- Joined
- 20 Jan 06
- Moves
- 104433
Originally posted by ivanhoegood point Ivanhoe, i agree.
I 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.
... as I said, this is not your intention, chrissyb.
Originally posted by chrissyb
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.
Nothing justifies an assault on another person. However, there is no reason to believe that the
decisions that the parents made are 'an assault.' Such language is hyperbole and is meant to
elicit emotional responses that Ivanhoe so clearly disdains.
I do agree that with the unorthodox methods they are employing, that having an independent
advocate as an advisor would be a good idea. I don't know whether they did or did not,
but given the conscientiousness with which they have handled the whole affair, it would not surprise
me.
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.
Politically speaking, yes, you're probably right. But my, Ivanhoe's, your, or anyone else's outrage
at them is moot, anyway, since they are the child's guardian. The courts have reviewed the case
and the doctors are in favor of the procedures.
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 tend to think of it as a fringe issue and certainly don't consider it as a mitigating factor for deciding
to go forward with the procedures. Given that there are plenty of other legitimate and compelling
reasons to do so, the desexualization issue worth noting (given the prevalence of sexual abuse
in healthcare facilities) but that's all.
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.
Could you cite what exactly was said?
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.
Amen.
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.
It is not because they 'accept their child has a disability' that they won't go through these procedures.
Certainly, Ashley's parents accept the status of their child. The reason parents wouldn't go through
with such procedures is because they don't find the benefits sufficiently compelling. Personally, I
do and, if I were tragically faced with the same situation, I would likely pursue the same course of
action. That having been said, I would also respect those parents who elected not to do so.
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.
The term 'disabilities' is a pretty broad concept, here. Yes, I hope that they don't remove the
uteri of children with diabetes or ectrodactyly, for example. And, I also hope that static
encephalopathy doesn't become common. However, for parents who have children in similar,
tragic circumstances, I hope that the knowledge that another family has paved the way through
extraordinarily difficult decisions gives them the capacity to make more informed decisions
regarding their own situation.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeThese maybes are based in your perverse world of psychotic dependence, not in medical science.
Nemesio claims there would not be any benefits ... but maybe it would make them more quiet and more at ease
..... or will they not be bothered by sexual feelings since their reproductive organs will be removed ?
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy is it misleading, Ivanhoe? Are you saying she has a nine-year old mentality? Are you
I 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.
disagreeing with the diagnosis of static encephalopthy? What exactly is confusing you here,
because, of all the issues, that she has the mentality and capacities of a three-month old is a
point of common ground for all involved.
Are you going to explain what benefit Ashley will have from her uterus? Are you going to explain
what harm removing her uterus causes to her?
No. You are going to keep going with your emotional histrionics.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeStop being ridiculous ivanhoe. The only valid point you've made is that she's more likely to be molested by a paedophile than someone who prefers adults. But you haven't said anything against any of the other arguments.
Remora: "Because Ashley is unable to defend herself ... " she can be subjected to treatments which are questionable to say the least.
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: " .... elicit emotional responses that Ivanhoe so clearly disdains"
Originally posted by chrissyb
[b]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.
Nothing ...[text shortened]... to make more informed decisions
regarding their own situation.
Nemesio[/b]
Please do not twist my comments. As can be checked I object to Appeals to Emotion ( ... Pity) in trying to establish whether the Ashley Treatmemt is morally acceptable or not ... and I object to terms, misconceptions, untrue statements, meant to manipulate people, like claiming that Ashly is "entrapped" in her body.
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: " .... But my, Ivanhoe's, your, or anyone else's outrage"
Originally posted by chrissyb
[b]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.
Nothing ...[text shortened]... to make more informed decisions
regarding their own situation.
Nemesio[/b]
I'm not outraged. I'm sceptical and critical.
Originally posted by Remora91I have objected to certain ways of reasoning. My objections still stand. You simply refuse to accept them.
Stop being ridiculous ivanhoe. The only valid point you've made is that she's more likely to be molested by a paedophile than someone who prefers adults. But you haven't said anything against any of the other arguments.
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, they won't, since that isn't the main reason for removing her breasts and making her smaller. Think of a reason medically why this operation shouldn't be performed.
I have objected to certain ways of reasoning. My objections still stand. You simply refuse to accept them.
Originally posted by Remora91Protecting somebody against sexual abuse should be done in other ways than removing her breasts, limiting her growth or removing her uterus. I am objecting to the ways of reasoning, as I said before.
No, they won't, since that isn't the main reason for removing her breasts and making her smaller. Think of a reason medically why this operation shouldn't be performed.
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat about the reasons to make her more comfortable and prevent the risk of invection, etc.? Or can you only make an arguement against the sexual abuse reasoning?
Protecting somebody against sexual abuse should be done in other ways than removing her breasts, limiting her growth or removing her uterus. I am objecting to the ways of reasoning, as I said before.