The procedure involved removing Ashleys uterus but keeping her ovaries to maintain her natural hormones.

Additional and incidental benefits include avoiding any possibility of pregnancy, which to our astonishment does occur to disabled women who are abused, including a case mentioned in this discussion below.

Ashley has no need for developed breasts since she will not breast feed and their presence would only be a source of discomfort to her.

"

The breast bud removal has other benefits:

1. The breast bud removal has other benefits:
2. 1- Avoiding the possibility of painful fibrocystic growth and future related surgeries. Women in Ashleys lineage have a history of fibrocystic growth.
3. 2- Avoiding the possibility of breast cancer. Ashley has breast cancer history in her family.
4. 3- Large breasts could "sexualize" Ashley towards her caregiver, especially when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse.

"If the concern has something to do with the girls dignity being violated, then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity," they said.

"The oestrogen treatment is not what is grotesque here. Rather, it is the prospect of having a full-grown and fertile woman endowed with the mind of a baby."

UKs Disability Rights Commission says:

"This is unnecessary medical treatment, to deal with what is essentially a social problem: the poverty and lack of support faced by families with disabled children in both US and Britain.

"Ashleys parents say that they cannot afford paid carers to come to their home to support her and this is one of the reasons they give for the treatment, but no one should have medical treatment that is of no benefit to them without their consent. Such a basic principle has to be maintained.

"In Britain, half of families with disabled children live in poverty and eight in ten say they are at breaking point ¿ more likely to be in debt, less likely to be able to afford a holiday or visit friends or live at much beyond a subsistence existence.

"When parents face such trying circumstances, it is small wonder that they consider desperate measures.

"We have a care crisis in this country, with a lack of support for a decent and dignified family life that is placing unbearable strain on people and families.

"While this case is shocking, the real scandal is that developed countries like Britain and the US are failing to provide adequate support services, so that all their citizens can have a decent quality of life."

US medical ethicist Dr Jeffrey Brosco:

Dr Jeffrey Brosco, Miami University: "This is a technological solution to a social problem.

"I work with severely disabled children and know how hard it is on families, but what we need most is better federal funding so that they can be cared for properly."

From bfp:
I read through the statement put out by the parents, and there seems to be a weird mix of social conditions (not having the money for quality care, disgust at the thought of an imperfect grown woman (what could be more grotesque than a grown woman who thinks differently?), and fear of sexual abuse ) that led to their decision to "treat" their daughter.

They did mention that it would be uncomfortable for the daughter to have large breasts, as she cant be strapped in her chair that easily, and that it would be much less likely that she would have bed sores-but one would think (dont know for *sure*) that after all these years, the wheel chair designers would have thought of something to help make it more comfortable for big breasted women to be strapped into their chairs. If they havent come up with something yet, I would be interested in *knowing* if there is any movement/petition/etc that I can hook up with to help make that happen.

Either way, I dont agree with this surgery at all-especially when taken into consideration that many women who arent as severely disabled are *already* sterilized or prevented from having children for many of the same reasons. Disabled women of color are under especially intense targetting-who would want to change a disabled woman of colors pads, after all?

So if this kind of surgery could be performed on a small white female child who has parents who are committed to caring for her, what will stop surgeons from considering this option for other "grotesque" women-those who are severly physically disabled rather than mentally disabled, disabled women of color, disabled trans gendered people etc? If disabled women are already being medically sterilized, what is really wrong about going to the next step and surgically sterilizing?

I understand the fear that many people have expressed about disabled and institutionalized women being raped. It is a real fear. However, I see this fear being wrongly addressed through the bodies of disabled women-women are being forced to accept extreme forms of subjugation (in the form of surgeries and hormones) that no actual rapist in the U.S. has ever had to endure. What I dont think many people understand is that just as rape is a real fear for disabled women (as it is for all women in the U.S.) forced sterilization is also a very real fear of disabled women as well-in this culture, imperfect women are forcibly denied their human right to bodily integrity on many more levels than what we think of as "rape". Unfortunatly, societys fear of the "imperfect" being recreating "imperfection" is often the driving force behind the [many times] violent denial of bodily integrity of disabled women.

Furthermore, I am having difficulty understanding why disabled womens reproductive organs are considered expendable simply because they wont be using them for "traditional" purposes? Is it ok to cut off a disabled womans legs because shes not going to use them in traditional ways? On a different note, is it ok to severly stunt the growth of a severly physically disabled woman who has the mental capacity of Stephen Hawkings? And if it isnt, why isnt it? Is it because society finds "value" in traditional intelligence? And why is it that *caregivers* and "ethics committees" (those in positions of power), rather than disabled communities are deciding what is "necessary" and what isnt in relation to disabled womens bodies?

And really, is it only disabled women who are targetted for radical surgery for benign issues? Or is it only disabled women where this targetting doesnt really much matter?

Ill sign off with the words of disabled activist, Robyn Hunt:
What is it about "all that you dont understand?

" Girls and women of all ages with any form of disability are generally among the more vulnerable and marginalised of society. There is therefore need to take into account and to address their concerns in all policy making and programming. Special measures are needed at all levels to integrate them into the mainstream of development.

How can we do this? Here are some suggestions and challenges:

• We must act locally and think globally.
• We must persuade and encourage NGOs, trade unions and other organisations to work with us. They must not see us as separate, requiring separate funding. When they talk about all women we must ask them what is it about "all that you do not understand.
• Resourcing for developing strong international networking should be a priority.
• Those governments which have not yet ratified CEDAW should be encouraged to do so, and those that have should be encouraged to ratify the optional protocol, which gives women another option for redress.
• While governments do have a big responsibility there are also some things we have to do for ourselves. One of those is to work together and support each other. Another is to work with other womens groups to make sure the things that are important to us, as women with disability, are included in the broad range of issues for all women.

I wont pretend that it is easy " It isnt. Our issues often seem too hard, or not all that relevant to non-disabled women, but it is important to keep working at it. These alliances are important. I have worked closely and been supported by particular groups of women in womens studies, and in campaigning for disability to be included in the Human Rights Act, and on other womens issues.

It is important to have allies to achieve change. Supporting mainstream womens issues and projects can help build those alliances. Allies, though, have to stand with us, not speak for us.

Much of what we do is what I call chipping away at the stone. I must admit, though, to sometimes wishing I could use some heavy-duty explosives and make a really big impression.

I hope the womens sessions at this conference will add to the numbers and the strength of those who continue to chip away at the rock of inequality and discrimination.

They are also unemployed, isolated, forgotten, abused, neglected impoverished, uneducated, imprisoned, deprived of their children, illiterate and often in poor health.

But they are also strong, resilient, funny, survivors, loving, smart, caring and fun, schemers, planners, thinkers and activists working for a better world for everyone. Women with disability wont go away. We are life affirming, in all the rich diversity and power of humankind.