OT Keeping her small

Work in progress wrote

Well, speaking as a mother...

 

Timekeeping
Grammatical adherence
Booze consumption
Temper
Locator beacon
Bedroom tidying
Enthusiasm for chores and schedule adherence
Musical taste

I could go on.

 

Sorry to disappoint. I'll try harder to conform to stereotype in
future.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Has already, I think.

Ali

 

Sofa Baby?

 

Oh come on, that's not very aggressiversificationous.

 

Work in progress says...

The parents

 

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:35:33 +0000, Work in progress

snip>

Being charitable I could say that her being small is a benefit for any
carer but the whole package of what's been done just seems wrong in
every way I look at it.

 

Not just me then.

 

Nope. It wasn't the things they had done as much as the reasoning and
the publicity which the parents could easily have shunned and thus
avoided the poor child becoming looked on as a freak.

 

I think you've just dinged me. I was trying to work out why I found it so
squicky. And that would be why.

Ali

 

Dan White () gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Umm, yes, that was kinda my point...

The kid's gone into foster care because the sheer stress of it all was too
much for the parents' marriage - and the courts ruled that the care was far
too much for either parent to cope alone.

 

Legs and arms. Remove 'em.

Hmm.. anyone seen Boxing Helena? (I haven't)

 

Bet it turns out to be better than the next Rocky.

 

"What, you haven't hit your peak yet?" Is a great line though. What's
the betting he goes up the library steps in a chair lift this time?

 

Actually, it's not too bad.

 

Best to rip her nails out, so she can't ever scratch herself.

Not necessary at all. She wouldn't be able to scratch herself anyway
-- she can't move. And as far as the surgeries and hormonal treatments
go, they were appropriate in this case, to protect her health. I also
thought it was just plain WRONG and BAD at first, but then I read the
whole story -- all 9,000 words of her dad's blog post.


She is currently 9 years old, but has the mind of a three-month old...
and that's as good as she's ever going to get. She had her uterus and
breast tissue removed, because her condition PRECLUDES the normal use
of those organs -- she will never *voluntarily* bear children, and
consequently, will never breastfeed.

Her parents decided to keep her at 4' 05", because they WANTED to
provide the hands-on care she'll always need. When somebody who was a
*completely helpless* invalid from infancy, grows naturally and attains
a normal "adult" weight, it becomes difficult (sometimes impossible) to
give them the proper care -- necessitating placement in a nursing
facility. Convenience of her parents will always be a side benefit, no
matter what procedures are performed on her -- let's just get that out
of the way now.

But this "Ashley Treatment" is a two-edged sword, as it sets a
dangerous precedent which opens the door to "eugenics" practices. If
doctors approve, anyone with ANY kind of disability may be spayed or
neutered on their parents' authority.

I work with a man who's been deaf all his life, and is socially
maladroit because his mother constantly "protected" him until she died,
but he is otherwise able-bodied. Should he have had his nuts lopped
off at birth, just because "he might never use them"?

My mom has battled clinical depression all her life. Should she have
been fixed like a female dog, so she could never have children?

I was a troubled teen, branded with multiple DSM-IV call numbers, and
my parents have bet the house that I'll never marry. Should I have had
my testicles removed, for no other medical reason than to make me less
ornery? Should I have been neutered, because I'll "probably never
father a child anyway"?

I can understand the decisions her parents made, given the
circumstances. But the three examples I have just provided are why the
Ashley Treatment should NOT become a "standard and routine" medical
practice for people with disabilities.

 

Probably, yes.