Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

∞∞∞ wrote:So as some may know, I've been working with autistic kids since the beginning of the school year. Across the hall of our room is the class of mentally retarded (MR) children, so we get to interact with them a lot. Yesterday, I was talking to one of their teachers and she was telling me about a fairly recent, ethical controversy about parents/doctors purposefully stunting the growth of the MR so that they physically never grow up (but continue to do so mentally, for whatever that's worth). The argument is that it's much easier to physically take care of a MR child than an adult (especially the violent ones), while the fact is that their IQ will never really develop beyond an infants anyways. However, counterarguments are that these people are choosing to do something against someone's will (fundamental human right) and that a small amount of MR people do mentally/physically develop enough over time that they're able to do menial work.

Just curious on what you guys think about this. It's called the "Ashley Treatment" and you can look up more about it online, including the ethical debates.

Pwns wrote:The kids go through enough having their characteristic facial features and speech problems. Making them short is cruel and shame on anyone who would do that.

∞∞∞ wrote:So as some may know, I've been working with autistic kids since the beginning of the school year. Across the hall of our room is the class of mentally retarded (MR) children, so we get to interact with them a lot. Yesterday, I was talking to one of their teachers and she was telling me about a fairly recent, ethical controversy about parents/doctors purposefully stunting the growth of the MR so that they physically never grow up (but continue to do so mentally, for whatever that's worth). The argument is that it's much easier to physically take care of a MR child than an adult (especially the violent ones), while the fact is that their IQ will never really develop beyond an infants anyways. However, counterarguments are that these people are choosing to do something against someone's will (fundamental human right) and that a small amount of MR people do mentally/physically develop enough over time that they're able to do menial work.

Just curious on what you guys think about this. It's called the "Ashley Treatment" and you can look up more about it online, including the ethical debates.

∞∞∞ wrote:So as some may know, I've been working with autistic kids since the beginning of the school year. Across the hall of our room is the class of mentally retarded (MR) children, so we get to interact with them a lot. Yesterday, I was talking to one of their teachers and she was telling me about a fairly recent, ethical controversy about parents/doctors purposefully stunting the growth of the MR so that they physically never grow up (but continue to do so mentally, for whatever that's worth). The argument is that it's much easier to physically take care of a MR child than an adult (especially the violent ones), while the fact is that their IQ will never really develop beyond an infants anyways. However, counterarguments are that these people are choosing to do something against someone's will (fundamental human right) and that a small amount of MR people do mentally/physically develop enough over time that they're able to do menial work.

Just curious on what you guys think about this. It's called the "Ashley Treatment" and you can look up more about it online, including the ethical debates.

mrklean wrote:Some of you are so fucking heartless. Remember this could be your child or Grandchild.

Pwns wrote:The kids go through enough having their characteristic facial features and speech problems. Making them short is cruel and shame on anyone who would do that.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:I have a nephew with Autism and he is a sophmore this year and about 6'3" now, he may end up being about 6'6" or taller. I can say, this question has never even come up. I am not even sure what to think.....I don't even understand the mentality to think of this in the first place let alone do it.


To relay a pretty funny story about this, my nephew had a run in with one of the bully's at school a few years back. This kid was picking on him one day and farted on his Pizza at lunch. He didn't do anything when it happened but it bugged him for a couple hours and then later went and bloodied the kids nose. I know the school didn't think it was funny but I think he took care of the problem just fine.

AZGrizFan wrote:

mrklean wrote:Some of you are so fucking heartless. Remember this could be your child or Grandchild.

What in the FUCK are you talking about? There isn't a single post here supporting the concept...

Vidav wrote:As long as it's your kid then you can do whatever you want. They are mentally retarded so they have no self awareness and should be treated like the property they are, not humans. You only have a right to be upset if someone else stunts the growth of your MR kid.

Vidav wrote:As long as it's your kid then you can do whatever you want. They are mentally retarded so they have no self awareness and should be treated like the property they are, not humans. You only have a right to be upset if someone else stunts the growth of your MR kid.

Ibanez wrote:Shouldn't we just leave them on mountain tops? Seriously, I'm tired of supporting these non-contributors.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Shouldn't we just leave them on mountain tops? Seriously, I'm tired of supporting these non-contributors.

The Nazis had a pretty good strategy for dealing with them.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:I have a nephew with Autism and he is a sophmore this year and about 6'3" now, he may end up being about 6'6" or taller. I can say, this question has never even come up. I am not even sure what to think.....I don't even understand the mentality to think of this in the first place let alone do it.

Arguments for the treatment

The parents state that they sought such treatment for the best interests of their daughter, namely, to enable them to personally continue constant care for her at home; to maximize her inclusion in family activities; to avoid the cramps and discomfort associated with menstruation; and to avoid the discomfort from large breasts (which runs in Ashley's family) while lying down or strapped in the chest area while in her wheelchair. Furthermore, they cited additional side benefits: to reduce the risk of bedsores; to prevent breast cancer and fibrocystic growth (both of which have occurred in her family); to prevent pregnancy; and to prevent appendicitis, which occurs in 5% of the population and which would be difficult to diagnose in Ashley as she would be unable to communicate the symptoms. They also believe that without secondary sexual characteristics, Ashley will be less vulnerable to sexual abuse by future caregivers when her parents will no longer be able to care for her.

In an article published in June 2009 on Growth Attenuation, two pediatric endocrinologist and two bioethicists concluded as follows:

Our analysis suggests that growth attenuation is an innovative and sufficiently safe therapy that offers the possibility of an improved quality of life for nonambulatory children with profound cognitive disability and their families. Pediatricians and other care providers should include discussion of these options as part of anticipatory guidance around the age of 3 years so that, if elected, potential clinically meaningful benefits of growth-attenuation therapy can be realized.

The two bioethicists from the previous article also published an article in January 2010 cataloging and countering the criticisms that targeted the Ashley Treatment, and concluded as follows:

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of the [Ashley Treatment] case and the issues it raised, then address 25 distinct substantive arguments that have been proposed as reasons that Ashley’s treatment might be unethical. We conclude that while some important concerns have been raised, the weight of these concerns is not sufficient to consider the interventions used in Ashley’s case to be contrary to her best interests, nor are they sufficient to preclude similar use of these interventions in the future for carefully selected patients who might also benefit from them.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Shouldn't we just leave them on mountain tops? Seriously, I'm tired of supporting these non-contributors.

The Nazis had a pretty good strategy for dealing with them.

93henfan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
The Nazis had a pretty good strategy for dealing with them.

Anne frankly, it was a gas! They did nazi it coming.

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
The Nazis had a pretty good strategy for dealing with them.

Most civilizations abandoned the informed and mal-formed babies.


My comment was obviously in jest.


Sent from my iPhone