Pillow baby

I think a point that some are missing is that the child herself is, for all intents and purposes, a 3 month old baby with similar needs to a 3 month old baby and always will be.

A three month old baby wants to be held, cuddled, picked up and made to feel safe. this is very important to them and they will want this maybe twenty or thirty times a day.

All of these things are much more likely to happen if the child remains small than if she grew to adult proportions. You simply cannot pick up and rock a 12 stone woman to sleep if she is distressed - well, not easily.

Sure, it makes the parents' lives a lot easier but it also improves the child's quality of life. For that reason alone, I think this treatment is okay in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

I think a point that some are missing is that the child herself is, for all intents and purposes, a 3 month old baby with similar needs to a 3 month old baby and always will be.

A three month old baby wants to be held, cuddled, picked up and made to feel safe. this is very important to them and they will want this maybe twenty or thirty times a day.

All of these things are much more likely to happen if the child remains small than if she grew to adult proportions. You simply cannot pick up and rock a 12 stone woman to sleep if she is distressed - well, not easily.

Sure, it makes the parents' lives a lot easier but it also improves the child's quality of life. For that reason alone, I think this treatment is okay in this case.

---

That's an excellent post.

I probly say this becasue it's pretty much what I think, expressed in a goodly way.

someone posted the following on the guardian website and although it references people with a (imo) very significant difference in the degree of brain damage, i think its still relevant

Quote:

---

I once worked in a residential care home for adults with severe learning difficulties. Most of the residents had the mental capacity of your average toddler, yet they were still adults, with adult needs.

Sexuality was important for some. Two of the residents were an item, they were sexually active and made a great couple. They kissed and cuddled in public, made noisy love in private, and occasionally bickered. Did they understand sex in the same way that 'normal' adults do? Almost certainly not, but they experienced desire, passion, empathy and love, and this was plain for all to see.

Ashley's body is frozen into childhood, so she will never reach puberty and develop as a sexual being. One can argue for compulsory sterilisation of severely handicapped persons, but not the denial of their sexual natures. Ashley's parents are denying their daughter the opportunity to reach her potential as a human being. They are I'm sure acting out of love and compassion, but I think they have made a fundamental mistake.

---

ilw

I have seen a bit about this and I am not sure if the Guardian piece is entirely relevant. The girl is like a three month old child with no ability to speak or walk. I think it would be hard to imagine any form of sexual interaction with Ashley, whether 18, 30 or 45, that might not be considered a tad exploitative no matter who it is with.

That said, I have reservations about the surgery they have embarked upon to remove her sexuality - which seems a tad drastic to me and I have seen some comments which suggest that the hormones alone would have been sufficient.

The growth inhibition I do not think is a big issue. The parents love her and will be her carers for as long as they can manage and that will be a lot longer if they can cope with baths and nappy changes etc., I am sure Ashley is not going to worry too much if she is only 4' 6'' instead of say 5' 6'' if, as Manker said, the cuddles and love are still there.

However, it is not a decision I would ever want to have to make so I am not rushing to cast judgement.

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I still find it utterly alien.

Not obviously wrong, because they obviously love her, she won't understand how strange it is, and they don't seem to be doing this for their own sake (I imagine getting rid of her in some way or another would be easy enough, so they certainly wouldn't have to go through all this if they didn't care about her).

Removing her "sexuality" doesn't really strike me as a problem either since, as biggles says, she's never going to be able to have a real sexual relationship with anyone, it would just be an itch she can never scratch, or understand, and letting her keep that doesn't exactly strike me as an act of mercy. And as manker says, keeping her small is only going to improve her quality of life.



But still, it's so far beyond anything I've ever encountered, both the decision these people have had to do, and her situation, that I can't quite imagine being there. Therefore, I can't really say what's right, it just seems to be beyond conventional modes of morality, or something.

What I can say, tho', is that she is alive in the biological sense (hell, people are still debating whether virii can be said to be alive), and she would be aware of her surroundings, and most certainly able to feel pleasure or discomfort (which makes her alive in other senses as well), and since she's certainly not in misery, having parents who love her and hold her, there's none to put her out of, so there's no call for euthanasia, for those who'd argue for that.

In fact, as long as she has what she has now, her life could well be better than those of many fully human beings of all ages.

There are so many things she need never worry about, and it probably takes very little to keep her happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

But still, it's so far beyond anything I've ever encountered, both the decision these people have had to do, and her situation, that I can't quite imagine being there. Therefore, I can't really say what's right, it just seems to be beyond conventional modes of morality, or something.

---

Sometimes there is no right or wrong. It's just a matter of having to cope with situations. I think they are doing the best they can to deal with things and make life as comfortable as they can for her. It strikes me that the Surgeons and other Doctors involved are at the very least able to reconcile the worth of these procedures and agree to carry them out. It's not like you can just tell Doctors what to do and they will do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

It's not like you can just tell Doctors what to do and they will do it.

---

A problem overcome by a bit of shopping around, I think you'd find.

I apologize for the extremity but why not also remove the arms and legs while your at it. (less weight, easier dressing)
Visually it won't look to natural but what they are doing on the inside is not much worse.

The entire concept of this issue will develop a completely new form of cosmetic surgery.

The future looks bright for the severely handicapped?



.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%

I apologize for the extremity but why not also remove the arms and legs while your at it. (less weight, easier dressing)
Visually it won't look to natural but what they are doing on the inside is not much worse.

The entire concept of this issue will develop a completely new form of cosmetic surgery.

The future looks bright for the severely handicapped?



.

---

Fair point, three month old babies as a rule don't have any arms or legs.

That's prolly 'cos they don't like touching stuff.

I mean, what baby wants to do that?