"Ashley Treatment" - another ethical debate!

[bigbluebus]

Having just read this article:

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/15/ashley-treatment-rise-amid-concerns

I am extremely grateful that my DD, who has similar disabilities to Ashley, also has 'retarded growth' as a natural part of her chromosone disorder, and I have always been grateful for her tiny stature when having to manouvre her.

Whilst I can fully understand the reasoning behind what the family have done, I feel uncomfortable with the level of invasive treatment that this child has been put through and the fact that others seem to be following suit.

errrm...........I can understand why and their train of thought on it being easier to care for her into adulthood and as they get older it will be harder for them to care and lift an adult etc so I can see the practicalities.

But thats as far as it goes. That is some painful ops the poor soul has gone through and to me unecessary ones. Also there is now the risk of early onset of arthritis, brittle bones, etc which still causes pain so I would say they were ageing her inside if not outside.

I dont have a child with such a disability though. I have looked over at mine and no I couldnt do this but I dont have the right to judge as I am not living in their shoes. This is a tough one.

Hadn't really thought about the conditions that this intervention could trigger.
We recently discovered that my DD has brittle bones probably caused by a combination of side effects of anti-convulsant and anti reflux medication together with the effects of lack of mobility,& not spending much time in the sun (can't stand the heat). Believe me, the pain DD suffered when she broke a bone was far worse than any period pains she may have suffered.
Ashley would already have had an increased risk of brittle bones without having had a hysterectomy - she is probably at risk of breaking a bone every time they move her! We don't even know how DDs happened - it can happen that easily .

I think it says more about how society treats and supports children and people with disabilities than their parents who are simply trying to manage/cope.

What are the reasons that the parents turn to this as their only solution?

Read the article. Mu gut reaction was - this is very wrong. But it was just a gut reaction, I've never had to consider the pros and cons.

Still feel it's not righ though.

My gut instinct is that it's wrong. But this child will be dependent on the adults around her for the rest of her life and anything that can help them care for her even when they are elderly and much frailer must be worth doing surely? She is never going to have the mental capacity to use the breasts or womb for their biological function and they would just make her more difficult to look after.

Having seen a friend be forced to put her severely autistic boy into full-time boarding special school at 10 because he was taller than her and uncontrollable physically by then, prone to frequent epileptic fits and running away makes me wonder whether it really wouldn't have been better for his overall welfare if he hadn't reached 6ft and developed an interest in sex which is he is utterly unable to manage in any meaningful way.

Obviously Brooke Greenberg is a very different case but still worth considering: how much easier must she be to look after than an individual with similar mental capacity in an adult's body.