Parents of a severely disabled girl in the US have revealed that they are keeping her child-sized in order to give her a better life.

The nine-year-old, named Ashley, has the mental ability of a three-month-old baby and cannot walk or talk.

Her parents decided on a course of treatment for her which has involved hormone doses to limit her growth, as well as uterine and breast surgery.

They say the treatment will help to improve her quality of life.

Ashley has static encephalopathy, a rare brain condition which will not improve.

The couple decided to take steps to minimise their daughter's adult height and weight.

They authorised doctors to remove her uterus to prevent menstruation and to limit her breast growth through the removal of breast buds so that she would not experience discomfort when lying down.

The surgery was performed in July 2004, and shortly after that Ashley began hormone treatment that is expected to reduce her untreated height by 20% and weight by 40%.

Ashley's parents say that because she will remain the weight of a child, it will be easier for them to move her around, bathe her and involve her in family activities - movement that will benefit her physical and mental well-being.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm

Comments?

When it's that extreme I don't have a problem with it, if it is limited to singular cases like this. What worries me is how universally some people might think this solution would be applicable. Growing up causes problems. Solution: Stop the child from growing up.

Ashley has static encephalopathy, a rare brain condition which will not improve. Her parents call her "Pillow Angel", because she does not move from wherever they put her, usually on a pillow. ...
"The oestrogen treatment is not what is grotesque here. Rather, it is the prospect of having a full-grown and fertile woman endowed with the mind of a baby."

Sounds like she could be the perfect woman... a real pillow angel.

A severely disabled girl is undergoing surgery and hormone treatment to retard her growth, in order that her parents, who are her caretakers, won't have to deal with an adult-sized body.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6229799.stm

I'm in favour of all sorts of "man plays God" scenarios, genetic engineering, GM foods, limited animal experimentation. This goes beyond the pale, for me. Regardless of her having a mental age of 3 months, it's appalling to consider doing this, at least partly because she isn't capable of giving or withholding her consent.

"Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they said, adding that the decision means she will not experience the menstrual cycle and the bleeding and discomfort commonly associated with it.

They have my every good wish. I'm sure she's in safe hands.

The operation also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said.

The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse, but was carried out primarily so she would not experience discomfort when lying down, the parents said.
What kind of world are we living in!?>!?! Justifying a hysterectomy and radical mastectomy by reference to "potential sexual abuse"??


Hey! This is my 1111th post!! :D

I'm not in favor of
...all sorts of "man plays God" scenarios, genetic engineering, GM foods, limited animal experimentation....

This is just atrocious and disturbing to me on so many levels.

should they put her in a home then?

should they put her in a home then?

Tell you what. Let's cut her legs off instead.

She doesn't use her appendix either - that should be removed, because it just may rupture one day.
Her arms... Pointless. Off with them.
She only needs one lung and one kidney - they just make her heavier anyway, and more difficult to lug the "Pillow Angel" around. Get rid of them too.

Compassion for her suffering, my ass.
It is all about convenience for the parents - they should at least be honest about it.

If they feel they can't care for her, then YES, she should be put into a care facility.
Hell, I'd sooner support euthenasia than their actions.
They do not know what she thinks or feels, they just believe they do.

I ask this:

If this girl is being radically altered surgically to remain a child (which surely will impact her health?) why is she even kept alive?

Not that I advocate killing her, mind you, but I see no reason to do such things as OPPOSED to killing her, specifically as this is certainly a harmful procedure.

It's not even so much that they claim to think the surgeries and hormones (of which we can't be sure of the effects physically, mentally and emotionally) are the preferrable option for her over the "impersonal" aspect of having to use a mechanical lift when she gets heavier...
Thier bullshit justification is bad enough, but the problem for me is more that the doctors approved this abomination of medical ethics.

Their whole justification boils down to simply;
"She's going to get heavier, we're going to get older and mechanical lifts are not very tender and personal. We want to be able to hold her in our arms."

And the doctors agreed.
Disgusting.

Not that I advocate killing her, mind you
Why not? You advocate killing almost everyone else.

Compassion for her suffering, my ass.
It is all about convenience for the parents - they should at least be honest about it.


They did acknowledge it was one of the primary reasons for the girls treatment:

Ashley's parents say that because she will remain the weight of a child, it will be easier for them to move her around, bathe her and involve her in family activities - movement that will benefit her physical and mental well-being.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6229799.stm)


I don't know. My mind screams in horror when reading this story. As a parent, I can't imagine anything worse than to even have to face such a decision. Can I say they are wrong? In all honesty, I cannot because if it were my child, I don't know what I would do.

They submitted the girl to the treatment because keeping her small will ensure they can keep looking after her and they won't have to put her in a home.

"Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they said, adding that the decision means she will not experience the menstrual cycle and the bleeding and discomfort commonly associated with it.
I felt like weeping when I read this. Imagine the pain and distress these parents had to go through to come up with the decision to submit their own daughter to such operations? I don't think I can. I know I don't want to.

If they feel they can't care for her, then YES, she should be put into a care facility.
Hell, I'd sooner support euthenasia than their actions.
They do not know what she thinks or feels, they just believe they do.

It's easy for us to condemn them, but place ourselves in their shoes, what would we do? Place her in a home to be cared for by strangers? The girl has a mind of a 3 year old and would be highly distressed and face futher mental damage at being away from her parents. Hire help? The parents have admitted they had to resort to this because they could not afford hired help to come in on a daily basis to help care for her:

"Ashley's parents say that they cannot afford paid carers to come to their home to support her and this is one of the reasons they give for the treatment, but no one should have medical treatment that is of no benefit to them without their consent. Such a basic principle has to be maintained.

"In Britain, half of families with disabled children live in poverty and eight in ten say they are at breaking point ¿ more likely to be in debt, less likely to be able to afford a holiday or visit friends or live at much beyond a subsistence existence.

"When parents face such trying circumstances, it is small wonder that they consider desperate measures.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6230045.stm#middle)


So how else could they care for her? They don't want to and may not be able to put her in a good home, they can't hire help and it seems there is no free help supplied by the government. So what else could they have done?

Think about it. In all the horror this story brings to mind, think about what other options these people had? Pretty much none and that is another sad reality of this story.

Professor Raanan Gillon, Imperial College London, UK: "My immediate response was shock, horror and disgust. How could a child be mutilated in this way?

"But on reflecting, it seemed to me there were some reasons in favour. She could be looked after much better by her parents...in a much more appropriate way as a child because she will remain an infant [mentally] for the rest of her life anyway."
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6230045.stm#middle)

Indeed.

Redarmy11:

I do not believe in killing innocent people.

They did acknowledge it was one of the primary reasons for the girls treatment:
No, they pass it off as strictly for her well-being - not their convenience. In fact, they said...
Ashley's parents wrote in their blog: "A fundamental and universal misconception about the treatment is that it is intended to convenience the caregiver.

I don't know. My mind screams in horror when reading this story. As a parent, I can't imagine anything worse than to even have to face such a decision. Can I say they are wrong? In all honesty, I cannot because if it were my child, I don't know what I would do.
Have you known anyone who has had to care for such a child?
I do.
She's about 40 years old now.
It was certainly never easy for them, nor was it impossible.
They don't have much money, by the way.

They submitted the girl to the treatment because keeping her small will ensure they can keep looking after her and they won't have to put her in a home.
These are not the only two options.

Place her in a home to be cared for by strangers? The girl has a mind of a 3 year old and would be highly distressed and face futher mental damage at being away from her parents.
3 MONTH old (supposedly) not 3 YEAR old.
The parents don't seem to have much, if any, worry about distress and mental damage.

"If the concern has something to do with the girl's dignity being violated, then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity," they said.

So how else could they care for her? They don't want to and may not be able to put her in a good home, they can't hire help and it seems there is no free help supplied by the government. So what else could they have done?
Again...
It's not easy, but it's not impossible.
Many people do it.

They SHOULD have more help.
The governement SHOULD provide better options for care (though there are a lot more options available than most people realize).

But, in my opinion, THIS is simply not an acceptable action to take, no matter what the circumstances.

It is extraordinarily difficult raising a severly retarded child with a tendency to act out in violent urges... Should the parents be allowed to have their limbs removed? Even if they are not ambulatory?

Redarmy11:

I do not believe in killing innocent people.
Unless they're democratic socialists? ;)

Redarmy11:

I do not count a Socialist as innocent. ;)

The story's comments pages are much more supportive of the parents, actually I was stumped to find a negative comment. I am still very surprised how easily the ethics committee involved were convinced by the parents. As doctors they're supposed to be scientists, as scientists they're supposed to be skeptical thinkers, as skeptical thinkers they're supposed to come up with thoughts like "If she were not mentally disabled would you even consider putting the question to her to find out her opinion?", or "you want her lighter, cut her arms and legs off." I sincerely do feel that people are really not reading and understanding properly the implications of using a low-probability event like sexual abuse (who the hell would be abusing her?) in order to justify, well, castrating her during her prepubescence.

No, they pass it off as strictly for her well-being - not their convenience.

Quite a few reasons were given.

I have said before I felt horrified when I first read this. I just kept thinking 'how in the hell could they do this to their child?'. But then I slowed down my anger at the whole concept and thought about both sides of the argument. And frankly I can understand their point of view as well.

These people did not have to come forward with their story. But they did anyway and have been facing abuse for their decision. Every single article I have read on this story have all said the same thing. Even those against them ethically and morally have said that they can understand why they did it, but no one should undergo unnecessary medical treatments. In this child's case, they felt it was necessary.

I can tell you now, as a parent, I don't know what I would do in their situation. As against it as you might be, try to look at it from their point of view as well. Instead of judging them, try to understand why they felt the need to submit their daughter to this treatment. I would agree that there are benefits to keeping her small in stature, such as she can be moved without too much fuss or need to use hoists and harnesses, she can be taken out and she will be less at risk of facing bed sores, bladder infections, she's more mobile as she can be moved around in a more comfortable reclined stroller, she can be held by her parents (as someone with the mental age of a 3 month old, she will still expect and want that close contact).

Moral outrage is one thing, but look at it from their point of view. She is not in pain. Her smaller size means she can be taken out and see more things and moved around a lot more, to prevent her boredom. She can be picked up when upset or distressed. Think of how you would comfort or treat a 3 month old and apply it to this girl. Bathing and changing her can be made easier with her smaller size.

Yes it is possible to care for her as she becomes an adult and is adult in size. But her parents did not want to have to face having her confined to a bed for the most part without much contact with the outside world. They have stated in their site that she becomes distressed in a wheelchair so have been using a twins stroller to accomodate her size. If she gets much bigger, she would no longer fit in a stroller and would have to be placed in a chair she hates being in because she does not like to sit up. Moving her around if she were adult size would be difficult and at times near impossible.

I'm not saying they have done the right thing or that all parents with severely disabled children should consider this form of treatment. What I am saying is that before judging them, try to imagine what they are going through and try to imagine why they felt this treatment was necessary for them.

It is extraordinarily difficult raising a severly retarded child with a tendency to act out in violent urges... Should the parents be allowed to have their limbs removed? Even if they are not ambulatory?
A very good friend of my parents have a child who is severely disabled and retarded and is prone to violence and self injury. They have removed all his teeth as he had taken to biting himself and had destroyed most of his tongue, they have removed his finger nails and toe nails surgically removed as even if they are short and he is restrained, he could still gouge himself and sometimes others when he had to be rolled over or bathed, etc. Plus they keep him medicated and restrained at all times so he does not hurt himself or his parents and carers. Even though he is rolled over often, he still suffers from really bad bedsores, has had several bouts of pneumonia as his weight and the fact he is constantly lying down appears to have put pressure on his chest and body, suffers from constant battles with kidney and bladder infections, and the home he had been placed in closed and their only option was to place him in an old people's home (and they are terribly underfunded and understaffed so he would not be able to get the care he needs) as in Australia, care for the young in his position is virtually non-existent. So he went back home and his parent's lives are literally a nightmare in caring for him.

This is stirring a national debate so it should be posted on Sciforum.

Surgery to Stunt Girl’s Growth Sparks Debate:
"Parents say drastic treatment allows them to take better care of their child. 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. Some ethicists question the parents’ claim that the drastic treatment will benefit their daughter and allow them to continue caring for her at home. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16473471

REDIRECT: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61741

I think what we should be fascinated by is the media's fixation on the phrase "pillow angel", which seems to be echoed here too. The psychology is extraordinary.

big desal.

I am a home health care nurse. The pt. is a teenager 85-95 lbs. 90% of all nurses are women. It takes alot of effort for anyone to lift and position the pt. It will only get harder as the pt continues to grow. I do not know what I would do in those parents situation but emphatically believe that that girls qualiy of life will be far better if her parents and other caregivers are able to care for her more effectively.The pts mom is placed in the situation where she has to evaluate risk for each time that she wants to take her child with her out of the house and she requires a special vehicle for transportation. She requires assistance to place the pt in a wheelchair. I am ordinarily against procedures on others without their consent but this sounds like it is not about convenience. it is about doing what is necessary to give her a little better life

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm

Comments?

reminds me of that Shialy (or something like that) case were the woman was killed by starvation since she was a vegetable for 40 years...

so revolting. sometimes its better to let go.

We treat our beloved pets with much, much greater compassion and mercy than we do old, sick and dying humans. Yet we call ourselves "humanitarians" when we keep the old, the sick and the dying alive with machines and medicines ....and leave them to lie in beds 24 hrs a day, day in, day out, for years and years.

Baron Max

We treat our beloved pets with much, much greater compassion and mercy than we do old, sick and dying humans. Yet we call ourselves "humanitarians" when we keep the old, the sick and the dying alive with machines and medicines ....and leave them to lie in beds 24 hrs a day, day in, day out, for years and years.

Baron Max

so will it be more compassionate and humanly to kill our old and sick, having a ritual?:bugeye:

so will it be more compassionate and humanly to kill our old and sick, having a ritual?

No, we should keep the fuckers in nursing homes and rehab hospitals, hooked up to machines, changing their diapers and feeding them with tubes, and injecting them with vitamins, .....and keep the old bastards alive even if they have no idea about what's going on or why.

Yep, that's the humane thing to do with humans. But if we did that with a pet, the outcry from the public would be enormous ...calling us inhumane and mean and nasty. Interesting, huh?

Baron Max

The doctors in charge of this little girl were the ones to propose and support this treatment.

Why do ignorant laymen presume to know better than the girl's doctors, and her carers? Do you claim to be more knowledgable about this specific issue, than the doctors, nurses and carers who have actually attended to the girl in question?

It's laughable when posters here offer up anecdotal evidence about how their friend's friend is doing quite OK at caring for an adult vegetable, and then act as though their anecdote is identical to this case in question. No, it's not, numbnuts. Nobody wants to hear your ignorant, layman opinion, so shut the hell up. You don't know jack shit, so keep your petty outrage to yourself.

No, we should keep the fuckers in nursing homes and rehab hospitals, hooked up to machines, changing their diapers and feeding them with tubes, and injecting them with vitamins, .....and keep the old bastards alive even if they have no idea about what's going on or why.

Yep, that's the humane thing to do with humans. But if we did that with a pet, the outcry from the public would be enormous ...calling us inhumane and mean and nasty. Interesting, huh?

Baron Max

1) Are you that which you refer to? if not, do you realize you will become one?
2) You havent answered the question. Should we kill our old and sick or let them suffer for long years?

The doctors in charge of this little girl were the ones to propose and support this treatment.

Why do ignorant laymen presume to know better than the girl's doctors, and her carers? Do you claim to be knowledgable about this specific issue, than the doctors, nurses and carers who have actually attended to the girl in question?

It's laughable when posters here offer up anecdotal evidence about how their friend's friend is doing quite OK at caring for an adult vegetable, and then act as though their anecdote is identical to this case in question. No, it's not, numbnuts. Nobody wants to hear your ignorant, layman opinion, so shut the hell up. You don't know jack shit, so keep your petty outrage to yourself.

Well now, you know that we uns who didn't go to no fancy college back east ain't qualified to think for ourselves.

1) Are you that which you refer to? if not, do you realize you will become one?

I'm praying that when the time comes, I'll recognize it soon enough to blow my brains out myself. I have a living will, but my guess is that no one will abide by it and pull the plug! And that sucks giant donkey dick!!

2) You havent answered the question. Should we kill our old and sick or let them suffer for long years?

No one can answer that except on a one-to-one basis. You can't just say "Go shoot people over 65!" or something lke that. Some people, at 75, are still active and happy and enjoying life.

I'm talking about the basic vegatables ....yes, we should shoot them and bury them. To do less (more in the eyes of some fools!), would be inhumane and no one, not even the most fervent, would allow a dog to suffer like that.

Baron Max

Well now, you know that we uns who didn't go to no fancy college back east ain't qualified to think for ourselves.

Yep, and that's why we need people like Mountainhare to tell us what to do and how to think and what to eat and how to shit. Why, if it weren't for people like Mountainhare, I just don't know what I do. :D

Baron Max

Yep, and that's why we need people like Mountainhare to tell us what to do and how to think and what to eat and how to shit. Why, if it weren't for people like Mountainhare, I just don't know what I do. :D

Baron Max

Ain't it disgusting? People who cain't hook no plow to no mule and plow the back forty to save they lives just think they've got it all over us folks.

The doctors in charge of this little girl were the ones to propose and support this treatment.
The doctors did not propose any such thing!
Actually, the parents requested it and the Doctors, after hearing the parents' arguments, approved it.
Do you know why they approved it?
It has nothing to do with medical expertise or other issues beyond the simple layman to be able to comprehend.
"because the parents convinced us it was in fact in this little girl's best interests"

And, if you noticed, the outrage and indignation comes from quite a few other medical professionals around the world, some intitmately involved with the case, not just "ignorant fools".
But I guess you didn't pick up on that, either, did you?

However, if you're ignorant of an issue, I'd suggest that you keep your shouts of indignation to yourself, and stop meddling in the lives of others.
I suggest you heed your own advice, jackass.
You obviosly didn't read the article and other linked sources, in order to educate yourself on what you are ignorant about.
Did you even skim the information?

My advice to people who love to talk drivel: Shut up and butt out.
My advice to you is to take a look in the mirror, you damned hypocrite.

The point is whether you approve or not. The deed is done. The parents acted in their own and what they perceive as their daughter's best interest. I can see why they did it and I am also repulsed by it.

In all the criticism they may have received, the majority also understand why they felt they had to resort to such drastic measures. The real tragedy is not just this little girl, but that there is no support for parents with severely retarded and disabled children. The result is that they are then forced to take drastic measures. So instead of blaming them, maybe attention should be turned to why they felt they had to resort to it in the first place.. eg.. why there is so little support for parents in their predicament.

These parents know their little girl and they know what they have to put with on a day to day basis. It is easy for us to say they were wrong and condemn them. But at the end of the day, we do not have any idea what they are going through and what their day to day life is like. If this helps them care for their daughter that little bit better, then so be it.

Lets not forget, 40 other specialists, ethicists and doctors also agreed that the treatment would serve as a benefit for not only this girl, but her parents as well. They had to go through an ethics panel where their case would have been reviewed in the utmost detail. It doesn't make what they did right and it also does not make it wrong. At the end of the day, we can go to bed and hope like hell our kids aren't born with the same condition and hope even more that we never have to find ourselves in the same situation as them.

The point is whether you approve or not. The deed is done. The parents acted in their own and what they perceive as their daughter's best interest. I can see why they did it and I am also repulsed by it.

Is it any of our fuckin' business? I mean, really, seriously?

And if this is our business, what else can we assume is our business? Is everything that happens in the world our business? Are we to continually stick our fuckin' noses into everything and everyone else's life? Is that what this fuckin' world has come to?

Maybe, just maybe, that attitude about nosing into the business of others is what's gotten this world into such turmoil and strife and conflict.

If "Abdulla" in Iran farts, then I get pissed off and go out and shoot my neighbor 'cause he farts sometimes, too. Does that make any fuckin' sense at all to anyone?

Baron Max

Moderator comment:

The discussion on Communism has been moved to this thread in the Politics subforum.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58965&page=4&highlight=Moral+Indictment+Communism%22

And so it begins..

DOCTORS in Seattle who treated severely disabled girl Ashley with surgery and hormones to keep her at the size of a six-year-old have received requests from parents of other disabled children to repeat the treatment.

Dan Gunther, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington who devised Ashley's treatment with the blessing of her parents, said four sets of parents had contacted him to ask that their children be considered.

US media organisations have also been approached by parents keen to find out whether their disabled children could have their growth stunted to prevent them from attaining adult size.
Link (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/parents-seek-to-restrict-disabled-childrens-growth/2007/01/08/1168104921633.html)

And so it begins..

Yeah, and so? What difference does it make to you or me or to anyone who isn't directly involved? I don't get it?

If I go to a doctor to have some procedure done, what business is it of anyone else's? Really, I just don't get it.

Do y'all want others, all over the world, to be so involved in your own lives? To make or help make major decisions for you and your family?

When do we step back and say, "Geez, is that any business of mine?"

Baron Max

Yeah, and so? What difference does it make to you or me or to anyone who isn't directly involved? I don't get it?

If I go to a doctor to have some procedure done, what business is it of anyone else's? Really, I just don't get it.

Do y'all want others, all over the world, to be so involved in your own lives? To make or help make major decisions for you and your family?

When do we step back and say, "Geez, is that any business of mine?"

Baron Max

Alright. The parents decided that the best course of action was to eat their child.

any of our business?

Alright. The parents decided that the best course of action was to eat their child. any of our business?

No ....'cause there are already laws against such actions.

But if you're really being somewhat serious, then I'd have to say again, no. The reason being that we can do nothing about UNTIL the act is actually accomplished and done. That's what's called "freedom", and it includes the freedom to kill and eat ones own child. Afterward, of course, there might be consequences for it, but one has the freedom to do it ....and we can't stop it because we have "freedom".

Baron Max

I have a twisted law question, if someone dies of natural causes and the family decides to eat them(I know it sounds irritating), what are the ramofications in terms of civil rights?

Yeah, and so? What difference does it make to you or me or to anyone who isn't directly involved? I don't get it?

If I go to a doctor to have some procedure done, what business is it of anyone else's? Really, I just don't get it.

Do y'all want others, all over the world, to be so involved in your own lives? To make or help make major decisions for you and your family?

When do we step back and say, "Geez, is that any business of mine?"

Baron Max
Had you bothered to read my opinion on this, you'd have realised that I am not blaming the parents. I can see why they did it and I can also see and understand why it is wrong to do something like this. But I am not in any position to judge them for their actions and I hope like hell I never have to find myself in the position where I'd have to find myself even considering something like this. I find it horrific that they did it and I find it horrific that they felt they had to resort to it due to their predicament and the fact that there is not enough help out there for people in their situation. To be honest, I don't want to have to think about why they'd consider it because I don't want to have to put myself in their position. Its stories like these that keep me up at night thinking what if the child I'm carrying is that sick and disabled, what would my husband and I do.. etc..

Anywho..

You are arguing this point from a personal perspective. For example, you say if you had a procedure on your own body. Well that's fine for you. This case involves having such a procedure on another individual. An individual that was unable to communicate their consent or be aware of what was happening to them. What if you find yourself incapacitated one day and someone decides to literally experiment on you by removing your limbs (as an example) to make caring for you easier. What happened to this little girl is in the same realm. She had her growth stunted and surgeries performed on her so she would simply not grow so she could be cared for more easily by her family.

No ....'cause there are already laws against such actions.

But if you're really being somewhat serious, then I'd have to say again, no. The reason being that we can do nothing about UNTIL the act is actually accomplished and done. That's what's called "freedom", and it includes the freedom to kill and eat ones own child. Afterward, of course, there might be consequences for it, but one has the freedom to do it ....and we can't stop it because we have "freedom".
Do you think there should be laws now stopping doctors from doing procedures like this on young children, to prevent them and stop them from doing it?

I have a twisted law question, if someone dies of natural causes and the family decides to eat them(I know it sounds irritating), what are the ramofications in terms of civil rights?

I think you'd find that in most countries, it is illegal to tamper with a corpse to such an extent.

I have been thinking that I SO do not want the camel's nose in the door on this thing.

Had you bothered to read my opinion on this, you'd have realised that I am not blaming the parents.

I did, and I saw that. But my post wasn't pointed at you personally. I just responded to what was said and how I felt at that moment. Apologies if I steppe on your toes.

This case involves having such a procedure on another individual. An individual that was unable to communicate their consent or be aware of what was happening to them.

Well, they could be asked, then we could sit around and not give them any food or water until they made some decision. Or, of course, a better option is to ask the caregivers ...who have taken it upon themselves to care for the "vegatable" and are usually in a better postion to make such decisions. I mean, afterall, don't they make decisions for her every single day, day in, day out? Who better to ask?

What if you find yourself incapacitated one day and someone decides to literally experiment on you by removing your limbs (as an example) to make caring for you easier.

I would have to ask you, Bells, ...why would I care? And I mean that sincerely. I have a living will which is pretty specific about letting me die ..even to the point of withholding food and water. My biggest worry is that my executor won't actually have the guts to carry out my wishes ...and if he don't, then when I meet him in hell, he's in big, big trouble!!

Do you think there should be laws now stopping doctors from doing procedures like this on young children, to prevent them and stop them from doing it?

I'm assuming, of course, that ye're talkin' about the girl in the original post, right? If so, I think decisions like this should be left up to the caregivers and their doctors (which I assume would also be under the realm of a hospital "ethics committee").

I think for the rest of us, we should keep our noses out of it ...unless, for example, we're willing to personally step in and care for the girl for the rest of her life. Are we that concerned? Ahh, probably not ....but we sure want to tell others what to do and how to do it, don't we?!

Its stories like these that keep me up at night thinking what if the child I'm carrying is that sick and disabled, what would my husband and I do.. etc..

And I sincerely hope that you never have to face anything even remotely similar to it, Bells. I wish you and your baby the best in everything. Women and babies own a large part of my crusty, mean, nasty, old heart! ;)

Baron Max

I think you'd find that in most countries, it is illegal to tamper with a corpse to such an extent.

Yeah, but people do illegal things all the time, Bells, every day, every night, day in, day out. "Illegal" only means something when the suspects are caught and the evidence is clear. Other than that, in most western nations, we're perfectly free do to any activity that we want, including those that are against the law.

Baron Max

If I had a pillow angel, I'd just euthanasia it, would have to find away around the law.