adults body as grotesque. I would have preferred he stuck to his area of expertise and leave his personal opinion out of this issue. There are many people who are childlike and trapped in an adult body and to paint this as grotesque is an insult.
As the UK disability advocates this gets down to resources being available for carers without having to resort to such drastic steps as the parents have done. carers save a govt. billions of dollars in providing care for their family members with a disability and the govt. still has yet to provide a satisfactory level of funding.
Other parents won't put their children through body altering treatments because they will accept their child has a disability and do their damndest to provide good care. Yes, some do put their children in homes for whatever reason, but many do not, hence the billion dollar savings to govts.
I only hope that treatment of this kind or of a similar nature does not become a common solution for parents to deal with their children who have disabilities.
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by NemesioI certainly appreciate all these points, although in some cases I wouldn't share your level of certainty that Ashley is in every respect mentally equivalent to a 3-month-old.
What are the costs to Ashley? Looking at this case specifically, what possible benefit could she
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 permanen ...[text shortened]... ecifically and indirectly to her parents (who are by
necessity, her caregivers).
Nemesio
And I'm not saying that I'm against the procedure, it's the weighing up process that's important. The next big question is, who is best placed to do the weighing up? As I said, the current law in Australia for sterilisations is that neither the parents nor the doctors are the appropriate people to ultimately make the decision - the parents because of the risk of self-interest conflicting, and the doctors because that's not their role. So the decision lies with the courts.
You can argue there's an element of self-interest in the courts having made a decision to give themselves jurisdiction, but the approach seems to generally be welcomed by disability advocacy groups here.
The major grounds for sterilisations that are approved here have to do with the inability of a girl to cope, mentally, with menstruation and/or pregnancy. That involves a (potential) negative consequence if the sterilisation procedure ISN'T performed - normal adult development would be distressing. We seem to be moving with this case into arguments that normal adult development just isn't needed, so it can be foregone because of other benefits. I'm not really sure what I think of that argument, but I certainly would be interested to see what view the courts would take of it. A court case may only happen if parents and doctors disagree on the appropriate course of action.
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy not ivan? None of the medical literature mentions the clitoris so why would you even contemplate that they would remove it? And earlier I asked what possible benefits there could be for it's removal and you didn't say a word.
I'm still not sure the "Ashley treatment" does not entail the removal of the clitoris
So tell me, how can you be sure the procedure doesn't involve the removal of her toes?
11 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio; "Your fascination with genetalia is indicative of sexual repression, Ivanhoe.
I don't know about removing the testicles -- there may be analogous
advantages to preventing puberty in a male in Ashley's condition --
but a clitorectomy would pose no benefit and force the individual to
undergo a surgery and a recovery period. Consequently, the harm
outweights the good. I have a similar reaction to the idea of removing
a penis from is indicative of sexual repression, Ivanhoe.
You should do something about that.
Nemesio
You should do something about that."
Looool .... 😀 😵 .... slap slap ..... looool ...... 😵
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by Remora91Remora: "Because Ashley is unable to defend herself ... " she can be subjected to treatments which are questionable to say the least.
Ashley can't lay down. It would be extremely expensive to buy a bathtub that was 6 feet in length. Plus, where would they install it? It would also take more water to fill, which would run up their bill after a while. On the other hand, the procedure is probably covered by either insurance or the government.
Ashley is probably more prone to infection bec ...[text shortened]... breasts would make her look more like a child, and probably less likely to be raped.
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by Remora91Remora: " Not having breasts would make her look more like a child, and probably less likely to be raped."
Ashley can't lay down. It would be extremely expensive to buy a bathtub that was 6 feet in length. Plus, where would they install it? It would also take more water to fill, which would run up their bill after a while. On the other hand, the procedure is probably covered by either insurance or the government.
Ashley is probably more prone to infection bec ...[text shortened]... breasts would make her look more like a child, and probably less likely to be raped.
Reasoning in a simular way you could reason that keeping her little, removing her breasts and thus making her look like a child she will have a bigger chance of getting raped by a pedophile.
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by chrissybI know this is not your intention, but I even find it misleading to talk about these children "being trapped' in an adult body. The child is not being trapped at all. It is a misconception used by the ones advocating this "Ashley Treatment" in order to get their actions accepted. It is a manipulative way of describing the situation.
I agree. Just because somebody is mentally unaware of their body or surroundings it does not justify an assault to the body. However, i recognise that they claim to have researched this thoroughly i only wonder whether there was an independant advocate who acted absolutely, in the interests of Ashley.
The parents in writing their blog should have stuck ...[text shortened]... oes not become a common solution for parents to deal with their children who have disabilities.
... as I said, this is not your intention, chrissyb.
11 Jan 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZNemesio claims there would not be any benefits ... but maybe it would make them more quiet and more at ease
Why not ivan? None of the medical literature mentions the clitoris so why would you even contemplate that they would remove it? And earlier I asked what possible benefits there could be for it's removal and you didn't say a word.
..... or will they not be bothered by sexual feelings since their reproductive organs will be removed ?