re: Pillow Angel

Quoting God:“ I can agree with using non invasive measures such as the ones you mentioned, because I do see the need ... [snip!] ... the attention the girl needs... but as there are non invasive measures available, I can't be ok with the route they took. C.”

I'm with you on this one--I agree with (most, not all of) the goals rather than the methods.

My initial reaction was complete disgust that the parents would do that, but the more I thought about it, the more I understood where the parents are coming from.

Growing up, there was a girl who attended church with me who was pretty severely disabled. She kind of lumbered around and tried to talk but you couldn't really understand her. Anyway, she was a couple years younger than me and so she eventually hit puberty. She would sometimes start her period while sitting in a cloth seat at church and there would be blood everywhere. I always felt terrible for her parents because they were constantly cleaning up after her.

So I guess I can see why parents might consider that option, but I personally don't think it's ethical.

When you get pregnant and have a child, you have what you have. If you don't like it, then too bad. This included defects. If you can't handle the situation, then choose another option, but don't snip here, cut there, just to make it easier on you. Fine, put the girl on hormone treatment to help her with her cycle. I understand that could be too much in this particular case, but to stunt her growth?! That's just sick.

That means you can't handle what you were given. There are better solutions to this issue than to put a surgery that is not medically necessary on this child.

I dated a guy who's brother was like the girl in the story. He had the mental abilities of an infant. When I met him, he was 10 years old. Nothing excited him more than Elmo, so I would always buy him Elmo stuff. He had a working dog and was one of the sweetest people I have ever came across. His parents put an elevator in their home and purchased one of those very large vans. This family adjusted to their son's disorder and didn't force the son to adjust to them.

Having a child with any disability will make life tougher, but it will make it so much sweeter. These people should be ashamed to want to distort her growth.

Quoting Pr0nkBeth:“ When you get pregnant and have a child, you have what you have. If you don't like it, then too bad. This ... [snip!] ... will make life tougher, but it will make it so much sweeter. These people should be ashamed to want to distort her growth.”

Why not stunt the growth chemically if it allows parents to offer their perpetual infants the complete physical contact that theycrave--and will otherwise lack?

Why is it "sick"?

Quoting My Evil Twin:“ Why not stunt the growth chemically if it allows parents to offer their perpetual infants the complete physical contact that theycrave--and will otherwise lack? Why is it "sick"?”

A good perspective

Quoting My Evil Twin:“ Why not stunt the growth chemically if it allows parents to offer their perpetual infants the complete physical contact that theycrave--and will otherwise lack? Why is it "sick"?”

I agree with you   You've said it so well I feel its pointless to try to add to it

You are modifying someone to be smaller so that they are more managable for yourself. I get doing something for the comfort of the child (like stopping menstruation). They also went against the law to do this. The growth stunting is sick because it's to put ease on the parent's life. Parenting a child with disabilities is not easy.

I'm curious if these parents support things like human cloning and stem cell research.

If she was already wearing diapers and being changed would her period have been that big of a deal? I think it is wrong. I had a brother who had cerebral palsy but he passed at the age of five so I can't say I could empathize with the parents or not. I don't think my parents would have ever gone to those extremes for him and he was going to be a tall guy at least 6'4 if the doctors were right. I understand their reasoning but it is still not right for them to make those decisions for her.

1. Doing things illegally was a bad choice.

2. Did they chemically stunt the growth or surgically stunt it? Is chemical stunting even viable?

3. I wouldn't have removed the breast buds...I would've waited to see how large she got naturally. If they were too big by age 16 then I would ask for a reduction.

4. A complete hysterectomy is not needed. Ashley will have to take hormone pills now if that's what happened. A tubal ligation would prevent pregnancy, but not menstration. I think I'm torn b't a type a bc pill that stops periods, a partial hysterectomy, and essure (does anyone know if essure stops periods too?)

5. Let's do a what-if...suppose Ashley were an Andrew. Would anyone feel as upset over stunting the growth of a male and snipping him?

Quoting MonicaNichole84:“ If she was already wearing diapers and being changed would her period have been that big of a deal? I ... [snip!] ... 6'4 if the doctors were right. I understand their reasoning but it is still not right for them to make those decisions for her.”

Considering she was in diapers, I don't think it's cleaning up after a period that was the major concern. Rather, I think it was concern over the cramps and backaches b/c with the communication level of a 6 month old Ashley is never able to ask for help. The parents aren't psychic enough to know when she's pain for which reason, ya know?

Quoting CatLuvr83:“ 1. Doing things illegally was a bad choice. 2. Did they chemically stunt the growth or surgically ... [snip!] ... do a what-if...suppose Ashley were an Andrew. Would anyone feel as upset over stunting the growth of a male and snipping him?”

It would anger me either way. What do you mean by snipping him?

Quoting MonicaNichole84:“ It would anger me either way. What do you mean by snipping him?”

hahaha! Sorry! I can see how some would think snipping means circumsizing...oops!

I mean snipping as in making him sterile like through a vasectomy or something...

Oh ok. I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by it. Well if he doesn't need the sperm and isn't really going to use it why would they feel the need to snip him?

Quoting MonicaNichole84:“ Oh ok. I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by it. Well if he doesn't need the sperm and isn't really going to use it why would they feel the need to snip him?”

I dunno?  

I was just trying to see if people would feel diff if the child in question were male...

Quoting Pr0nkBeth:“ You are modifying someone to be smaller so that they are more managable for yourself. I get doing something ... [snip!] ... a child with disabilities is not easy. I'm curious if these parents support things like human cloning and stem cell research.”

If this were the case, then I'd agree with you. However, from what I've looked into, making things more manageable for the parents is secondary.

The primary goal is the comfort of the child.

I look at it this way. These children will NEVER have more mental or physical capacity than a 6 month old. Looking at my own 6 month old, I recognize that one of his PRIMARY needs is to be held, rocked, and comforted bodily. When he cannot be held and wants to be, he is very, very unhappy. The same holds true for these children. They want that same close physical bonding, that complete physical contact. However, whereas I may be able to hold an infant or even a child, I cannot hold a 150 pound adult in the same way. It is simply physically impossible. Stunting such a child's growth is the ONLY way this physical need can be met. If this makessuch childreneasier to care for, in so far as I could tell from my reading on it, this is icing on the cake rather than the cake itself.