Your opinion on the 'Ashley treatment'?

[crashdoll]

This article is about a teenage girl in America with severe disabilities. Her parents put her through a lot of treatment to prevent her going through puberty. To some extent, I can understand their motives but removing her breast buds and putting her through a hysterectomy? That sounds sound too far to me.

Sorry it's the DM.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2115904/Ashley-treatment-Should-parents-stop-disabled-children-growing-up.html

I thought people with DS were sterile?

I thought people with DS were sterile?

No they are not all infertile, there is more infertility in people with some conditions and some will never sustain a pregnancy, but will be able to get pregnant.

Rhonda- not necessarily this case but what worries parents is the lack of services and support for fertile women who have borderline intelectual capacity over contraception.

Care should be tailored to their needs but isn't because of budgets, i have seen women have multiple children children removed, which is cruel.

I don't agree with surgery but there needs to be more serices and solutions for some people.

Likewise i have seen the men with LD's never get their lives back on track after they realise that they will never be able to parent their child.

I felt unsure about the story when I read about it in the DM but then I read this pillowangel.org/Ashley%20Treatment%20v7.pdf and now I feel a little ok about it.

I think its one of those awful circumstances where you just have to choose the least awful course of action. For them as parents and for her the best thing is to be cared for her in the family home. I think if the treatment allows that to happen without too much pain or trauma then I don't think they did the wrong thing. I don't think its 'right' but then what is right for some isn't right for others.

I think I was thinking of Ashley as a disabled child who can have some though limited interactions. But she is mentally at the same development as a 3 month old baby, thats a 12 week old. The most important thing is that she is loved and that means she should be at home.

I think that it is difficult to comment on a family outside the UK, because we obviously don't know the support or lack of it that will be in place.

I think the comment about it being a family outside the UK is a very valid one actually. iirc (and I am going to try and find the original discussion about this if it's still here) on the original discussion about this all those years ago, some people from the US made the point that if you want to have residential care for your severely disabled child then the law requires you to essentially sign over your rights to the state, which means that they as parents would have no say in her actual care were she to go into residential.

\link{http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/259299-are-these-parents-right-to-keep-their-disabled-daughter-a\this was the original discussion from years back.

Vivian Yes, thats how I feel. If you read the article that the parents wrote I linked to earlier you can have no doubt about them doing it with the best intentions. Also, they didn't do it secretly or anything, it went before the ethics committee and was approved. I doubt they realised the controversy that it would cause.

Hand on heart, I think I would certainly consider the same treatment if we were ever if that heartbreakingly awful situation.

There are parents on here who are in this situation. I havent seen any of them agree with it.
Its like non disabled people who think if they become disabled they will be off to Dignitas because they cant understand.

Kal I know that there will be parents in the same situation on here and some of them may or may not agree with Ashley's treatment. I think these things have to be looked into on a case by case basis. What will be the right course of action for one child and their family won't be what is right for another child and their family.
All I am saying is that I think that in that situation I would consider it. I don't know what I would decide of course, but that is because every situation is so different it is impossible to say.

Have just found this thread and needless to say I am disgusted. It is mutilation. Don't know whether anyone has thought this but do you think the general public can't bear the thought of people with LD having sex or "dirty thoughts". What next chop penises off to avoid erections!

2old2b I think for me the difference is that this girl isn't able to have dirty thoughts, it isn;'t about preventing them. She is at the developmental stage of a 12 week old baby. Its not about society being uncomfortable with her having dirty thoughts, I see it as being about the family making it possible for them to continue to have her live with them and for them to care for her as they feel she deserves. So she can still have the cuddles they give her.

But what will be different whether she has breasts or not or periods especially if they are are wearing pads, she is still beautiful. Both my daughters are on the pill to prevent them falling pregnant (cardiac probs) and they rarely menstruate.

2old2b I think if you want to know why the family did it then you should read their article pillowangel.org/Ashley%20Treatment%20v7.pdf rather than me trying to explain their reasons to you.

2old read the original discussion I have linked to up thread.

This is not about a disabled girl having sex or society's distaste of the disabled having sex. This girl has the cognetive ability of a three month old baby, she is not and never will be able to consent to a sexual relationship - ever.

But this goes far beyond sex - it also extends to her parents' ability to be able to care for her. Let me quote a post from the original discussion:

"I have just read all through this thread. It is obvious that there will be very strong feelings about such an emotive subject.

I have three students, in my class of ten, who have similar or more profound disabilities than Ashley.
I can totally understand why her parents have made this very brave and caring decision.

To give you an example: "L" is 17. She was also in my class when she was 4 (I've been at the same school for 14 years). She is blind, quadroplegic, epileptic,
has a gastrostomy and a trachaeostomy which requires frequent suctioning, is doubly incontinent and has a 1:1 paediatric carer with her all the time. She
functions at the level of a 6 - 12 month old.

When she was 4 we could sit her on our laps and give her the cuddles and close contact she loved and responded to.She would smile and laugh and turn her
head towards familiar voices.

Now Health and Safety regulations say we must use a hoist to lift her.

Her parents struggle to care for her at home and because her hips dislocate easily, cleaning and personal care routines can be lengthy and undignified.

If I could have kept her in that 4 year old body - that didn't have to be hoisted, that didn't get so uncomfortable in her chair, that didn't have undignified
personal care routines and that we could love and hold in our arms - I would have done it.

And I'm willing to bet her parents would have done it too.

To those of you who feel this is an infringement of her rights imagine having a 9 month old baby crying to be picked up and held, but you can't because
she weighs 8 stone and you have to use a hoist to lift her.
How much of an infringement is that ?"

"But what will be different whether she has breasts or not or periods especially if they are are wearing pads," the difference is that large breasts run in her family, and because she cannot sit up, and does not like to sit up, most of her time is spent on her back, or her tummy, meaning that large breasts would mean signifficant discomfort for her.

In terms of periods, how undignified is that for her do you think? not knowing, not understanding about the pain and discomfort of having periods, and the indignity of having to be cleaned, additionally to her daily personal care routine?

There is no reason for maintaining this girl's fertility. She is not going to recover or ever be able to have children. she is not going to ever be able to consent to a sexual relationship. She is not ever going to be able to comprehend the changes her body was going through.

And it is worth considering at this point that this girl started entering puberty at age six, which is why the treatment was embarked upon when she was still so young.

Thank you so much for that link, kalskirata, Annie story is amazing and fascinating. I am very glad I read it, sorry to hear she has passed away.

so what wannabe. My dd has to be hoisted, has dislocated hips, is doubly incontinent etc etc. I think mutilation is wrong. I think keeping her growth retricted for others convenience is wrong.
There will be side effects, operations are dangerous.
What next? Boys with learning impairments having their testicles and penises removed because they will have sexual feelings they wont understand?
Where does 'for their own good' stop?

Thanks KalSirta exactly my feelings
wannabe yes I have read the article and I find it offensive. Why are they doing it certainly not for their daughter's sake. I have a feeling it is to hang on to the sickly "cute" factor, and for their convenience. And what on earth does having big breasts have to do with the price of fish. Maybe we should give the elderly mastectomies so when bedridden the bloody things don't inconvenience the staff.

wannabee please do not use my past post against me.
that is bang out of order

just had a quick look and the last thing I posted was about posture management.
I am really quite annoyed about this,
my stance has always been that this is a bad thing, there are much better ays to keep a young person home than mass operations that take all that is woman hood away.

and wannabe, the girls this is being done to are not babies.
comparing them to babies shows how little you understand.

where would it end. dd cant use her legs. In fact, her hips are dislocated. They are also long and inconvenient to me. Shall we have them amputated? Her arms dont function either so we'll have them off. Then she'd be nice and small and easier for me to handle.
There is no difference.
Oh wait, I beleive she has rights, same as a non disabled person to not be operated on unless its for a clear medical reason, to save her life or deal with a medical issue.