Girl kept as a child by stunting growth, bizzare!

Although I do not think it is very "right" I do think that it is a good thing. If all the things the parents claim are true and if she does have limited brain capacity then yes, I do thin that all those procedures are okay. It is a benefit to her as well as to her parents. And it is not as if she is missing out on anything, other then being tall and having periods, I do not think she cares about either.
 
Random Google links say:
The leading cause of developmental disabilities characterized by Static Encephalopathy is consumption of alcohol during pregnancy.

If she was able to talk, she could thank her mom!

So this condition is present from birth. This means the debate should be: why was this child allowed to live (or even be born) if it is such an inconvenience?
 
[quote name='Zing']So this condition is present from birth. This means the debate should be: why was this child allowed to live (or even be born) if it is such an inconvenience?[/quote]

Indeed. Why should the child be subjected to a lifetime of suffering when the entire situation could have been avoided by the rationally-motivated, compassionate, and responsible action of terminating the pregnancy in it's earliest stages.
 
My problem with this is that the child was put though two major surgeries that aside from making it easier to care for her, otherwise were medically unnecessary. What if she had complications and either died or became even more devastated medically?
 
No philosophy, ethics, morals or gods have as answers to such questions and actions. When dealing with people who can’t even sit up in bed, and never will with thier lifetime, their is no easy choices to make. All that really matters, what was the true intentions of the parents, and we will really never know.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 
[quote name='camoor']Indeed. Why should the child be subjected to a lifetime of suffering when the entire situation could have been avoided by the rationally-motivated, compassionate, and responsible action of terminating the pregnancy in it's earliest stages.[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't know the medical science of it, but if this condition can not be determined prior to birth, any claim like yours is moot.

It's an interesting and complex issue, to be sure. I hope that it makes rounds amongst ethicists and scientists, of course, but fear that this will become Terry Schiavo 2007.
 
can we argue Terry Schiavo?... please?

Thats a bit easyer in terms of ethics I think. When the part of the brain we think of as retaining what a person has roted away, and that person is never going to awake from deepslumber, I think the choice is clear. its a shame the parents thought her electrical discharges were an attempt to wake. its a really painfull thing to see, it gives false hope. Shame on the republicans that used a tramatic brain dead girl for thier political agenda. If thier is any humanity in this world, whatever remains after death left her body a long time ago.
 
Terry Schiavo was a hot topic of discussion at my neurology residency program since one of the hospitals I trained at is a Catholic hospital and they had a similar (but obviously not as high profile) case that was going on around the same time. I would love to discuss it but in deference to myke who is the elder statesman of this board I shall abide by his wishes ;).
 
[quote name='dopa345']myke who is the elder statesman of this board[/QUOTE]

oh, dear. :shock:

Be my guest with the discussion. I'll do my best to stay out of it.
 
I fail to see a problem beyond the fact that they had the child period. That is, of course, if it was detectable before birth when she was still yet to be born.

I find it quite pointless either way. They argue they did it to improve her quality of life, yet they say she has no cognitive abilities-- she can't even swallow. There doesn't sound like much of any reason to be kept alive. Its just a body that consumes a tremendous amount of resources with absolutely no gain/payoff.

I also find it curious to say that they chopped her boobs off to lower the risk of sexual assault. She sounds obviously bed ridden, who but the family would be attending to her, I wonder? :whistle2:s
 
i think they may be worried later in her life, when the mother and father cant take care of here, and who knows if her sister and brother will take care of here when the mother and father are too old. its more like 30 years down the road kind of thing.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I also find it curious to say that they chopped her boobs off to lower the risk of sexual assault. She sounds obviously bed ridden, who but the family would be attending to her, I wonder? :whistle2:s[/QUOTE] I guess daddy's a tit man. :lol:
 
You know some hacker is gonna get into his 9000 word New Years blog and tell the whole world who he is. After that, expect someones house to get burned down. If the girl is "brain dead", why bother taking her for trips and what not. It's like buying a burial plot with a great view.
 
I'm no genitalia specialist, but doesn't your period and peepee come from the same place?
How can someone survive without eating? I thought it wasn't possible.
If she cannot keep her head up and mute, she has already lost her "quality of life." Not sure what type of words their parents meant it to sound as.

"Because Ashley was expected to have a large chest size, her parents say that removing her breast buds, including the milk glands (while keeping the nipples intact), will save her further discomfort while avoiding fibrocystic growth and breast cancer."Any scientist in here care to explain?

"They also feared that large breasts could put Ashley at risk of sexual assault." I can't believe this was a risk they thought of.


For and Against, I'm not sure which of these 2 are being Liberal.
 
[quote name='xeverex18']I'm no genitalia specialist, but doesn't your period and peepee come from the same place?[/quote]

Comes OUT of the same place. The source is different, bladder vs. uterus.

[quote name='xeverex18']
How can someone survive without eating? I thought it wasn't possible.
If she cannot keep her head up and mute, she has already lost her "quality of life." Not sure what type of words their parents meant it to sound as.
[/quote]

Who said she was not eating? She can't eat by her self but her parents feed her. And she can't lose something she never had. Her parents are trying to improve her life.

[quote name='xeverex18']
"Because Ashley was expected to have a large chest size, her parents say that removing her breast buds, including the milk glands (while keeping the nipples intact), will save her further discomfort while avoiding fibrocystic growth and breast cancer."Any scientist in here care to explain?
[/quote]

What is the question? Makes sense to me.

[quote name='xeverex18']
"They also feared that large breasts could put Ashley at risk of sexual assault." I can't believe this was a risk they thought of.
[/quote]

Why not? I would think it is common sense honestly.
 
dtar - I didn't know that you can determine how big a girls chest was going to be. Sometimes genes dont work that way. Plus if the family had good friends and family members, rape shouldnt be an issue. Its not like she's going to be making friends anyway.
 
[quote name='xeverex18']dtar - I didn't know that you can determine how big a girls chest was going to be. Sometimes genes dont work that way. Plus if the family had good friends and family members, rape shouldnt be an issue. Its not like she's going to be making friends anyway.[/quote]

There is no need to assume how big her chest is gonna be. You just stop her breasts from growing in the first place. It is better to do it before anything happens becuase after it starts it is extremely hard to reverse the process.

Rape is an issue no matter what, not a huge issue but an issue nonetheless. Assume she goes out with her parents. She is a great rape target is she is left alone for a while and has no means of defense. By looking attractive she makes her self more appealling to rapists. Now, I know it is not like she will get raped 100% if she had breasts. I am just saying it is a possibility no matter how small.
 
[quote name='dtarasev']There is no need to assume how big her chest is gonna be. You just stop her breasts from growing in the first place. It is better to do it before anything happens becuase after it starts it is extremely hard to reverse the process.

Rape is an issue no matter what, not a huge issue but an issue nonetheless. Assume she goes out with her parents. She is a great rape target is she is left alone for a while and has no means of defense. By looking attractive she makes her self more appealling to rapists. Now, I know it is not like she will get raped 100% if she had breasts. I am just saying it is a possibility no matter how small.[/QUOTE]

If anything, I think keeping her looking like a prepubescent girl makes her even more vulnerable to sexual assault.
 
I feel terrible for just wanting to end this persons life, but I kind of have that approach to it, all this life is goping to do is make it miserable for everyone around it, why not just end the problem. We have way too much of a fundamental christian society to do that, but I guess it is a risk you take when you have a child, and these parents are assholes for doing what they did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top