"The Ashley Treatment" .?

Question

What are your ethic views on "The Ashley Treatment" ?

& In case you don't know what I'm writing about I'll write you the brief :

Basically the uterus and breast tissue of 9-year-old Ashley, were removed, and she received large doses of hormones to halt her growth. The parents' claim that the drastic treatment will benefit their daughter and allow them to continue caring for her at home.

She goes to school for disabled children, but her parents care for her at home and say they have been unable to find suitable outside help.

She weighs about 65 pounds, and is about 13 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than she would be as an adult, according to her parents' blog.

If you want some more info you can go to this site :

http://andrightlyso.com/2007/01/07/to-keep-ashley-forever-a-child/

Oh, & can you please state your religion, or lack thereof, thank you.

Answer 1

I feel very strongly you shouldn't dismember a sick relative unless you are going to use them for food.
Muslim.

Answer 2

I agree with the course of treatment Ashley's parents chose. I am an atheist, and more concerned with the patient's quality of life, which will be enhanced by these treatments and surgeries.

Ashley will never grow up, she would only have grown bigger. She would never have had children, and the hysterectomy and removal of breast buds were to eliminate the risk of breast or uterine cancer.

"The ethics committee essentially did a cost-benefit analysis and concluded that the rewards outweighed the risks. Keeping Ashley smaller and more portable, the doctors argue, has medical as well as emotional benefits: more movement means better circulation, digestion and muscle condition, and fewer sores and infections. "If you're going to be against this," Gunther says, "you have to argue why the benefits are not worth pursuing."

Answer 3

gnostic/athiest

Ummm wow this is horrible. I cant believe these people can shelter a child to such extreme and totaly give her no say in this type of thing. They have litterally ruined this poor girls life and any hope to have children.

omg this is horrible. These people definately should go to hell if it exists.

And who's the sick doctor that went through with this?

EDIT:
After reading this quote form the site:
Ashley’s doctors wrote an article answering those questions last fall. They noted that Ashley, whose last name has not been made public, is far from normal. She has a rare brain condition known as static encephalopathy. She cannot walk, talk, move or swallow food. It is not clear whether her damaged brain can recognize her parents or her siblings. The doctors said that Ashley’s parents came to them deeply concerned about how they would be able to manage their daughter as she grew older, bigger and heavier. The solution they seized upon, unprecedented in the history of medicine, was to use hormones and surgery to keep Ashley forever a child.

This kind of changes the field. In my honest, and much disliked, opinion, im not sure if this girl really has the ability to be considered 'human; i know its a hard thing to say, but really, she lacks most of the traits that makes man man.

errr hate me, and defame me.

Answer 4

odd that they bother with school; my understanding is that her mental state is that of a three month old, she can't even sit up or roll over by herself.

this was asked a few days back, and I couldn't believe how cruel some of the responses were, mutterings of "unfit parents" and the like.
this is a profoundly difficult situation those parents are in, and one with no easy solutions. I agree with the other poster who said it's not a decision that anyone but her family and doctors can or should make.

Answer 5

Christian.

If the parents earnestly sought help and couldn't get any.
I still consider it child abuse. The poor child will not get to experience any form of adult life and will be more susceptible to even further abuse.
I do not think these people have the right to subject this poor child to this treatment

Answer 6

My only comment of the ethics of this case is that it would be unethical for anyone outside the family and their medical advisers to interfere.