Ashley’s parents call her their Pillow Angel, a moniker that is a reference to the love and joy they feel for their nine-year-old daughter and the severe disabilities she has suffered from birth. She cannot sit up, walk or talk, is fed by tube, and, as her parents put it, “stays right where we place her - usually on a pillow”.

Ashley won’t know this, as she is brain-damaged and has the awareness, her doctors say, of a baby, but she has become the subject of a passionate argument in disability circles and beyond. Her name is becoming synonymous with the debate about the acceptable limits of medical intervention in the care of disabled people.

The cause of the controversy is the “Ashley Treatment” - a course of surgery and hormone supplements devised for her at her parents’ request and with the blessing of doctors - that will for ever keep her small. It involves surgical operations, including a hysterectomy, and hormone prescriptions that will, in effect, freeze-frame her body at its current size.

Three years ago she began to show early signs of puberty, and they grew anxious about the impact of fertility and of her rapidly increasing size and weight on the quality of her life. In discussions with doctors at Seattle Children’s hospital they devised the treatment: removal of Ashley’s uterus to prevent fertility, excision of early buds on her chest so that she would not develop breasts, and medication with high doses of oestrogen to limit her growth by prematurely fusing the growth plates of her bones.

The parents insist that the treatment, carried out in 2004, was conceived for Ashley’s benefit and not their own ease or convenience. With a lighter body and no breasts, Ashley will have fewer bed sores and lie more comfortably. And a smaller Ashley can be cared for and carried. “As a result we will continue to delight in holding her in our arms and Ashley will be moved and taken on trips more frequently instead of lying in her bed staring at TV or the ceiling all day long,” they write.

But as news about the treatment became known, Ashley’s parents were surprised by the virulence of some of the response. Comments on chatboards have included: “Ouch - this smacks of eugenics”; “I find this offensive, truly a milestone in our convenience society”; “This smells, I can’t agree with this”.

Outrage has also been expressed by organisations representing disabled people across the US, with many asking why a course of treatment that would not be countenanced for an able-bodied person should be allowed in this case. “People have been horrified by the discrepancy,” said Mary Johnson, editor of Ragged Edge, an online magazine for disability activists.


Thoughts on this?
Would you do it?

Well, I guess I would have to be in that position to understand why they did all that to her. On one hand I do understand that with all the care that is involved with caring for a person with disabilities,it does get harder for the caretaker to manage as the disabled gets heaver and older. The caretaker has it all to do for the disabled one,bathing,feeding restroom care,etc etc.But then again, what about her rights as an individual? She does still have rights, even though she is not able to voice them or to even understand them. I just dont know on this this,,

this is interesting, Angel.
After your original post, I surfed a bit to get more info.
Here is my take on it....
the child is severely handicappped.
The parents have chosen to have medical procedures done to stunt her physical growth and physical maturity.
I don't think this was done to create a "forever child". I think it was done so that they could continue to care for her, keep her comfortable and not have to put her in an institution where she would not have her family surrounding her or access to stimulus like trips out of the house.
Yes, she has rights, but what right has been lost?
Very interesting concept and certainly a decision that should be the result of intense scrutiny and investigation.

Not doubting you at all zoo, but where did you find this link?
Is it on the wave 3 site?

What rights were taken from her, in my opinion, are the basic right to grow and blossom into a woman ,like the rest of us. I do understand why her parents did this to her, but I am not sure i like it at all. The reason I dont like this is that if they can do this to her, their flesh and blood child ,with the disabilites and all, where will that limit other parents,or the state even, of children who are physically/mentally handicapped? I work with this population of adults and yes it is a challenge at times, but they do have the God given right to develope into what God had intended.To grow up and be an adult,in the manner that they can be. I just dont like it. I just dont like it at all. This to me is ,in a way like abortion. At the first, it may have been intended to prevent pregancies from incest,rape and the like. But look at it now. People go out and have affairs, get pregant and then kill it. No problem, nothing to worry about,nothing to explain to hubby/wife/mom/dad.
This is my opinion .

Angel, I just "googled" and found some stories.
Regarding her "blosseming".... she appears to be in a vegatative state, so I am not sure blosseming would apply.
I look at the alternative of having to put her in an instituion where she may be neglected or at the very least, limited stimulus which would affect her quality of life.
I do agree with your concerns on how this type of decision could be twisted and used with less positive intent, but I could not compare this to abortion.