Backing up my previous post that this was a legal and not an ethical dilemma, it has been determined and admitted that the hospital's actions were illegal.

I was the only one pointing out that this was criminal behavior. I should also add the the hospital might have admitted that it was illegal, but no charges have been filed against anyone. Why is that?

I bring this up because so often when crimes have a moral or ethical component, we often overlook the legal component. For example all the deals we now make with the Catholic Church regarding the child molesting/rape scandals. How is it that in the whole coverup and conspiracy, only a few priest have gone to jail? Aiding and abetting a crime is also a crime. Not reporting crimes is a crime. We find it acceptable that a priest is defrocked. What happens to the law under these circumstances and why is the law so easily relegated to the back seat when ethics or morality are in question?

New information regarding this case: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003699286_childrens09m.html

I am a nursing student, I think that what they did was a crime and the people involved will pay for it here on earth or in front of God, especially the ones who gave her birth since they can not be called parents.

Shame on you!! How dare you second guess devoted parents who want nothing but the best for their child. Walk in their shoes for a month and then write your article. I have a granddaughter with Aicardi syndrome who will live a life much like Ashley. My daughter and her husband are devoted to that child - as are Ashley's parents to her - believe me such parents do not make decisions lightly and when they do it is for the child they love and adore. Only they have the right, with the professional doctors, to decide the best treatment. Do you wnat some special interest group deciding how you care for your child?

It being an obvious factor.

All the "objections" are firmly grounded in "religious ideals" re: what makes a human being, however they are disguised by thick rationalizations to make it all seem so "purely scientific" as well as in the "interest of the child."

The objections all say in essense "do we have a right to make this decision for another human being."

Those that object do so, because their instinctual feeling re: humans is we are "special." Our body almost sacred, and the way it came is the way it should be without being altered except out of medical necessity.

This "feeling" is hardly scientific, especially since the bulk of their reservations rest on the "sanctity of the intact human body."

Ironically, science has been teaching us that what makes us "human, more than just an animal" is our mind.

Without our "mind" we are little more than flesh. A functioning heart, lungs, liver Etc. canNOT make us human. ONLY OUR MIND does that.

Yet the distance between the true source of their objections and their rational thinking mind is so great, few would recognize their gross rationalizations for what they are, an attempt to impose the religious (any all religions) sense of what is "human" over the scientific sense of what is human (the FUNCTIONING mind in a human body.)

So instinctive is the feeling, that they miss the fact that humans with normal mental ability make the decision to alter their bodies every day. Women with large breasts get reductions. As medicine advances the kinds of changes will get more dramatic, and we'll mak them willingly.

In this young girl's case, her infirmed nature prevents her from making any rationale decision. She is aware of the world like a 3 yr. old, but mentally is probably less capable than that for a 3yr. old's behavior is a result of a growing, properly functioning brain, which this girl does not have.

So her parents have decided for her, and their choice is reasonable, rational and fair to all.

They clearly refused to put on the blinders so many of this nation's elite do in regard to the state of healthcare, nursing care and the variety of "social services" this girl would have to depend on IF her body had been allowed to develop into an adult body, while her mind was left behind at 3months.

They know they do not have the luxury of pretending that our social services network is ready, willing and wants to take care of a child like theirs. They insist on taking into account her likely fate if forced to give her up because she became impossible to take care of at home.

I commend the parents for making this decision. They sound incredibly compassionate, loving, determined and brave.

If this girl had been normal, she'd would have had a fantastic life.

As it is, these wonderful people are ensuring she has the best life she can, unhindered by a physical form that would make it impossible for them to keep her in her later years.

And yes while unspoken, i think the inference is clear. If the hospital did NOT do this, then in a few years, the little girl was going to be the responsibility of the state, not theirs.

So not only did they do the best for the child, themselves but also this country's overwhelmed social service system.

...but giving her a hysterectomy and removing her breasts will NOT protect this little girl from sexual assault. Prepubescent children are (unfortunately) raped all the time. The problem is with the person who would rape anyone, let alone a physically helpless girl or woman with the mind of a baby, NOT with that girl or woman's secondary sex characteristics.

Removing her breasts and uterus will not necessarily prevent her from having sexual feelings or arousal either. Prepubescent children are quite capable of orgasm. So are woman who have had hysterectomies and masectomies.

She is only 3 months old, mentally, and therefore can only think with the mind of a 3 month old. It were as if she were only the age of three months! If you were to count her age developmentally on a calendar, it would add to not one or two, but 3 MONTHS. So, you see, she can only have the intellect of a 3-month old.