|
U-Know! Forum » what would you do? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Jan 07, 2007, 17:59
|
||
|
Impossible for the onlooker to say, I know, but I think these folks are as brave as ye can get. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=60268&nfid=crss Just heartbreaking. x
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Jan 07, 2007, 18:09
|
||
|
Brave to be mutilating their child for their own convenience? Maybe that's a bit harsh. But I think what they're doing's deeply morally suspect. Would that happen in the UK I think not. I hope not.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jan 07, 2007, 18:38
|
||
If the poor girl was an animal she'd have much more humane treatment. She'd be put to sleep. No one can truly say what they'd do in these circumstances, but all the options seem very unpleasant.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Jan 07, 2007, 19:50
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: Brave to be mutilating their child for their own convenience? Maybe that's a bit harsh. But I think what they're doing's deeply morally suspect. Would that happen in the UK I think not. I hope not. I understand you're point, but I'm sure they're not going to take her to some dodgy clinic in Dubai like alot of the poor trans gender folks end up trusting their lives in. My parnter works as a carer, and one guy he works with, whose as severely brain damaged yet able to walk as you can get, masturbates about twenty times a day, anywhere! He's got the ability to 'see it through' (it does cause some darkly comic moments for sure), but what about this girl? Sexual maturity, periods, breasts etc like they said. Just a bit tortuous, don't you think? We don't even let our moggies suffer like that. The girl hasn't the ability to move. At all. Not only is it 'more convenient for the parents', it's saving her from an awful lot of emotional pain she (with the mental capability of a three month old baby) will never, ever understand. x
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Jan 08, 2007, 09:12
|
||
|
Hmm. Obviously I can't understand how emotionally and physically draining it must be to have to look after a child who is never going to progress mentally beyond 3 months. But I appreciate it must take a lot of strength. I can even understand (and slightly slightly approve) the idea that they want to keep her physically small, so they can look after her themselves. But to remove her breasts? That's just freaky. Ok mine inconvenience me when running for a bus but otherwise they're not a problem. Why would her parents have such a problem with her breasts that they want them removed? I don't get that at all. As for the period thing, I find that totally spurious. They must have to deal with their daughter's nappies mustn't they. Dealing with a bit of blood once a month cannot be any worse than that. Maybe - just maybe - taking out her womb is not quite as freaky as removing her breast tissue though. And, this girl can't even lift her head up - is she really going to be embarrassing her parents masturbating in public? And if she did, really, so what? Your partner deals with "some darkly comic moments" so why can't her parents? Life is "just a bit tortuous" for everyone at times. I just think that if this society we have decided that people with a mental age of 3 months are worth keeping around, then the least we can do is treat the same respect we'd give anyone else. What they're doing almost seems worse than sticking a pillow over her face?? which is probably what would have happened quietly before we invented such surgery. anyway I respect your point of view. It's a rare and complex situation of course and not as black and white as I might be seemingly making out.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Jan 08, 2007, 13:18
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: But to remove her breasts? That's just freaky. Ok mine inconvenience me when running for a bus but otherwise they're not a problem. Why would her parents have such a problem with her breasts that they want them removed? I don't get that at all. They'll be considering the pain they might casue her as she lies down. Remember, this girl can't even turn on her own. Not to be crass, but if she ends up with wallopers, can you imagine the discomfort that would cause? Aesthetics don't come into it. Rhiannon wrote: As for the period thing, I find that totally spurious. They must have to deal with their daughter's nappies mustn't they. Dealing with a bit of blood once a month cannot be any worse than that. Maybe - just maybe - taking out her womb is not quite as freaky as removing her breast tissue though. Have you ever had really bad cramps? I have. If it was a case of making it easier for the parents, they could just as easliy have her adopted out. Poo is messier than menstrual blood, so I doubt if that's their concern. Rhainnon wrote: And, this girl can't even lift her head up - is she really going to be embarrassing her parents masturbating in public? And if she did, really, so what? Your partner deals with "some darkly comic moments" so why can't her parents? What I mean there is the guy I'm speaking about can releive his sexual frustrations. She can't. What is she meant to do? They reckon that simple hormone therapy would do her good, but I think endocrinology is very much a stab in the dark practise. The side effects of Hormone therapy (including the pill) can make us awfully sick and sore and worse so I really think that all the horror this girl has to go through might be for her own good in the end. I just believe these folks are doing what they think is right. As I said, it'd be much easier for them to farm her out somewhere, but they choose not ot. x
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Jan 08, 2007, 16:20
|
||
|
The more I think about this the worse it seems to me. This is a quote from the parent's blog (a link is on the page you gave): "We constantly feel the desire to visit her room (her favorite place with special lights and colorful displays) or have her with us wanting to be in her aura of positive energy. We’re often huddled around her holding her hand, thus sensing a powerful connection with her pure, innocent and angelic spirit." They don't think about her as a normal person with a disability do they. She's their 'pillow angel' with her aura of positive energy. Good grief. Menstrual cramps - well if she gets them she'll cry and they can dose her up with some aspirin. Aspirin's not quite as bad a medical intervention as removing her uterus and breasts, surely. They also say she'll be free "of the discomfort associated with large and fully-developed breasts". As an owner of such models I can assure you they really don't give me any trouble even when I lie on them. And besides, I'm sure her parents are generally very careful about how they position their daughter. Also on the subject:" Large breasts could “sexualize” Ashley towards her caregiver, especially when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse." This is just the lamest excuse ever. Children are sexually abused without having breasts. Half the population don't even have breasts and they aren't risk=free from abuse! At the moment her caregivers are her parents who presumably are not about to abuse her. So this acknowledges she will be cared by others in the future - people who might have been more than happy to use a few hoists and pieces of equipment to look after a larger person. Did you know they've also taken out her appendix?!! this is insane, surely. She's not a vegetable. She can communicate pain for god's sake. And one last thing (after which I really should shut up) - why have we got her name and picture on the internet, while her parents remain anonymous? That really is odd - or at least, it certainly wouldn't be encouraged in Britain.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Jan 08, 2007, 16:38
|
||
|
Rhiannon wrote: Did you know they've also taken out her appendix?!! this is insane, surely. She's not a vegetable. She can communicate pain for god's sake. In the crudest sense of the word she is a vegetable tho and she can't communicate pain. They might want to avoid pain for her as much as they can (asprin for menstrual cramps - since when!), and for sure the only way would be to allow her to die, which if she weren't conscious, for right or wrong would have happened. The only alternative to what I believe, that they are desparate people doing all they can and rasing awareness of their plight, is that they are a couple o' crackpot sadists who relish removing bits off their daughter bit by bit yet keeping her alive in the process. I don't believe that. If they are misguided, then guidance is what they need, but I think they've been well informed. x
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Jan 08, 2007, 16:47
|
||
|
Actually she can communicate pain - she cries when she's sat in her chair for too long. And I think appendicitis would give her considerably more to cry about. Besides, do they go whipping out the appendixes of people in comas who can't communicate pain? I don't think so. Besides - what if this sets a precedence? It's the thin end of the wedge. My friend's parents were told when she was tiny that she'd never walk. Walking was duly accomplished. But she'd never ride a bike. Cycling accomplished next. Etc. Maybe in Ashley's case there's not much chance of physical or mental development. But what about other children's cases? What if they developed to the stage where they realised what their parents had done to them! And a non-physical example - what about children who are hyperactive or just plain naughty? Shall we drug them up just because it makes them easier to care for? It's all wrong to me, that anyone could have such say-so over another human being, even their own child. Anyway I must shut up now. Doesn't ANYONE want to take the baton??
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Jan 08, 2007, 17:01
|
||
|
Yes, this is my last rant too. It's those totally in opposition to any of it who are grasping at straws here saying 'oh but she cries when...'. She communicates nothing, it's a sad and simple fact. Sitting merely crying and saying 'I've got earache' or 'bellyache' are really different, don't ye think? Babies do that, but they soon learn to direct meaning. I think there's alot of patronising bullshit going on here. The guy my partner works with will eat lightbulbs if you let him. Some suggested that he should 'go shopping' to help him 'socialise'. The last time he went shopping he ate a banana (skin and all), munched into raw sausages, and ended up knocking a three year old girl out of her buggy! He can't 'socialise', he responds only to what is purely sensation, he is looked after, enjoys eating, bright lights, noises, and like I said, masturbating (he's 25 I think)! Anyone who pretends that things are not what they are really offend me. This little girl doesn't have scope for anything, but I agree alot of negligence goes on elesewhere. I still feel it for everyone concerned. Thankyou for the debate!! x
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
