Thanks. It is hard for me, even as a psychology student, to fathom working with someone at that level. Even a toddler seems simpler to work with (though a toddler with the strength of an 18 year old not so much i guess.) ETA: I caught that she was the size/strength of a six year old, I was just making a general comment :)
I knew it wasn't a regular classroom, but I wasn't sure what was available at that level. I'm glad those laws are in place.

I can't accept the proposition that she has to be small so they can move her and interact with her more than they could if she were larger. Instead of making her smaller, why wouldn't they concentrate on making themselves physically stronger?

My guess is that she's a deadweight. As an EMT, I can sympathize.

Actually in Keshia's case, she was the size of a 6 year old.
It sounds to me as though Ashley's parents are trying to do the majority of care for Ashley themselves - although unorthodox and NOT by any means something that should become standard, I understand their decision. I am surprised that it was allowed, but I understand it and am glad that they are actually caring for her. I see special needs children every day that are almost completely neglected or abused by their parents.

this is why you should need a licence to have children

Agreed. I'd probably fail my test too :P

I agree based on the article I read today. They didn't want her to have to deal with the discomfort of a menstrual cycle or develop breasts because they have a history of breast cancer in the family. They also didn't want her to gain anymore weight and have to deal with bed sores.

The girl is in a permanent infant stage. She can't talk, walk, rollover, hold a toy, sit up, and she doesn't keep eye contact. If the parents believe she will never get better and it's already been 9 years, I can't even pretend to not see where they're coming from.

The ONLY problem I have with this is the whole eugenics argument that an ethicist was making in the article. This could definitely be a slippery slope that takes us back to when mentally and physically handicapped people were medically altered as such. I believe this still happens in some mental hospitals. Either way, things like this should be on a case to case basis. But what would make it "okay" in this instance but keep another family from having it done?

Yes and they say they haven't found a care giver that suffices.

Ashley goes to a special school during the day though.

I heard an interview with Dr. Diekema, the ethicist at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle referred to in the article who was on the committee that approved the procedures. ("Dr. Douglas Diekema, an ethicist at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle, where Ashley was treated, said he met with the parents and became convinced they were motivated by love and the girl's best interests.")

He said much the same in the interview -- that he went in with many reservations, that he and the rest of the committee were very impressed with the care the parents gave Ashley, that the committee was convinced that the parents were motivated completely by Ashley's interests and not their own, and that the committee's decision was based on the circumstances of this particular case that might or might not be applicable in other cases.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/01/11...cry/index.html

another story about this....