The Little Girl With the Gowth Stunting Surgery

[DannyOcean_]

I think there are several people advocating no srugery who are looking at the problem in the wrong manner. Comments about clipping off every retard's balls are useless, because the correct decision is (one assumes) the one that makes life easiest for ashley.

Therefore, without making comments regarding anything other than ashley's well-being, I find it hard to argue against the surgery. If ashley remains a small human being, her parents will be able to personally care for her much, much longer than they would have otherwise. She will experience more (trips, baths, being held, etc. etc.) than simply laying in a bed watching tv. The procedure is low risk, and ashley will live a better life as a small human being. I'm don't really believe that's debateable.

As for removing her sexual organs, I also find this leads to a better life for ashley. The surgery is rather safe and low-risk. The benefits (no menstrul cycles, no cramping, no fear/confusion that would come along with them) far outweigh the risk. Ashley does not need these sexual organs, and removing them will lead to a better life.

As a side note, the comments about removing the balls of a male retard, or cutting off her arms and legs are fallacious. the primary reason being that there is no defined benefit to cutting off the balls or removing the arms and legs. The entire goal is to maximize happiness/ease of living for the mentally incapacitated person, and while removing the uterus has clearly defined benefits, these two examples have none. Which is why removing her arms and legs was not considered.

Maybe this is just me, but I don't see how a logical, thinking person can oppose the surgery. A team consisting of ethicists, medical experts and her parents all decided this was the correct decision.

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get the argument that they're just doing it for their own convenience. Surely making it easier to take care of a person means that person will be better cared for.

[/ QUOTE ] woah wait a minute. how is this not blatantly wrong? isn't it easier to care for a dog with no legs? isn't it easier to care for a child who's locked in a padded room? how are these situations allowing those to be "better cared for"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are terrible examples and I hope you can see how flawed the analogies are. (Hint: That's not caring for the child or the dog).

You do bring up the point that without any context, my statement is silly. So it's a good thing there's context.

I'm saying you can't infer that they area just doing it to convenience themselves. Not even if one of the reasons they give is that it will be easier to care for her. Because making it easier to care her clearly will mean she can be better cared for.

Now that of course is not enough to mean the thing should be done. It, and all the other effects, both good and bad, have to be weighed. And that's what the large ethics committe with way more details about the case did.

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get the argument that they're just doing it for their own convenience. Surely making it easier to take care of a person means that person will be better cared for.

[/ QUOTE ]
But is that all there is to it? Your idea leads to some rather unpleasant conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that's not all there is to it. I'm just saying you can't conclude that they're doing it just to make their own work easier. Because in this case making their work easier makes their daughter's life better.

So you can't just latch on to the fact that it makes their own work easier and say it's selfish and not for the benefit of their daughter.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
OK then - what are the arguments for not sterilizing all people below a certain IQ? Why do they not apply here?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're obviously trying to make "a certain IQ" mean one much higher than in the actual situation. We are talking about someone whose brain is so underdeveloped she can't sit up here, which is obviously an extreme situation. And the fact that it's such an extreme situation is exactly why this sort of thing should be very carefully considered on a case-by-case basis.

[ QUOTE ]
With that way of thinking, we should let those in power, who have all the knowledge and expertise, do what they please. After all, they have far more information and expertise, and couldn't possibly get it wrong. Why have juries? Why question the decision of politicians and warmakers? Why have debates on medical ethics? None of us have anywhere near the information or experience of those actually making the decisions, so our opinions are worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between "authority figure" and expert. There's also a difference between questioning the opinions of experts, and dismissing them. Thinking like "Oh there's no medical reason to do this and we don't know that the parents will do what they say they'll do," is basically just looking at the myriad experts who studied this case first-hand and saying, "Nuh-uh, neener neener."

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get the argument that they're just doing it for their own convenience. Surely making it easier to take care of a person means that person will be better cared for.

[/ QUOTE ]It's not a matter of exclusively caring for their convenience. If that were the case, they'd probbaly been trying already for something more drastic.

But there is a trade-off.

(And I'm sure even the patient/invalid, if possessing adequate mental faculties, would agree.)

[Shandrax]

A child with the brain of a 3 month old doesn't know what's going on. This child will never be able to live a life that's even close to "normal" and it will always be a test object for crazy scientists who need something to promote themselves. I think this is a case where "pulling the plug" should be considered. We do it with coma-patients, why not do it with something very similar? We don't need to endlessly torture such poor creature for the sake of misunderstood humanity.

[Peter McDermott]

I couldn't help wondering if the parents had made this decision after watching Dennis Potter's play, Brimstone and Treacle.

[Buccaneer]

[ QUOTE ]
People Being Outraged

[/ QUOTE ] Interesting. It says the boy has the intelect of a one year old but he blogs???????

How is that possible, my normal children could not tie thier shoes at one year old.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
A child with the brain of a 3 month old doesn't know what's going on. This child will never be able to live a life that's even close to "normal" and it will always be a test object for crazy scientists who need something to promote themselves. I think this is a case where "pulling the plug" should be considered. We do it with coma-patients, why not do it with something very similar? We don't need to endlessly torture such poor creature for the sake of misunderstood humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Blobs of cells with zero chance at ever being human should have the plug pulled. There are enough needy people in the world that we shouldn't be supporting tissue cultures just cause they have a face.

But if we do decide to keep it alive and give it rights, we shouldn't butcher it for our own convenience. If you couldn't legally perform an unnecessary medical procedure on a normal child, you shouldn't be able to do it to a tard.

[David Sklansky]

"But if we do decide to keep it alive and give it rights, we shouldn't butcher it for our own convenience"

Why do you keep saying this? It isn't like the child would be at least equally happy without the butchering and only the care givers would be less happy. Supposedly the extra convenience turns into more happiness for the child.