Ashley X

[JokeyLoki]

It's pretty well known that high level estrogen therapy is very bad

[Rarely]

WHO GIVES A FUCK

PROTECT YOUR OWN NECK NIGGA

[KrazeeStacee]

You know for all the people that are suddenly up in arms about this and feel it's wrong - I wonder why they couldn't find outside help before? I mean you'd think all these people that want to say it's wrong OMG YOU TOOK HER UTERUS AWAY FROM HER! would've been kind enough to step up to give them some help caring for their child....since they want to be so involved.

There are people out there that are abusing their kids in all sorts of different ways, physically, mentally, emotionally...and this story is a huge debate. Because somehow the parents have some malicious hidden intent in taking out their daughters uterus, and all they want to do is be able to take care of their child. You want to talk about disgusting and sadistic? Look around.

[JokeyLoki]

Originally Posted by JokeyLoki

It's pretty well known that high level estrogen therapy is very bad

[KrazeeStacee]

So what's very bad about it?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by KrazeeStacee

Don't you think that if it's easier for the parents then that makes the quality of her care better? I mean, unless I read that wrong that sounds like a pretty stupid question.

It does, but the big question is what the primary motivation was for the procedure. There's a big difference between doing something because its the best thing for the girl, and as an added bonus the burden is lifted on the parents a little...and doing something because its the best thing for the parents, and as added bonus the girl's care is improved a little. I'm not sure that you can automatically assume that what's good for helping the parents care for the girl is the same thing as the girl's best interests.

What radical measures? Do you know how many women get their uterus removed and get pumped full of hormones for other reasons? It's really not that radical.

Its radical because of the way the treatment's being used, not because the treatment is uncommon. Open heart surgery isn't an uncommon procedure, but it'd be a pretty radical to use it as a way for someone to lose weight, wouldn't it? Hysterectomies, appendectomies, masectomies, and hormone therapy are all very common procedures, but they're not usually done on 9 year old girls (all at the same time, no less) for the purposes of making them easier to care for.

[DeviousJ]

Eh, that blog post is just weird - they seem to be fixated on this idea of her as a perpetual child, as something desirable over something that's just going to be the case and that they'll have to deal with. I know there's the tendency to make the best of the situation and embrace the positives, but this seems like they're going beyond all that to the point where they just don't want her to change, where they'd want to keep her as a child forever. Like someone said, if she's mentally three months old then why is she in school? If they can't even tell if she recognizes people then can they be sure of assessing her cognitive abilities accurately? And even if they are accurate, how do they know she'll never develop further in future?

And what's this thing about her not being able to develop significantly 'such as being able to change her position in bed'? Not that it's anything like the same case, but Stephen Hawking probably has major trouble changing position in bed and it doesn't exactly define his limitations.

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Like someone said, if she's mentally three months old then why is she in school?

reading the parents' blog entry, I think it is pretty clear - you need to have a rest sometime from providing all the care, it is hardly about her education.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by RopeyLopey

reading the parents' blog entry, I think it is pretty clear - you need to have a rest sometime from providing all the care, it is hardly about her education.

Yeah but is a special needs school even the right kind of environment for that? No three-month-old would be in any kind of school anyway, so it seems weird that she'd be attending one daily - I don't know, maybe kids with mental ages that low do attend school every day, it still seems weird to me.

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Yeah but is a special needs school even the right kind of environment for that? No three-month-old would be in any kind of school anyway, so it seems weird that she'd be attending one daily - I don't know, maybe kids with mental ages that low do attend school every day, it still seems weird to me.

as long as it keeps her busy and not bored (or as far as they can tell), why not? I mean what do we know what they 'teach' them there? It's hardly a 'school' as we know it. As long as they don't suffer there, I think it's OK.

I don't know - I understand the position of the parents, that it must be really exhausting to take care of her, but at the same time, as you said, they seem to try too hard to convince themselves or everyone else, that what they are doing is in her best interest, while it's clearly just their 'comfort' of dealing with her - but I don't dare to blame them. I am wondering, though, what she'd have to say to them 30 years later and being able to communicate, being so mutilated for life, if she'd thank them or what.

Either way, the treatment itself - the estrogen is really going to help.

[DeviousJ]

Yeah that's what I mean really, what if she does actually develop mentally? There are many disabled people who still have romance in their lives to some extent, and if she does eventually desire a 'boyfriend' (which they kinda joke about) it might really hurt her to know she's been physically stunted deliberately - hell even with the intention of making her less attractive, according to her parents.

But I don't even know if they want this to make it more comfortable, in some ways it's like they actually desire this eternal child who'll never grow up, who'll always be their 'pillow angel' (which they named her because she stays where they put her on a pillow - no shit, she can't move). I mean even the stuff about making her less attractive by removing her breasts, it sounds a bit like wanting their little girl to remain an innocent child forever. They did give a lot of practical reasons for these procedures, but some of the stuff they're saying sounds kinda messed up.

[RopeyLopey]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

But I don't even know if they want this to make it more comfortable, in some ways it's like they actually desire this eternal child who'll never grow up, who'll always be their 'pillow angel'

well, if you were in their skin, and was supposed to choose, what would you prefer - 'pillow angel' or some life-size helpless monster (as all sympathies put aside, that's what a lot of them end up to be like)? And the parents would probably also have somewhat bigger problem to turn her on the other side when they are 60 or 70 than now.

I'd say - leave it up to the parents - but I don't want to deal with their conscience.

[DeviousJ]

Well yeah, it's a really difficult subject which is why I think most people in here aren't taking sides - I'm just saying that their attitude seems kinda skewed. A bit like people who get little dogs and dress them up in clothes, and then marry them off to other dogs in lavish ceremonies. Even considering everything else there's just something wrong about it

[RopeyLopey]

I agree, but hey - still better than beating the dogs with sticks.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

But I don't even know if they want this to make it more comfortable, in some ways it's like they actually desire this eternal child who'll never grow up, who'll always be their 'pillow angel' (which they named her because she stays where they put her on a pillow - no shit, she can't move). I mean even the stuff about making her less attractive by removing her breasts, it sounds a bit like wanting their little girl to remain an innocent child forever. They did give a lot of practical reasons for these procedures, but some of the stuff they're saying sounds kinda messed up.

Yeah, I think that's what is causing a lot of people some problems. On the one hand they're explaining the rationale for these procedures as being that they want to take care of the girl at home and these procedures will help them keep doing that. But then they turn right around and also say strange things like "We're scared of perverts taking liberties with her, so that's another good reason to hack off her naughty bits." That seems strange to me, considering all the trouble they're going through to pretty much make sure that strangers won't have to be involved in the caretaking duties. At the least, they're trying way too hard to justify this move if that's the kind of reasoning they have to pull out.

[DeviousJ]

Exactly - they have some reasoned arguments for it, but then they pull something like that. Somehow I think that if she's going to end up being abused by a carer, whether she has breasts or not isn't going to be the deciding factor. They said that it was the most contentious issue so maybe that was some kind of emotional appeal, or maybe they are so protective. The whole innocence thing again, like not allowing a kid to wear makeup. Obviously the whole thing's really difficult for them, it just makes me question their judgement

[JokeyLoki]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Well yeah, it's a really difficult subject which is why I think most people in here aren't taking sides - I'm just saying that their attitude seems kinda skewed. A bit like people who get little dogs and dress them up in clothes, and then marry them off to other dogs in lavish ceremonies. Even considering everything else there's just something wrong about it

That's a good description of the blog post... right on the nose.

My problem isn't necessarily with this case, though it does make my stomach sort of queezy. I'm still slightly undecided about it... but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Where do you cross the line in where this is ok and when it's not? Like I said, it's a dangerous precedent.

[KrazeeStacee]

Originally Posted by Corganist

It does, but the big question is what the primary motivation was for the procedure. There's a big difference between doing something because its the best thing for the girl, and as an added bonus the burden is lifted on the parents a little...and doing something because its the best thing for the parents, and as added bonus the girl's care is improved a little. I'm not sure that you can automatically assume that what's good for helping the parents care for the girl is the same thing as the girl's best interests.


Its radical because of the way the treatment's being used, not because the treatment is uncommon. Open heart surgery isn't an uncommon procedure, but it'd be a pretty radical to use it as a way for someone to lose weight, wouldn't it? Hysterectomies, appendectomies, masectomies, and hormone therapy are all very common procedures, but they're not usually done on 9 year old girls (all at the same time, no less) for the purposes of making them easier to care for.

I really don't think there's a huge difference between those two motives...I mean at least in this situation.

I guess it's just that I have the mentality that people need to stop trying to get so involved in other people's care for their children, disabled or not - and start worrying about real problems. Instead of fighting against these people for doing something that makes the care for their child easier, I think people should be using that energy to fight for better care for disabled children altogether. Use this as an eye-opening experience as to how hard it is on the parents and get out there and do something so this doesn't have to happen again.

Saying that this sets a precedent is kind of stupid IMO, because the only reason this would be a precedent is if the conditions for disabled children and the social problems persist...so it just makes little sense to me to sit here and belittle them and question them for their decisions.

[Starla]

In one part of the blog the parents state the only caregivers besides themselves would be this child's grandmothers.

Then part of their reasoning for removing her breast buds was so that their child wouldn't be sexually abused, or sexualized in any way.

Are they anticipating that their child will be molested by the grandmothers? Or at the special needs school she attends?

These parents have carefully worded their reasons behind all of their decisions but not all of them add up.

[RenewRevive]

Part of the problem for the parents is they must anticipate the child's care conditions in advance. They will die eventually and no-one can predict when this will happen, or that other family members would necessarily assume responsibility for Ashley's care. So what happens if in 10, 20, 40 years time and she is in some state institution? If I were them it'd drive me crazy being unable to protect her from those fucks that would contemplate abusing somebody like that. They have to consider such events, so I can uderstand where they are coming from. I guess removing her sexuality would deter at least a percentage of the freaks of the world.

Like I said previously, I am not necessarily opposed to the procedure, or ignorant as to why they are viewed as necessary. Just that in each and every situation like this the proper ethical and legal authorities should be present, not as antagonists, but to oversee matters and protect the rights of those who cannot themselves do so.

[Toast]

keeping a pet meat sack is creepy

[aurel]

Pillow angels? *Shudder*

I'm with glasgowkiss. It's time all those foreskins got returned to their rightful owners.

[aurel]

Sally Field in Not without my foreskin.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[ChristHimself!]

I'm not reading this thread.

Is dom's girlfriend getting adamantium grafted to her bones?

[aurel]

With a name like Ashley X a career in porn surely beckons.