yes, yes, yes: this article articulates *exactly* what I was trying to say before about the ashley case:

I understand the parents’ logic. And I can even understand how a medical team might come to agree that a person who cannot move will have a better life small than big. But I think the Peter Pan option is morally wrong.

I believe it is true that it is easier to move Ashley about if she is the size of a 6-year-old. But I also believe that a decent society should be able to provide appropriately sized wheelchairs and bathtubs and home-health assistance to families like this one. Keeping Ashley small is a pharmacological solution for a social failure — the fact that American society does not do what it should to help severely disabled children and their families.

True, it may be better if Ashley does not become sexually developed in terms of protecting her from attack. But that can be said of any woman. To surgically remove her breasts is simply to maim her in a way that ought not be done. She needs a safe environment at home and if the day comes, a safe environment in an institution. Lopping off her breasts to keep her safe cannot be the right or the only answer.

(emphasis mine)

Like this post

Unlike

ashley, disabilities, stunted growth