Surgery on girl raises ethical questions

[Hababi]

"In a case fraught with ethical questions, the parents of a severely mentally and physically disabled child have stunted her growth to keep their little "pillow angel" a manageable and more portable size.

The bedridden 9-year-old girl had her uterus and breast tissue removed at a Seattle hospital and received large doses of hormones to halt her growth. She is now 4-foot-5; her parents say she would otherwise probably reach a normal 5-foot-6.

The case has captured attention nationwide and abroad via the Internet, with some decrying the parents' actions as perverse and akin to eugenics. Some ethicists question the parents' claim that the drastic treatment will benefit their daughter and allow them to continue caring for her at home.

University of Pennsylvania ethicist Art Caplan said the case is troubling and reflects "slippery slope" thinking among parents who believe "the way to deal with my kid with permanent behavioral problems is to put them into permanent childhood."

Right or wrong, the couple's decision highlights a dilemma thousands of parents face in struggling to care for severely disabled children as they grow up.

"This particular treatment, even if it's OK in this situation, and I think it probably is, is not a widespread solution and ignores the large social issues about caring for people with disabilities," Dr. Joel Frader, a medical ethicist at Chicago's Children's Memorial Hospital, said Thursday. "As a society, we do a pretty rotten job of helping caregivers provide what's necessary for these patients."

The case involves a girl identified only as Ashley on a blog her parents created after her doctors wrote about her treatment in October's Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The journal did not disclose the parents' names or where they live; the couple do not identify themselves on their blog, either.

Shortly after birth, Ashley had feeding problems and showed severe developmental delays. Her doctors diagnosed static encephalopathy, which means severe brain damage. They do not know what caused it.

Her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk. Her parents say she will never get better. She is alert, startles easily, and smiles, but does not maintain eye contact, according to her parents, who call the brown-haired little girl their "pillow angel."

She goes to school for disabled children, but her parents care for her at home and say they have been unable to find suitable outside help.

An editorial in the medical journal called "the Ashley treatment" ill-advised and questioned whether it will even work. But her parents say it has succeeded so far.

She had surgery in July 2004 and recently completed the hormone treatment. She weighs about 65 pounds, and is about 13 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than she would be as an adult, according to her parents' blog.

"Ashley's smaller and lighter size makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc.," her parents wrote.

Also, Ashley's parents say keeping her small will reduce the risk of bedsores and other conditions that can afflict bedridden patients. In addition, they say preventing her from going through puberty means she won't experience the discomfort of periods or grow breasts that might develop breast cancer, which runs in the family.

"Even though caring for Ashley involves hard and continual work, she is a blessing and not a burden," her parents say. Still, they write, "Unless you are living the experience ... you have no clue what it is like to be the bedridden child or their caregivers."

Caplan questioned how preventing normal growth could benefit the patient. Treatment that is not for a patient's direct benefit "only seems wrong to me," the ethicist said.

Dr. Douglas Diekema, an ethicist at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, where Ashley was treated, said he met with the parents and became convinced they were motivated by love and the girl's best interests.

Diekema said he was mainly concerned with making sure the little girl would actually benefit and not suffer any harm from the treatment. She did not, and is doing well, he said.

"The more her parents can be touching her and caring for her ... and involving her in family activities, the better for her," he said. "The parents' argument was, `If she's smaller and lighter, we will be able to do that for a longer period of time.'" "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_he_me/stunted_daughter

Your thoughts on it?

[Mr. Ron]

I don't have time to read the whole thing just yet, but something seems amiss about parents altering their own child's physical future by purposely stunting her growth...

[Volumnius Flush]

This is certainly unethical! I thought they had mercy killings for this kind of stuff.

[Give me Beer]

There seem to be enough reasons to do it. Furthermore, it's not like their daughter is going to even be aware of it, so it's not taking away her dignity or anything. It doesn't just seem to be for the parents comfort but also the comfort of the girl.

[Mr. Ron]

Eh, I think the parents did this to their comfort, mostly.


"Ashley's smaller and lighter size makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc.," her parents wrote.


So basically they're just saying "we really don't want to deal with a big retard, so we shrunk her!"



It just doesn't seem right to me.

[Give me Beer]

Even though they probably wouldn't even be able to care for her properly if she developped to normal size? It's not just about not "wanting" to deal with it, it's also about having the ability to. What they're saying in that paragraph is that they can take her on family outings that would be near impossible otherwise and provide her with more comfort than she could have had at normal size.

It's a slippery slope but in this case it does seem like the best thing to do. I don't think you quite appreciate how hard it is to care for somebody that intensively.

[Mr. Ron]

Even though they probably wouldn't even be able to care for her properly if she developped to normal size? It's not just about not "wanting" to deal with it, it's also about having the ability to. What they're saying in that paragraph is that they can take her on family outings that would be near impossible otherwise and provide her with more comfort than she could have had at normal size.

It's a slippery slope but in this case it does seem like the best thing to do. I don't think you quite appreciate how hard it is to care for somebody that intensively.

Thousands of people care for adult retards. I don't see why it's not possible in this case.

[Kurrpt]

according to that article, the parents motive doesn't seem unjust. Its definitely for their own personal convenience, but if what they said was true, then it will inadvertently improve the quality of her life.

It would be impossible for any of us to REALLY pass judgement on them, considering how much of a burden it can be caring for people with these kind of handicaps

[Knifeboy]

I think it's unecessary surgery...
Wich I think is slightly unethical

[ringworm]

ahhg, this one would be tough to decide on

I've agreed with pretty much everyone else so far

It seems wrong but at the same time I cant pass a judgement on this

[Give me Beer]

Thousands of people care for adult retards. I don't see why it's not possible in this case.

Yes, and a lot of people are unable to cope with it. I know that we (my family) have a very hard time caring for my grandmother, because she's unable to be alone anymore, we have to have someone at her house 24/7 and it's very hard to arrange that and care for her like that. She can't wash herself anymore, she can't cloth herself anyore... Do you have any idea how hard it is to care for someone with such intensity?

[Kurrpt]

He OBVIOUSLY has no idea, hence the reason I said people should refrain from really passing judgement. I've only seen a glimpse of what it really entails, and I know I would never want to be put into that situation

[Akira]

I don't know what to think. Obviously the first reaction is shock that someone would do that. At the same time, I see the logic in it.
=/

[Mr. Ron]

Yes, and a lot of people are unable to cope with it. I know that we (my family) have a very hard time caring for my grandmother, because she's unable to be alone anymore, we have to have someone at her house 24/7 and it's very hard to arrange that and care for her like that. She can't wash herself anymore, she can't cloth herself anyore... Do you have any idea how hard it is to care for someone with such intensity?

I just think that permanently changing this girl's physical future with unnecessary surgery is a bad idea. We shouldn't just abandon or change people's lives just to make it more comfy for ourselves. IF they cannot care for her, then there should be homes set up for adult retards that could not be looked after properly.

Yes, I do. My grandmother is alone now since her husband died, and most of us have to look after her.

[Mr. Ron]

He OBVIOUSLY has no idea, hence the reason I said people should refrain from really passing judgement. I've only seen a glimpse of what it really entails, and I know I would never want to be put into that situation

You should think about refraining from passing judgment on people you know nothing about.

[Kurrpt]

you can't possibly comprehend what it requires. Just because you have a grandmother, doesn't mean its even in the same ball-park

[HeatoN]

So kurrpt can you comprehend being the girl?

[Mr. Ron]

you can't possibly comprehend what it requires. Just because you have a grandmother, doesn't mean its even in the same ball-park

She can't walk, people have to feed her, make sure she has her numerous meds on time, she has diabetes so we have to makes sure she has all of her shots on time and watch what she eats, she has deteriorating bone marrow so she can't lift her arms up all the way and she has the first stages of demensia making her unruly and mentally unstable most of the time.


Don't tell me I can't comprehend the requirements for caring for a physically/mentally inept person.

[Kurrpt]

not at all, and i dont try to pretend to...

You probably don't watch over her 5 hours a week. Thats not to be a personal attack, but it still doesn't give you the full effect.

You have to keep in mind that these people are seriously with this child 24 hours a day. They probably don't even leave her alone long enough to use the bathroom themselves

[HeatoN]

You have to keep in mind this child is a human being with rights. o.0

[Mr. Ron]

not at all, and i dont try to pretend to...

You probably don't watch over her 5 hours a week. Thats not to be a personal attack, but it still doesn't give you the full effect.

You have to keep in mind that these people are seriously with this child 24 hours a day. They probably don't even leave her alone long enough to use the bathroom themselves

It's their child. They are supposed to care for it through thick and thin, no matter what. Your duty as a parent is to take care of your children to the fullest, and that is it.

[Mr. Ron]

You have to keep in mind this child is a human being with rights. o.0

How quickly we forget.

[Kurrpt]

actually, until she's 18, she has no rights under the law. It would be deferred to her legal guardians, who are the parents in this case.

[HeatoN]

Are you kidding?

[Kurrpt]

kidding about what?

[HeatoN]

That she doesn't have rights...

She has rights as a child and a human being.

[Mr. Ron]

actually, until she's 18, she has no rights under the law. It would be deferred to her legal guardians, who are the parents in this case.

Oh come on.

[thedeadwalk!]

It's not so easy to say that other people care for mentally retarded adults, as, in this case, the girl is bedridden as well and unable to communicate. There are high turn-around rates in nursing homes and I can't imagine the staff for those with special needs. Also, this was done so the parents could better take care of her, so they do want to be with her. As a child in her condition taking care of her can mostly only be rewarding to the parents.

I think it's easy to see this motivated by the parents' own desire to not see their child shut off from the world for her entire life, or looked at with pity by it as she grows up. Due to her condition she's not able to perform in any aspect of our social lives and there is little for her except in the eyes of her parents.

I still don't know where I stand on this though.

[semi]

this is sick and they shouldn't be allowed to deform her for no reason.

[Apollyon]

actually, until she's 18, she has no rights under the law. It would be deferred to her legal guardians, who are the parents in this case.

Ok, so when she turns 18 what her parents have done to her becomes a massive human rights violation. Gee I guess we all just jumped the gun!

This is disgusting. There are hundreds and thousands of options for people who need help raising/taking care of someone with a mental disability. My cousin is retarded and I've spent a lot of time with her, and honestly, I think she'd be better off in a home. Disfiguring someone for the rest of their life simply so it's "easier to take care of them" is disgusting. It's a perversion of nature and a perfect example of abusing loopholes in the legal system.

[Kurrpt]

well, at least you realize its takes more attension than most people have the patience, or can give for that manner.

The thing is, with mentally handicapped people, they don't get to make those kind of decisions for themselves, even when they become "of age".

You could argue that disfiguring the child is terrible, and does nothing to benefit her, but you could also argue that putting her in a home could be terrible to what mental capacity she might have left.

It seems ridiculous to undergo surgery for convenience, but if it allows the parents to give the child their undivided attension, or make it easier on them to give them the care they need, who am I to judge? That's precisely the point I'm trying to make

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

I fail to see how they're "disfiguring" her. They're making it easier for them to take care of her, and, ultimately, easier on her

As somebody who has worked with the severely retarded, I fully support the parents' decision, though I think their referring to her as a "pillow angel" is moronic

[Kurrpt]

yea, that term "pillow angel" freaked me out more than everything else :lol:

[Mr. Ron]

I fail to see how they're "disfiguring" her. They're making it easier for them to take care of her, and, ultimately, easier on her

As somebody who has worked with the severely retarded, I fully support the parents' decision, though I think their referring to her as a "pillow angel" is moronic

They intentionally stunted her growth for the rest of her life. Thats disfigurement.

I just think they acted out of their own interests.

[MegaPhony]

It's obvious they acted out of their own interests.
When it honestly comes down to it, her being larger probably wouldn't make a difference to herself and she wouldn't be able to comprehend it. It seems to be logical, but unethical as well.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

They intentionally stunted her growth for the rest of her life. Thats disfigurement.

I just think they acted out of their own interests.

Yeah I don't really see the point of making her a foot shorter, other than to make it easier to transport her

None of these surgical procedures are necessary, but they should make it easier for them to take care of her, which would allow them to take care of her better

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah I don't really see the point of making her a foot shorter, other than to make it easier to transport her

None of these surgical procedures are necessary, but they should make it easier for them to take care of her, which would allow them to take care of her better

I just fail to see how taking he period away and making her shorter will help?

*shrug*

[lunchforthesky]

The only justification for this could be if it benifits the girl herself, which it doesnt it just seems to be at the whim of her parents. Completely unethical.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I'm not comfortable with that kind of surgery upon someone who can't say yes or know

[Mr. Ron]

I'm not comfortable with that kind of surgery upon someone who can't say yes or know

Thats how I see it.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

The only justification for this could be if it benifits the girl herself, which it doesnt it just seems to be at the whim of her parents. Completely unethical.

It makes it easier for the parents to take care of her, which should allow them to take care of her better

How does that not benefit her?

[Kurrpt]

"know" being the operative word there

[spitfirejunky]

I think this depends on how dangerous growth-stunting is.

I mean, if this growth-stunting procedure affects all parts of the body, couldn't this also conceivably keep her brain smaller since her skull isn't growing? I mean, I'm no neurology expert, but I think a procedure that can possibly stunt the growth of her brain will, in the end, make her less manageable.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

"know" being the operative word there

oh shush

[sweboy]

If a child is born with a third arm, is it ok to remove it without the child's consent? Is it ok to separate siamese twins? To give infants/retarded people pacemakers and such?

I can't see much harm in physical alteration of a child if it will benefit the child itself. But of course this is a pretty sensitive issue in the western world, which after after such a long time of Christian brain washing still sees humans as God's handcraft.

[Volumnius Flush]

I don't know if I could stand a disabled kid.

When I have kids, I will settle for nothing less than the best.

[Hababi]

Tway forgot which account he was on :p

[Volumnius Flush]

Tway forgot which account he was on :p

Are you referring to me? Because if so, this isn't the first time today. I don't know where you get your information, but you need to get the facts straight next time.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

If a child is born with a third arm, is it ok to remove it without the child's consent? Is it ok to separate siamese twins? To give infants/retarded people pacemakers and such?

I can't see much harm in physical alteration of a child if it will benefit the child itself. But of course this is a pretty sensitive issue in the western world, which after after such a long time of Christian brain washing still sees humans as God's handcraft.

If a child is born with two arms, is it ok to attatch another without the child's consent?

This isn't an operation of repair or cure, but of (to use the word entirely unscientifically) 'mutation' or a child.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

If a child is born with two arms, is it ok to attatch another without the child's consent?

This isn't an operation of repair or cure, but of (to use the word entirely unscientifically) 'mutation' or a child.

How is it not for repair or cure?

They're doing to make it easier to care for her. If she's smaller, she'll be easier to pick up and move around when needed, since she obviously can't

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

How is it not for repair or cure?

They're doing to make it easier to care for her. If she's smaller, she'll be easier to pick up and move around when needed, since she obviously can't

The extra arm will clearly help the hypothetical child carry awkward shaped things and pwn his friends at computer games.

[bleep_bloop]

i think what the parents did is disugsting

[Knight_Stalker]

This is a difficult one. As while it is obviously wrong ethically, this situation goes a lot deeper than ethics.

It seems a very bizarre step to take however, I don't know the family or the child so therefore I don't believe it would be right for me to pass judgment on them from a most probably sensationalised story that won't reveal the whole story.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

i think what the parents did is disugsting

How?

It's not like they took some normal kid and decided to do these things to it. The kid is severely retarded. I've worked with the severely retarded. They're not going to accomplish anything in their lives. They're going to sit there, emote occaisionally, eat, and sleep for the rest of their lives. If the surgery makes it easier for the parents to take care of their kid, they're going to be able to take care of it better

Christ the kid's not even going to know anything's going on

[sweboy]

If a child is born with two arms, is it ok to attatch another without the child's consent?

This isn't an operation of repair or cure, but of (to use the word entirely unscientifically) 'mutation' or a child.

The third arm would grow bigger and cause problems for the child in the future.

This girl's body would grow bigger and cause problems for the girl in the future.

And if you believe in evolution and thus realize that there's no correct "template" or whatever for human bodies, then there's really not a big difference between the two cases. If stopping the growth of a child is "human rights violation" then removing a third arm is too. I do see the case as a repair or cure, as it benefits the girl.

[Iskandar]

Christ the kid's not even going to know anything's going on
Good point. The majority of society seems to have no qualms about performing various medical or scientific procedures on animals which aren't self-aware.

[bleep_bloop]

How?

It's not like they took some normal kid and decided to do these things to it. The kid is severely retarded. I've worked with the severely retarded. They're not going to accomplish anything in their lives. They're going to sit there, emote occaisionally, eat, and sleep for the rest of their lives. If the surgery makes it easier for the parents to take care of their kid, they're going to be able to take care of it better

Christ the kid's not even going to know anything's going on

then why not just take it a step further and kill the kid

[LittlePound]

my only question is, what if in the future she is able to get better. Maybe medicine provides a way for brain damage to be somewhat repaired? What are they going to do then, another surgery to bring it all back? Do they have surgeries that would allow her to grow to her normal height? Any permanent decisions like this with little foresight into what the future might bring just make it a little harder to deal with. I dunno, it seems like they have her best interests at heart but i don't think this was the way to go about it.

[666Ozzfan]

Thousands of people care for adult retards. I don't see why it's not possible in this case.

I don't know if you read it, but this girl in question can barely DO anything other than moving her legs and arms. She is unable to hold her head up, unable to speak, unable to even eat; she is tube-fed.

Moving a young girl-sized person is much easier than moving one that is the size of an adult. This means that now they can take her with them to family outings, and many more things that they'd otherwise have great difficulty to include her in.

She'd have greater quality of life if her carers can care for her more easily.

[Aaron]

This reminds me of those bonsai-kittens emails that went around.

I think that even though the circumstances are harder for the parents to deal with than a family with some one "normal", they still have to accept the responsibility for the girl and attempt to give her to most "normal" life possible. If they don't like the idea of working hard caring for their child, they shouldn't've put on Barry White and let loose the trouser-snake.

[Give me Beer]

I just fail to see how taking he period away and making her shorter will help?

*shrug*

You fail to see how taking her period away will help the girl? Come on, periods are very uncomfortable for women, she doesn't have any benifits from them seeing as she's never going to pro-create but it will make her more anexious and if she's ever sexually abused (and don't think that doesn't happen to mentally handicapped people) she won't get pregnant. Same thing with taking her breasts away, it'll give her a more comfortable life.

If they don't like the idea of working hard caring for their child, they shouldn't've put on Barry White and let loose the trouser-snake.

Wow, you're a moron. If they don't like the idea of working hard? I hope you have a retarded kid so you'll know what kind of idiocy you're spouting. **** man.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

This reminds me of those bonsai-kittens emails that went around.

I think that even though the circumstances are harder for the parents to deal with than a family with some one "normal", they still have to accept the responsibility for the girl and attempt to give her to most "normal" life possible. If they don't like the idea of working hard caring for their child, they shouldn't've put on Barry White and let loose the trouser-snake.

This is a really terrible point.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

then why not just take it a step further and kill the kid

Because she's their daughter and they love her?

[MegaPhony]

This reminds me of those bonsai-kittens emails that went around.

I think that even though the circumstances are harder for the parents to deal with than a family with some one "normal", they still have to accept the responsibility for the girl and attempt to give her to most "normal" life possible. If they don't like the idea of working hard caring for their child, they shouldn't've put on Barry White and let loose the trouser-snake.

I'm quite sure that having an infant is a shock and takes a long time to adapt to and nearly nobody is able to anticipate the burden placed upon them once they have a child to care for and look after. Most people look at it like, "Wow, I'm glad they will grow out of this in a year or 2". Imagine having the burden of an infant your entire life. It would drain all your energy and would take immense willpower and love. I think the parents are looking for the best for their child, to give them the best quality of life. They aren't doing this to change her in a negative way, I think being able to go and see the world and be able to do more things is a lot more beneficial for a human being than it is to be 6 inches taller. She's not going to be playing in the NBA or anything. I can understand how eugenics comes into play and how it seems unethical, but realistically what is she losing besides a few inches.
It's not really a black and white issue, but I know I'd rather be able to do things and have experiences, than sit in my bed all day and be 6 inches taller.

[Avalanche.]

Also, Ashley's parents say keeping her small will reduce the risk of bedsores and other conditions that can afflict bedridden patients. In addition, they say preventing her from going through puberty means she won't experience the discomfort of periods or grow breasts that might develop breast cancer, which runs in the family.

Not sure why everyone ignored that paragraph

[MegaPhony]

Not sure why everyone ignored that paragraph

I think the breast argument could have been left out.
Might as well get rid of her skin, brain, lungs as well so she doesn't get cancer

[Avalanche.]

I think the breast argument could have been left out.
Might as well get rid of her skin, brain, lungs as well so she doesn't get cancer
They said it ran in the family, otherwise I would have. I was more referring to the bed sores and other ailments that come with bed ridden patients

[MegaPhony]

Yea, I think it's safe to say the pros outnumber the cons.
It just turns out one of the major cons of the situation is just the premise of changing her internal structure and natural being for the sake of convenience.

[tumples]

this is just a milestone in our convenience culture.

[innerdark]

In this case, i'd say that it's a sound ethical desicion, the girl is in a permanent infant stae (3 months old) and is unable to interact with people on any meaningful level. It also allows her parents to care for her more easily, whereas not taking this action would leave the situation even more difficult.

However, I do not think that this should be seen as a new solution to a problem, just another option which could be used in a situation which has been looked at for a long amount of time, and is only used when other solutions fail, in other words, in this case, yes, it is ethically sound, but steps will have to be taken to ensure that this isn't seen as the only choice, but rather, a final choice when all other avenues have been exhausted

[666Ozzfan]

this is just a milestone in our convenience culture.

Hmm.... That's the line I've heard splashed all over the news from another forum.... I couldn't remember it, Thanks.

It is a convenience for the carers, which makes it a convenience for her, and thus, gives her better quality of life.

[tumples]

Hmm.... That's the line I've heard splashed all over the news from another forum.... I couldn't remember it, Thanks.

It is a convenience for the carers, which makes it a convenience for her, and thus, gives her better quality of life.

so why stop here, take her arms and legs off because she cant use them, and then she wont get them trapped in doors or cut herself etc...

i see both points, and i disagree with it, as it will only keep going with this same excuse.

didnt realise it was in the news that line :P it must be a common thought

[Aaron]

Wow, you're a moron. If they don't like the idea of working hard? I hope you have a retarded kid so you'll know what kind of idiocy you're spouting. **** man.

This is a really terrible point.
It's called taking responsibility for actions; it's what adults do. Irrespective of the child's capacity in life, you should care for them with them in mind, not your own circumstances. I don't think that any parent has the right to change their child's physical makeup, no matter what the motivation behind it; it's a similar arguement to parent's finding out their child is a hermaphoradite. You can't make a mature decision in the circumstance because your personal opinions and emotions are there.

[Smokey D]

I think this depends on how dangerous growth-stunting is.

I mean, if this growth-stunting procedure affects all parts of the body, couldn't this also conceivably keep her brain smaller since her skull isn't growing? I mean, I'm no neurology expert, but I think a procedure that can possibly stunt the growth of her brain will, in the end, make her less manageable.

It sounds as if the disability has pretty much ended all neurological development at a very early stage. I don't think this procedures going to affect cognitive function very much at all.

my only question is, what if in the future she is able to get better. Maybe medicine provides a way for brain damage to be somewhat repaired? What are they going to do then, another surgery to bring it all back? Do they have surgeries that would allow her to grow to her normal height? Any permanent decisions like this with little foresight into what the future might bring just make it a little harder to deal with. I dunno, it seems like they have her best interests at heart but i don't think this was the way to go about it.

Repairing that much damage is beyond the hopes of medical science.

[spitfirejunky]

It sounds as if the disability has pretty much ended all neurological development at a very early stage. I don't think this procedures going to affect cognitive function very much at all.

That's what I assumed. It's unlikely that the surgeons didn't take any gross side-effects into consideration.

[slaughteredfirst]

There is something so wrong with that. The docters who did that went just a little too far. You should physically alter someone just because they are mentally challendged. Seriously....that is messed up big time.

[Smokey D]

She's not simply mentally challenged. According to the article, she's incapable virtually all higher cognitive function.

[biografiend]

Her parents have a blog, http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/, which after reading makes me believe that it was for the girl's best interests.

She has and will always have the mental capabilities of a 3-month old, and by having these operations would improve her quality of life and having her parents give her the care she needs; not for the benefit of them, but for the girl.

[insaneflyingmonkey]

It's not like they took some normal kid and decided to do these things to it. The kid is severely retarded. I've worked with the severely retarded. They're not going to accomplish anything in their lives. They're going to sit there, emote occaisionally, eat, and sleep for the rest of their lives. If the surgery makes it easier for the parents to take care of their kid, they're going to be able to take care of it better

Christ the kid's not even going to know anything's going on

The fact that you work with the severely mentally-challenged, and yet seem not to grant them their human dignity and speak of them as if they're merely some sac of flesh that needs to be fed occasionally and can do a few parlour tricks (like a dog), scares the s--- out if me.

[Smokey D]

Don't strawman.

[Africa]

The fact that you work with the severely mentally-challenged, and yet seem not to grant them their human dignity and speak of them as if they're merely some sac of flesh that needs to be fed occasionally and can do a few parlour tricks (like a dog), scares the s--- out if me.

What dignity are you talking about? That's exactly what a retarded human will do all of their life, they don't even know what dignity is, they don't know what's going on.

[666Ozzfan]

so why stop here, take her arms and legs off because she cant use them, and then she wont get them trapped in doors or cut herself etc...

Actually, she can use her arms and legs. (as far as moving them back and forth). She'd never get them trapped in doors because she needs carers to move her through doors. She'd not cut herself because she'd need the carers to give her a knife or whatever. And these carers - who happen to be her loving parents - would never cause her limbs to be trapped or her to cut herself.

Furthermore, to cut of her arms and legs is entirely different, because it changes her in a way that everyone can see. She'd be able to comprehend the loss of her arms and legs, whereas she doesn't comprehend the loss of her uterus, because, with a mind of a 3-month-old, she cannot see it. She cannot do anything with it. She doesn't comprehend its existence

[Smokey D]

I doubt very much a three month year old could comprehend the loss of a limb in any meaningful way. That doesn't make it equivalent to what was actually done though.

[Thasis]

Now I follow along the belief that handicap children should be aborted. Why? Because they don't participate in society other then a leach. I can see if they can grow up to do something, like minor learning disabilities or minor physical disabilities, such as a janitor or city worker... but when they are so physically incapacitated that they can't do anything, can only partialy think, and don't contribute at all? What's the point?

[Amit]

why not also systematically exterminate those who aren't intelligent enough too?

[spitfirejunky]

Or criminals?

[I Am a Hat]

this is a small price to pay for societies safety

[_Sock]

Criminals have the choice to improve.

But stupid people are stupid. Or maybe not, I don't really know if you can be saved from stupidity.

[Thasis]

I believe in a three-strikes your out warning for minor charges (thievery, etc), and for rape, murder, etc it's a "you do, your dead". As for people who can't function in society and who won't help further it along. They have two choices:
1.) Have the goverment find you a job
2.) Be removed from the country
Failure to be removed from the country leads to death.

[spitfirejunky]

Criminals have the choice to improve.

But stupid people are stupid. Or maybe not, I don't really know if you can be saved from stupidity.

More often than not there's more use for the handicapped than criminals.

[Thasis]

Depends on the degree of handicap-(ness?). If a handicapp can't function at all then what use are they to society?

[Amit]

I believe in a three-strikes your out warning for minor charges (thievery, etc), and for rape, murder, etc it's a "you do, your dead". As for people who can't function in society and who won't help further it along. They have two choices:
1.) Have the goverment find you a job
2.) Be removed from the country
Failure to be removed from the country leads to death.

and who is enforcing all of this?

Depends on the degree of handicap-(ness?). If a handicapp can't function at all then what use are they to society?

there is more to life than mindlessly serving the abstraction of society

[_Sock]

Thasis what do you contribute to society please.

[Amit]

a freakin sweet avatar that's for sure

[spitfirejunky]

Depends on the degree of handicap-(ness?). If a handicapp can't function at all then what use are they to society?

I think we're missing the point here. A handicapped individual is entitled to human rights.

[Dinosawesome]

Eh, I think the parents did this to their comfort, mostly.


"Ashley's smaller and lighter size makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc.," her parents wrote.


So basically they're just saying "we really don't want to deal with a big retard, so we shrunk her!"



It just doesn't seem right to me.
However, from 'Ashleys' perspective, it is probably a lot less painful to be carried to bed rather than dragged as she would as a fully sized adult. As far as I can it, it's win/win. The girl gets to stay with her parents and be cared for and the parents don't have to lug her around.

In my opinion, it's perfectly ethical if both sides recieve benefits that outweigh any problems, in this case, that has happened.

[The Digital Pimp]

If it was me I'd have just euthanised the kid already.

[Give me Beer]

It's called taking responsibility for actions; it's what adults do. Irrespective of the child's capacity in life, you should care for them with them in mind, not your own circumstances. I don't think that any parent has the right to change their child's physical makeup, no matter what the motivation behind it; it's a similar arguement to parent's finding out their child is a hermaphoradite. You can't make a mature decision in the circumstance because your personal opinions and emotions are there.

They are caring for them with her in mind. Did you even read the article? I can't believe you have the audacity to even pass such judgement on people. They are taking their responsibility every day. I don't see how they aren't. How does taking away her uterus not have her in mind? It's a win/win situation and yes, they will benifit from it as well, but so will the girl. You people are acting like this will actually in any way affect the girl in a negative way, when it won't at all.

[myfingersareonfire]

This reminds me of the time Rick Santorum decided he had to torture his dying newborn because it deserved to live. Eh, no it doesn't, not really.

This is pretty disgusting.

[PerpetualBurn]

Wait...so the patient has no and never will have any comprehension/understanding/vague acknowledgement of the procedures performed on her, but WILL be easier to take care, less prone to bed sore/other common ailments suffered by the bedridden, will not experience menstruation (which is highly uncomfortable and she'll never be able to consent to sex to have a child anyway), less prone to a genetic predisposition to breast cancer.

Yeah, her parents sound like the brutal child abuser types. And the doctors are highly unethical....

...So is anyone going to explain any disadvantages (other than calculated surgical risks) of the procedure to the patient?

[Give me Beer]

This reminds me of the time Rick Santorum decided he had to torture his dying newborn because it deserved to live. Eh, no it doesn't, not really.

This is pretty disgusting.

Wouldn't this be the opposite of that? -_-

[Thasis]

and who is enforcing all of this?


No one, which is why this debate is happening at all.


there is more to life than mindlessly serving the abstraction of society

I disagree. Society over individual. We live to further the human race because the human race will remain when we are individualy gone.

Thasis what do you contribute to society please.

I'm fufilling my part as a entertainer (musician), and student (I am learning the computer and sound engineering trade). I'm in training to further the aspects of society. I also have a side-job where I help do yard-work and cleanup at an appartment complex. I fufill my part until I can advance to a more useful job.

a freakin sweet avatar that's for sure

I don't think yours is any better. Doesn't mean I thrust jabs at yours. Think of a better insult if you feel you HAVE to insult me on something. I don't think they're in session anyways as I'm simply disagreeing with your perspectives and debating my thoughts as your entitled to debate your thoughts. I have no grudge against you and I have no proceeded to insult you on any level so I don't understand where the insults come in.

I think we're missing the point here. A handicapped individual is entitled to human rights.

Why? The benifits of human rights is presented to us through our society. If one can't function and eventualy contribute to a society they shouldn't get the benifits of the society.

[Amit]

I disagree. Society over individual. We live to further the human race because the human race will remain when we are individualy gone.

society is made up of individuals though; it doesn't consist of an autonomous and unemotional collective

I'm fufilling my part as a entertainer (musician), and student (I am learning the computer and sound engineering trade). I'm in training to further the aspects of society. I also have a side-job where I help do yard-work and cleanup at an appartment complex. I fufill my part until I can advance to a more useful job.

then by your own thinking, you're of no use to society

I don't think yours is any better. Doesn't mean I thrust jabs at yours. Think of a better insult if you feel you HAVE to insult me on something. I don't think they're in session anyways as I'm simply disagreeing with your perspectives and debating my thoughts as your entitled to debate your thoughts. I have no grudge against you and I have no proceeded to insult you on any level so I don't understand where the insults come in.

woah there big guy it was just a joke

Why? The benifits of human rights is presented to us through our society. If one can't function and eventualy contribute to a society they shouldn't get the benifits of the society.

benefits*

you're forgetting that society transcends basic logic; one of the hallmarks of a functional human society is giving human rights to those who can't contribute back

compassion and empathy; ever hear of it?

[Thasis]

society is made up of individuals though; it doesn't consist of an autonomous and unemotional collective



then by your own thinking, you're of no use to society



woah there big guy it was just a joke



benefits*

you're forgetting that society transcends basic logic; one of the hallmarks of a functional human society is giving human rights to those who can't contribute back

compassion and empathy; ever hear of it?

First off, society is made of individuals yes, and individuality can be important to extent, but as long as contributation is crucial. My thought on handicaps though is that when your at such a level of low-functionality that:
a.) You can't contribute to society making you essentialy worthless
b.) You won't realy have a chance to form an individual nature anyways, as you are largely vegtabilised. So what's the point?

And by my thinking I am useful to society. I provide assistance to the appartment complex as well as entertainment (which is useful in the morale department). I am also in the training for further use making me MORE useful to society in some point.

And sorry, I just tend to take things to seriously. :rolleyes:

And society doesn't have to overgoe the limits of basic logic. Compassion and empathy can be useful at times, but it is overused in our degeneritive society.

[myfingersareonfire]

Wouldn't this be the opposite of that? -_-

hence the "not really"

[Amit]

First off, society is made of individuals yes, and individuality can be important to extent, but as long as contributation is crucial. My thought on handicaps though is that when your at such a level of low-functionality that:
a.) You can't contribute to society making you essentialy worthless
b.) You won't realy have a chance to form an individual nature anyways, as you are largely vegtabilised. So what's the point?

your sort of thinking works when humans were subsistence based hunter-gatherers

it's sort of outdated now due to technology and society being more able to provide for those who can't provide for themselves

And by my thinking I am useful to society. I provide assistance to the appartment complex as well as entertainment (which is useful in the morale department). I am also in the training for further use making me MORE useful to society in some point.

but you won't really be useful to society in the kind of scale you've been talking about

seems rather hypocritical to me

And society doesn't have to overgoe the limits of basic logic. Compassion and empathy can be useful at times, but it is overused in our degeneritive society.

i think you mean degenerate?

society has to violate limits of basic logic; otherwise it would be pointless to create such an inherently inefficient abstraction

anyway tell me how exactly compassion and empathy are overused and why our society is degenerate because of them

[sweboy]

Why? The benifits of human rights is presented to us through our society. If one can't function and eventualy contribute to a society they shouldn't get the benifits of the society.

So those who don't contribute don't deserve be part of society? Why not get rid of them? You could hire the same guys Hitler used, since he had the same idea.


you're forgetting that society transcends basic logic; one of the hallmarks of a functional human society is giving human rights to those who can't contribute back

compassion and empathy; ever hear of it?

As long as they have a big neocortex, am I right? ;]

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Wait...so the patient has no and never will have any comprehension/understanding/vague acknowledgement of the procedures performed on her, but WILL be easier to take care, less prone to bed sore/other common ailments suffered by the bedridden, will not experience menstruation (which is highly uncomfortable and she'll never be able to consent to sex to have a child anyway), less prone to a genetic predisposition to breast cancer.

Yeah, her parents sound like the brutal child abuser types. And the doctors are highly unethical....

...So is anyone going to explain any disadvantages (other than calculated surgical risks) of the procedure to the patient?

this

[Thasis]

your sort of thinking works when humans were subsistence based hunter-gatherers

it's sort of outdated now due to technology and society being more able to provide for those who can't provide for themselves


I disagree. Society would be far more efficient, less-corrupt, and productive if we followed a "pull your part or die" sort of thing. Plus, yes we can provide for people who can't provide for themselves. But why waste the expenses, technology, time, and effort where there are better places that they can be placed.


but you won't really be useful to society in the kind of scale you've been talking about

seems rather hypocritical to me


I think your misinterpeting what I'm saying. I'm not saying you half to work-your-***-off. I'm just saying when you hit the age where you are no longer in the responsibility of your parents and your at the point where you have the maturity and education to become a citizen of society, unless you are educating yourself to serve a higher function, you should be contributing somehow. So people with minor handicaps/learning disabilities would be fine. They could act as basic manual labors, hence entitling them to their share of the benifits of society. I'm talking about the handicaps who can literly not function and pull their weight in any form or manor.


i think you mean degenerate?

society has to violate limits of basic logic; otherwise it would be pointless to create such an inherently inefficient abstraction

anyway tell me how exactly compassion and empathy are overused and why our society is degenerate because of them

You wanna know how exactly compassion and empathy are overused? Look at the rate of people on welfare, look at the mass amount of criminals, look at the large quantity of homeless people? Shall I go on. Those are just some of the major problems. Sometimes welfare could be useful. If a women was being raped and beaten by her husband and in the process had to raise two children, and had recently be left with nothing... now that is something that designated assistance to help that person get back on their feet and to become a part of the flowing nature of society. But a large quanitity of people on welfare are on there for free-cash cause they can't afford to pay for food and their drug addiction, or they just don't feel like they should be working. Homeless people? They could get jobs. There are plenty of oppurtunities for them to further themselves and get back on their feet. Most of them are alchoholics and/or drug addicts and refuse to get themselves out of that state. Why should be pity them? Criminals... I already mentioned my opinion on them.

[Thasis]

[QUOTE=Sweboy;13982806]So those who don't contribute don't deserve be part of society? Why not get rid of them? You could hire the same guys Hitler used, since he had the same idea.[QUOTE]

Hitler had some good concepts, he was just to extreme to push it to racial views and torture, neither which I condone.

[Amit]

ok i was going to respond to your post but i'm glad i don't have to anymore :-D

[Against Miik!]

To figure out if something is ethical or not, you can't only look at your personal believes, although I guess ethics are different to everybody. Look at the child, and figure, whats lost and what is gained? The gains are apparently a more manageable situation for all parties involved. Losses would be, if any, that this severely messed up girl who has no chance of living a normal life will only be 4'6" or whatever. I think that is a great tradeoff. Its not like the girl is ever gonna think to herself, damn, I'm cool with not being able to see straight, or walk, but if only I was taller.

[Aaron]

They are caring for them with her in mind. Did you even read the article? I can't believe you have the audacity to even pass such judgement on people. They are taking their responsibility every day. I don't see how they aren't. How does taking away her uterus not have her in mind? It's a win/win situation and yes, they will benifit from it as well, but so will the girl. You people are acting like this will actually in any way affect the girl in a negative way, when it won't at all.
Well then we better all close this thread then. I stated my opinion and stand by it, don't wet yourself because you disagree.

[Thasis]

^ Thank you. Everybody has their opinions. People take things so personally if your opinion doesn't exactly match theirs.

[Smokey D]

Not all opinions are equally good.

[pedro durruti]

Man, when I first read this I thought it was highly unethical... highly! But as I read on, I realized that there was not only nothing wrong with this, but that the parents were doing something very practical. Under certain cirumstances like these ones, I think you can disregard certain rights seeing as "violating" them was beneficial to the family, as well as the girl.

[666Ozzfan]

As far as I can see, the girl has not suffered aside from possibly post-op bruising and pain.

People need to realise that she has the mental capabilities of a 3 month old child. Basically, she's an oversize 3 month old baby. A child that age does not wonder how babies are made, or wonder when her breasts will begin to grow. They have no comprehension of those things.

She will not understand why she woke up in a white room with pain in her abdomen. She will not understand that normal people girls have a period or that their breasts are beginning to grow. She has no idea that she is supposed to grow bigger. She will not understand our debate.

[Give me Beer]

Not all opinions are equally good.

This.

I don't understand why I have to accept that everybody has their opinion and that they are all equally valid. They aren't, not in the least.

[The Digital Pimp]

It's like Terry f-cking Schaivo all over again. Except it's harder this time, because the damn thing is actually self-aware.

[Give me Beer]

It's like Terry f-cking Schaivo all over again. Except it's harder this time, because the damn thing is actually self-aware.

Hardly, and she definitely won't notice her being shorter or experience any negatives from the operation.

[Thasis]

Self-aware except to a minor extent. That's where my point comes in. Why keep someone who isn't even realy aware of understanding of her own existance, least of all able to accomplish or do anything in her life. She's like a leach... except she has less purpose as she plays no place in the food chain. Let nature take it's course...

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Self-aware except to a minor extent. That's where my point comes in. Why keep someone who isn't even realy aware of understanding of her own existance, least of all able to accomplish or do anything in her life. She's like a leach... except she has less purpose as she plays no place in the food chain. Let nature take it's course...

define nature.

[Iskandar]

Hitler had some good concepts
Care to elucidate what those might have been?

[Thasis]

Care to elucidate what those might have been?

This isn't a discussion on Hitler, and I don't wish to be trashed for my topics. First off, I'm not anti-semitist per nature. I don't like the jewish religion for the sake of not agreeing with it, but I'm not going to be all "rah rah rah" on them. So don't think I'm a anti-semetist sympithizer. But no, I don't wish to discuss Hitler as it leads nowhere but endless circles of flaming from others.

[Thasis]

Care to elucidate what those might have been?

Nature is:
1.) Parents reproduce and produce offspring.
2.) Parents take care of children, but allow them to experiance life to some extent learning from them, but also on their own.
3.) Parents eventualy let children out in the world to make their own way.

This child will never be able to have "experiances" other then sitting and being fed food. And it will never have the oppurtunity to make out on it's own. It will be in care for the rest of it's life.

[Amit]

well you brought it up in supporting your argument so you really ought to talk about it if you wish to stay in this discussion without looking very silly

Nature is:
1.) Parents reproduce and produce offspring.
2.) Parents take care of children, but allow them to experiance life to some extent learning from them, but also on their own.
3.) Parents eventualy let children out in the world to make their own way.

This child will never be able to have "experiances" other then sitting and being fed food. And it will never have the oppurtunity to make out on it's own. It will be in care for the rest of it's life.

umm that's human nature

but not nature

[Light__Fantastic]

I don't like the jewish religionZero now is your chance!

[Hababi]

Zero now is your chance!

:lol: I think you already know what I'd have to say.

[Iskandar]

Nature is:
1.) Parents reproduce and produce offspring.
2.) Parents take care of children, but allow them to experiance life to some extent learning from them, but also on their own.
3.) Parents eventualy let children out in the world to make their own way.

This child will never be able to have "experiances" other then sitting and being fed food. And it will never have the oppurtunity to make out on it's own. It will be in care for the rest of it's life.
Wait, these are Hitler's ideas? I thought they were fact accepted as common knowledge.

[Thasis]

well you brought it up in supporting your argument so you really ought to talk about it if you wish to stay in this discussion without looking very silly



umm that's human nature

but not nature

Yah well I could go on. But trust me, I've been through many a dozen of Hitler conversations, and it doesn't matter how smart a person is, they always just go "Hitler was bad, rah rah rah" and never realy give me a chance to speak my mind. I won't deny he was bad, he just had a few good ideas. Like a unity of europe, and the strengthening of a countries national pride, and he definitly brought a good work-ethic into the country. The country prospered and rose out the ruin it was in because of him. He made some poor choices and he fell and he collapsed the country, but before the war Germany was actualy doing pretty good. Like I said, I don't agree with anti-semetism, torture, etc, but I believe in national pride (not as in "racist pride" or "white pride" just being proud of your country and letting it boost yah) and a facist society where efficiency is ultimately the end goal and actualy achievable. So there, I said some of my spiel... makes you happy?

[Light__Fantastic]

doesn't matter how smart a person is, they always just go "Hitler was bad,Yeah this definitely makes you question their intelligence when they come out with such things.

[Iskandar]

Well, there are only two lines now that I must dispute:
Like a unity of europe.
To be achieved by military conquest?
but before the war Germany was actualy doing pretty good.
So long as you weren't Jewish, Slavic, liberal, Gypsy, homosexual or socialist, don't forget.

[Sam]

Yah well I could go on. But trust me, I've been through many a dozen of Hitler conversations, and it doesn't matter how smart a person is, they always just go "Hitler was bad, rah rah rah" and never realy give me a chance to speak my mind. I won't deny he was bad, he just had a few good ideas. Like a unity of europe, and the strengthening of a countries national pride, and he definitly brought a good work-ethic into the country. The country prospered and rose out the ruin it was in because of him. He made some poor choices and he fell and he collapsed the country, but before the war Germany was actualy doing pretty good. Like I said, I don't agree with anti-semetism, torture, etc, but I believe in national pride (not as in "racist pride" or "white pride" just being proud of your country and letting it boost yah) and a facist society where efficiency is ultimately the end goal and actualy achievable. So there, I said some of my spiel... makes you happy?

You suck, shut up.

And yea, this girl's parents need to eat **** and die. **** them.

[PerpetualBurn]

And yea, this girl's parents need to eat **** and die. **** them.

I agree. Calculated surgical risks for the sake of patient comfort are for child abusers.

[Amit]

Like a unity of europe

through military conquest and a totalitarian dictatorship?

and the strengthening of a countries national pride

patriotism is hardly something exclusive to hitler

and he definitly brought a good work-ethic into the country

the end doesn't justify the means

but I believe in national pride

why

??????????????

[PerpetualBurn]

...did the trains run on time?

[Smokey D]

and he definitly brought a good work-ethic into the country

No he didn't. He blew his foreign currency reserves on deficit spending projects like pretty much any other Keynesian would do in a financial crisis.

[Thasis]

through military conquest and a totalitarian dictatorship?

Yah. Sometimes something bad has to be done for something good.


patriotism is hardly something exclusive to hitler


Oh I know that. It was just one of the more desirable traits of him.


the end doesn't justify the means


Depends... I disagree, but I have been known to a bit to less compassion...


why

??????????????

Cause national pride leads to an increase in morale, and an increase in efficiency.

To be achieved by military conquest?

As stated above, yes. Evil for a betterment.

So long as you weren't Jewish, Slavic, liberal, Gypsy, homosexual or socialist, don't forget.

This is where the prime part where Hitler went wrong. I said he had "some" desirable traits, but he was an "overall" bad person.

[pedro durruti]

I don't think a fascist empire ruling over all of Europe that disposes of dissidents and certain types of humans can be considered a "good thing"

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

shrinking spells are bad

:angry: i am against that

[Thasis]

I don't think a fascist empire ruling over all of Europe that disposes of dissidents and certain types of humans can be considered a "good thing"

I told you, Hitler was a bad man, he had some bad concepts. But he also had some good concepts. European unity was a good concept, the racial hatred was a bad thing. Seperate the two, take the good and whallah, that's what I was saying I liked.

[Amit]

why is european unity a good concept

[Mr. Ron]

why is european unity a good concept

Eh, I guess it could make peace with the nations involved.

[pedro durruti]

Hitler may have had a lot of good concepts when taken out of context, but why would you even use him as an example?

[PerpetualBurn]

No doubt I'll fail my degree in politics if I get as many things wrong as Hitler did.

Even if I do have the occasional reasonable idea.

[Iskandar]

Yah. Sometimes something bad has to be done for something good.
You wouldn't get anything good out of a militaristic dictatorship, which is the form in which Germany started WWII and devastated the European continent.
Cause national pride leads to an increase in morale, and an increase in efficiency.
I was under the impression that Hitler's type of nationalism led to xenophobia, racism and militarism, among other "desirable" traits of fascism.

[lunchforthesky]

He clearly has a primitive knowledge of Hitler's Germany.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

There's a big difference between national pride and "Hitler's Nationalism"

[Thasis]

He clearly has a primitive knowledge of Hitler's Germany.

No, I actualy have quite a good database of knowledge when it comes to Hitler's Germany. I just don't know how to explain this without comming out as a Nazi sympathizer which I'm not.

[Amit]

Eh, I guess it could make peace with the nations involved.

making it a lot easier to make war with nations not involved amirite

[lunchforthesky]

No, I actualy have quite a good database of knowledge when it comes to Hitler's Germany. I just don't know how to explain this without comming out as a Nazi sympathizer which I'm not.

I appreciate the sentiment and i occasionally use an example of Hitler's Germany in a positive way in my politics and History essays.

I dont know how much History you've studied, but i do degree History and Hitler was horrendous at running Germany never mind all the social problems. The man could do one thing and that was the art of rhetoric, outside of that he was grossly imcompetant.

[faelun]

my first reaction was WTF but after reading the case, the girl should either be euphemised(sp?) if her parents belive in that which then also brings up another huge debate but i guess in order to secure for her the most comfortable life as possible i think what they did, although possibly unethical was a good decision and clearly was in the best interests of the young girl

[PerpetualBurn]

my first reaction was WTF but after reading the case, the girl should either be euphemised(sp?) if her parents belive in that which then also brings up another huge debate but i guess in order to secure for her the most comfortable life as possible i think what they did, although possibly unethical was a good decision and clearly was in the best interests of the young girl

Euthanised. And there's no need to euthanise when the girl can live quite happily. Her mental capacity is minimal, but her quality of life doesn't have to be.

And it's just not unethical since it's maximised the comfort of the patient.