I'm not going flame you, because I can see where you're coming from and I can see where Sabrina's coming from. I honestly I have no idea what I'd do if I were put in that position of being the parent. And that's really all I can say about it.

When YOU have a child in this case.....judge. Until then, don't expect someone to abide by your unreasonable expectations. If you think you are NOT unreasonable.....go to school. Become a nurse so you can do care for the seriously handicapped on a long term basis. Try a few weeks ON YOUR OWN and THEN decide if you can hack it. What is worse? Putting a child in an institution where they rot away or doing your best to care for them yourself? And if you think they have another option...think hard about if you can do it.

I put 5 1/2 hard years in managing group homes for the developmentally disabled, life. I lived in an apartment in the group home, and when they were up at 2 AM, I was up at 2 AM. I dealt with things those who have not worked in that area (and as a live-in staff, specifically) cannot even BEGIN to imagine. While I do not have any developmentally disabled children of my own, I feel that I am certainly as qualified as anyone to speak on this.

First, as to the 50 member ethics committee: I trust the opinions of anonymous bureaucrats about as much as I trust the opinions of trolls on forum posts. Their degrees do not endow them with omniscience, and a medical degree does not give them the area specific knowledge they need to rule on the case. Oddly enough, if someone had their pets genetically engineered in some of the ways this girl is being altered, the community would likely be outraged. Yet when we do this with a human being, people stand and defend it?

Even a rather large adult CAN be moved by someone much smaller. There are Hoyer lifts, transfer boards, and a large number of other adaptive devices designed to facilitate moving handicapped individuals. To me it is patently absurd for someone to defend this surgery because they don't want the inconvenience of purchasing a van with a wheelchair lift, or any number of other types of equipment. People think about the inconveniences placed on the caregiver, what about the inconveniences placed on the individual? Do we know for a fact that surgically stunting her growth will not have long term health consequences? Do we know for a fact that removing the breast buds and giving hormones will not cause cancer further down the line causing this woman to suffer needlessly because of her parents' desire for convenience?

In the past, developmentally disabled patients have been lobotomized, euthanized, and mistreated in many other ways...all for the sake of convenience. They live their entire lives at the whims of their caregivers, with almost no thought of their personal desires, except by the very few caregivers who actually care and who are usually driven out of the business by the politics of it all. They eat what someone else tells them to eat, they go where someone else tells them to go, they watch the TV shows someone else tells them to watch, they listen to the music someone else tells them to listen to...the LAST thing we should do is surgically alter their bodies because it suits our needs rather than their own best interests.

I'm willing to concede that there are two sides to this issue, lifehappens. But it is VITALLY important to note that the OTHER side is that of an individual who is sadly unable to express what they want out of life. For that reason, we must be very careful in the choices we make as they apply to this individual. Because some choices are irreversible.

Good counterpoint, BTW.

There are Hoyer lifts, transfer boards, and a large number of other adaptive devices designed to facilitate moving handicapped individuals. To me it is patently absurd for someone to defend this surgery because they don't want the inconvenience of purchasing a van with a wheelchair lift, or any number of other types of equipment. People think about the inconveniences placed on the caregiver, what about the inconveniences placed on the individual? Do we know for a fact that surgically stunting her growth will not have long term health consequences? Do we know for a fact that removing the breast buds and giving hormones will not cause cancer further down the line causing this woman to suffer needlessly because of her parents' desire for convenience?

I'd quote the astronomical cost for this stuff....but since I don't' know if they paid for surgery on their own, that may not make a difference in this case. Most of the needed equipment doesn't fit into a home very well. Depending on the job/living arrangements (rental or apartment?) it may not work for all people.

We do know that this method of stunting growth was used for years when girls were intentionally stunted to avoid being "too tall" by the standards of the day. There have been no long term health issues that I have found that apply here. It was discontinued because people learned that tall girls are not a bad thing, not because of negative health consequences.

May males have been treated in this manner without a increased cancer risk. In fact evidence suggested (sorry they didn't provide the study and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) that removing the breast buds will actually reduce the risk of breast cancer later. She is maintaining her ovaries, so no hormones will be used for that. Therefore, what increased risk do you propose she is under?

I'd quote the astronomical cost for this stuff....but since I don't' know if they paid for surgery on their own, that may not make a difference in this case. Most of the needed equipment doesn't fit into a home very well. Depending on the job/living arrangements (rental or apartment?) it may not work for all people.

The cost of this stuff can be paid by insurance and even rented in many cases. There's no end to the organizations that work to provide these devices to the people who need them. I'm well aware of the cost. I have had to fill out more than my share of billing forms for items like this. I'm quite certain that if they needed to they could find a way to make the modifications needed.

I know people who can and do live in arrangements where things are not easy. Sacrifices are made out of love, because they want the best for their children.

We do know that this method of stunting growth was used for years when girls were intentionally stunted to avoid being "too tall" by the standards of the day. There have been no long term health issues that I have found that apply here. It was discontinued because people learned that tall girls are not a bad thing, not because of negative health consequences.

Foot binding was practiced for centuries in China, too. Women didn't speak up about the pain associated with it because speaking out like that was something you DID NOT do; you simply endured it. Yes, medically stunting growth was done for many years, but it would be easy to bring out a laundry list of other barbaric practices that were also undertaken.

May males have been treated in this manner without a increased cancer risk. In fact evidence suggested (sorry they didn't provide the study and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) that removing the breast buds will actually reduce the risk of breast cancer later. She is maintaining her ovaries, so no hormones will be used for that. Therefore, what increased risk do you propose she is under?

First off, we can't know. I am absolutely driven nuts by the fact we live in an age where our doctors believe they know absolutely all there is to know about everything and that their OPINIONS translate into fact when our history has shown that people who were equally arrogant about their own knowledge were quite definitively wrong. I could give you a list of accepted medical procedures that have health risks that doctors do not routinely disclose, yet they are practiced on a daily basis. Abortion would be but one example of such a practice.

If I were an MD or even cared to review each of these procedures, I can say quite positive I could come up with an EXTENSIVE list of possible risks; let's not forget that because of her condition she is almost certainly on a routine of various medications to begin with, and that the addition of more medications increases the risk of contraindications, side effects, and other medical risks. Even aspirin, quite a common drug, is listed quite extensively in the PDR.

This right here is why I left the field of caring for the developmentally disabled. Because, let's be frank; in this debate the one who matters least is the one who SHOULD matter most. This girl is nothing more than a political and PR tool for her parents and physicians, and I, for one, find that appalling.

She weighs 95lbs now, and her expected normal adult weight was estimated to top out at around 125, if she was fed a proper diet.

at an estimated 5'6'' (I'm the same height and I'm 150-155) I think 125 is the low end. no exercise? I've seen disabled people who run the full range from malnourished looking to obese. I'm sure they will monitor her intake, but short of putting her on a diet if she becomes large (Imagine the backlash you would have on that) there is no way of guarenteeing she will only be 125lbs.

As far as breasts go, there's always breast reduction surgery, if and when it becomes necessary to do so. This was pre-emtpive. In regards to her periods...again I say hogwash. The girl is incontinent, her private body parts are already exposed to her caregivers om a daily basis, so adding a kotex during her diaper change is not exactly a burden

so you would have no problem "mutilating" her body if it was done after the problem became evident? You advocate a more complicated and invasive surgical process with a longer healing time? On the period issue...just slap a kotex on? Maybe you don't have a very heavy cycle, but most people bathe/clean themselves more at that time. She can't tell anyone if her kotex has shifted....and they won't use a kotex when she is already in a diaper. She has no bowel/bladder control.....this IS a messy consideration. You may quote convenience here, but thinking of her personal higiene, it seems like it would make a difference in their ability to keep her clean and sanitary.

Perma-doping for period cramps? Haha, I wish. Still, there are dozens of medications that can be used to relieve that discomfort, and we're only talking a couple of days a month here. Hell, you can even dose her with birth control pills to control the frequency, nowadays they have certain ones that you can take for three or four months at at time, only having a couple of menstrual periods per year.

She can't indicate WHY is is in discomfort, so you would have them ASSUME her pain is from her cycle and dope her accordingly. hmmmm... Birth control pills have been linked with cancer....and would increase her chance of complications and possible pregnancy if ever abused. That would be, in my eyes "perma doping" for convenience. Pills at 9 years old would only increase her development and mess with her own body chemistry.

We're not going to agree on this, LH, but no flame is forthcoming. I will, however, express my annoyance that instead of waiting for a response on my thread about it, you chose to post this as some sort of flame-bait of your own, using my name in the title. Please remove it. My name, that is.

I was posting this on my page so people who really wanted to could post personal attacks would not fill up your comments and derail the intent of the article. I honestly expected some viciousness. I apologize for the use of your name....It was the first thing I thought of and I posted before thinking of something witty. I would have changed it right away, but the whole edit/delete thing wasn't' cooperating. I'll do that now.

I have not really commented on this issue (I debated Jennifer for a spell on Euthanasia) for a big reason.  I am not the parents.

I do agree with them that life is precious and Ashley should live.  As for the surgery?  How can I pass a moral judgement over them when I have (thank god) never been in their shoes?  I dont see as it will reduce her quality of life.  Not like she could be promiscuos.  And instead of advocating euthanasia, they are trying to give her some quality of life.  In their view.  Are they right?  Hell, no one knows right now.  Even the medicals are debating it.

IN the absense of any empirical data, and the absense of any moral absolute (they did not kill her, and did not deprive her of anything she was capable of), I have to side with the parents.  Their burden is greater than most (re: Michael Shiavo) can bear or want to.

I pray for them as well as Ashley.  And pray that no more parents must make that decision.  for only a parent can understand their torment, whether they agree with their decision or not.