Morality & Ethics with the "Pillow Angel"

[valkyrie]

Okay, first of all, you know they're not right if they refer to their daughter as a "pillow angel" -- WTF it is Michael Jackson level crazy when you refer to your child as an item of bedding.

Aside from that, this is the most effed up thing I've ever heard. They had surgery performed on their child and pumped her full of hormones to make her more convenient for them. That is jacked up, period.

[OtterXO]

I think it's just totally crazy and pretty f-ed up. It seems like they're treating her more as a piece of property than as a child.

I have an idea, let's remove her arms and legs too! That will make her much easier to move around, touch, snuggle etc.

[Cardinal026]

When I first read the article, I was horrified that the parents would do that. But because I'm bored at work, I read through the parent's website, the links to related articles they had, and all the feeback comments from the MSNBC Message Board, and while I can't imagine having to put my child through this, I really think the parents had Ashley's best interest at heart, especially when they talk about being able to prevent bedsores and having a lower risk of infections and bladder infections.

I think its important (at least to me, for myself to base an opinion) to realize that she'll be a 3 month old forever and it says she has no chance of improvement - and I can't imagine a 3 month old going through puberty, or being so large that a mother couldn't pull her into her lap to comfort her, or even bathe her easily.

A hard decision, and I'm not sure what I'd do, but I can't blame the parents for wanting to improve the quality of their daughters life, which from the article and their website, seems like it will be vastly better due to this treatment.

[AlphaFrog]

I'm agreeing with Cardinal on this one. Plus, I know it sounds bad, but she's never going to know what happened, so what's the difference?

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I'm agreeing with Cardinal on this one. Plus, I know it sounds bad, but she's never going to know what happened, so what's the difference?

I don't know....something about that makes me really uncomfortable. I think that people could justify doing a lot of things to mentally disabled persons by saying "she'll never know it happened". The girl clearly underwent two major surgeries to remove her breast tissue and reproductive organs. If she can feel pain then I'm pretty sure she felt the pain of recovery from those.

I'm not usually a fan of a "slippery slope" argument but in this case I wonder where one draws the line at doing things to make caring for her more convenient for her parents.

[BetteDavisEyes]

Originally Posted by OtterXO

I don't know....something about that makes me really uncomfortable. I think that people could justify doing a lot of things to mentally disabled persons by saying "she'll never know it happened". The girl clearly underwent two major surgeries to remove her breast tissue and reproductive organs. If she can feel pain then I'm pretty sure she felt the pain of recovery from those.

I'm not usually a fan of a "slippery slope" argument but in this case I wonder where one draws the line at doing things to make caring for her more convenient for her parents.

That's what's bothering me. You nailed it right on the head.

In some cases, not calling her by her given name and instead, referring her to as an object "pillow angel" it sort of dehumanizes her and might make it easier for them to view her as such instead of a person that can feel pain.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Okay, first of all, you know they're not right if they refer to their daughter as a "pillow angel" -- WTF it is Michael Jackson level crazy when you refer to your child as an item of bedding.

I took them to mean that she is an angel who rests on a pillow.

Originally Posted by BetteDavisEyes

In some cases, not calling her by her given name and instead, referring her to as an object "pillow angel" it sort of dehumanizes her and might make it easier for them to view her as such instead of a person that can feel pain.

Of course, in the article, they do call her by her name. How is saying "she's our pillow angel" that different from saying "she's our guardian angel" or "he's my knight in shining armour"?

As for viewing her as an object that can't feel pain, the article gives no indication that they feel that way, and it mentions that among their concerns were bedsores and "the discomforts of periods," so I take that to mean that they were, at least in part, motiviated by her comfort.

I agree with the parents that ""Unless you are living the experience ... you have no clue what it is like to be the bedridden child or their caregivers." I have no clue what I would do in their shoes. But from what I've seen and read, I would describe them as parents who are doing the best they can and what they think is best for their daughter and their family. Regardless of how the ethicists and their ilk ultimately view the situation and the questions it presents, I'm not willing to jump all over the parents or assume that they really are motivated by their own convenience.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I'm agreeing with Cardinal on this one. Plus, I know it sounds bad, but she's never going to know what happened, so what's the difference?

If you kill someone while they're asleep, they'll never know what happened, so what's the difference?

[33girl]

If she's bedridden and indoors all the time, I doubt she would reach the "normal" 5'6" anyway. Didn't these asshats read Flowers in the Attic?

This story gives me the willies.

[Kevin]

I really don't have a huge problem with what this girl's parents did. If this will make her existence more peaceful, then I'm all for it.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I really don't have a huge problem with what this girl's parents did. If this will make her existence more peaceful, then I'm all for it.

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?