where none exists. no doubt, the treatment is radical...i think the mistake that most of us are making is that we are imagining it being performed on a normal healthy girl-child. Ashley is anything but that. with the kind of developmental disability she has, the treatment is only going to make a positive difference to Ashley's quality of life, as well as her parents.

It's rather absurd for Dr. Liptak to talk about Ashley's rights for normal development and sexual pleasure, when its pretty clear that Ashley's is not going to develop intellectually from her current state and that her sexual development (in terms of menses etc.) is only going to cause her pain and inconvenience.

since the treatment is so far-reaching in its impact, it was rightly referred to an ethics commitee and they have reached their conclusions. in the interest of Ashley's family, we should refrain from questioning their motives and actions, as they appear to be sincere and have the welfare of their child at heart.

Ms. Johnson, if you don't think an ethics committee comprised of 18 professional and community members who took the time to hear out Ashley's parents, meet her, and spend at least 2 hours in discussions of her case not an organized effort, I can't imagine what would be. Did you even think about what you wrote?

As a physician, I think Ashley's parents should be commended for taking the necessary steps to safeguard their daughter against a number of dangers. Primarily the one of becoming too physically large for them to care for, and hence having to be cared for by a steady stream of strangers.The difficulties inherent in developing a fully sexually mature body in the setting of a hopelessly infantile mind has been avoided as well. Now, she need never experience sexual assault, pregnancy, menstrual cramps, and has no need of invasive, frightening screening tests. I applaud her caregivers' creativity and courage.

As for the "slippery slope" thinkers, better hope that if you or your loved ones are ever in even remotely similar situations the decision makers are more open-minded, rational, and logical.

This is just another case where people who have no standing to comment on a situation feel they have a right to chime in. I call it "Fristian medicine" and it should be stopped in its tracks.

will someone please tell me how a 3 year-old mind will be less bothered by surgical mutilation than it is by some possible future molestation by a pervert?

these people neutered their lap dog. period.

"aren't we troubled enough by having a diabled daughter? can't the world understand that we've found something that we enjoy about her (she sits quietly wherever we put her), and that we want to keep her that way?"

the world is crazy. CRAZY.

But reading the facts of this case and considering the options make me think this was the best choice - a choice that was deeply considered by the stakeholders in this girl's life: her loving parents, and the doctors who performed the treatment. These are professionals aware of the potential consequences of their actions, and who must bear responsibility for whatever happens in the future.

This story should invite compassion, not scorn. What would you, personally, do if this were your child?

And then, too, I wonder how many of the mentally ill people living "autonomously" on the streets of San Francisco would willingly trade their sexual organs and future chance at sexual pleasure/reproduction for a loving home with a family instead of a cold night on a cardboard scrap next to a pile of feces?

What a relief to see most of the letters support the child's parents here. What is this knee jerk reaction about "rights?" With rights come responsibilities and this child cannot take on many more responsibilities than breathing. Her family take on her responsibilities. And after them, the tax payers and paid caregivers.

This argument about "rights" is so damn childish. Those doctors and "ethicists" who are questioning the parents' decision need to spend a LONG time personally caring for adults and adolescents in the same condition as Ashley. They need to get their heads out of their books or whatever it is that is giving them these ideas. Because it sure isn't common sense. Then maybe they'd have room to talk.

And please, don't worry about her "sexual pleasure" and "right to reproduce." She already seems to feel love for her family and likes opera; and this overpopulated planet doesn't really need every possible reproducer, brutal as that fact may be.

I'm not judging the parents, in the sense of sitting here saying "how dare they" or "they're creepy" or anything like that. I don't know enough about their situation or about the debate that took place among the doctors at the hospital.

However, I have read three articles about this, and my reaction every time is to feel freaked out by the story. I think the reason for this is that this procedure seems to have been done for the convenience of the care-givers. Maybe convenience is the wrong word, because it trivializes the difficulty of what her parents are undertaking in caring for her. I'm not saying it was wrong to do it, because she's lucky to have loving parents who are committed to taking care of her as long as they are able, and it sounds like what they've done will enable them to continue caring for her a lot longer...but there is still something unsettling about making major alterations to another person's body to make care-giving easier.

Also, about the "pillow angel" thing, what is unsettling about that is not the term, so much, as the language that surrounds it. They seem to like that she "stays where they put her" and they want her to continue to "delight" in being carried around. Maybe that strikes a nerve because it's natural for parents of normal children to feel like their kids are growing up too fast, and perhaps wish in a tiny corner of their mind that their sweet little babies could stay that way, just a little bit longer. Isn't that the tragedy in all of this, though? That's she's never going to pick up her head, roll over, crawl, and finally walk? That she's never going to cease to "delight" in being carried around by her parents, as normal children inevitably do? I'm not judging them for any of this, either...I'm sure they went through and continue to go through considerable grief that their daughter will never do those things, and perhaps their positive language is just a way to put a positive spin on a tragic set of circumstances, after years of having coped with it and having processed the fact that she'll never do those things.

As outsiders, we haven't had the time to process all of this the way they have, which is why it seems shocking to many of us.

Again, I'm not trying to judge, just trying to explain some of the shock many people seem to feel.