Talk:Ashley Treatment

message: === Infobox ===
As I'm a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia, I'm not so familiar with Infoboxes.  Additionally, it appears much of the needed information is not available, due to Ashley's parents' decision to remain anonymous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjk1971 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what infobox would be appropriate. (See: WP:IBT) Suggestions? James Kidd 05:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a disappointing action. The present arrangement is confusing and the lead para is overloaded. Reverting rather than improving is not the way to go. TerriersFan 14:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to take a stab at it. Rosemary Amey 19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I wasnt trying to offend, but a lead paragraph should give the reader at least a capsule overview of what the controversy is about, and the previous version was so vague as to be unintelligible. alteripse 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose Disability rights activists are just getting started with their protests, which may result in more media coverage. Rosemary Amey 19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the parents blog : although they say she moves her arms and legs to sounds, she stays put on a pillow and cannot reach for a toy. Normal babies in the first weeks try to change position for discomfort, have some protective movement, and will not stay put in the same spot on a mattress. Even a baby a few days old makes eye contact and is clearly responsive to family members, and their statement that she does not make eye contact indicates she is either cortically blind or so profoundly brain-damaged that there is no potential for purposive behavior. Her level of capability is below that of a normal newborn, yet their willingness to describe her "biggest problem" of mind as boredom indicates the degree of imaginatve projection they are willing to engage in. This is not surprising: to provide conscientious and loving care for such a profoundly damaged baby nearly always requires an overestimation of the baby's capabilities and potentials. However, every child is different and perhaps her combination of abilities and disabilities is unique and my inferences are incorrect. Maybe it would be better to say "no purposive behavior" than no "spontaneous behavior". I guess the other reason I am estimating her brain function as so low is that it would seem far more unconscionable to carry out those procedures on a child with potential social awareness whose only problem was immobility, and I assume these parents are not monsters. The procedures are only defensible if there is no potential for social interaction or communication. alteripse 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no source that actually says Ashley is incapable of purposive or spontaneous behaviour, than it strikes me that your interpretation of her behaviour is original research and doesn't belong in the article. Rosemary Amey 00:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My inference is no more "original research" than yours is. It is directly what is described in the blog. alteripse 02:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're referring to, I don't think I put anything in the article about Ashley's condition that wasn't in the blog. Rosemary Amey 04:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. In response to your question I provided you a detailed explanation of what the blog said. It is not "original research". alteripse 13:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm wondering why Ashley is depicted as an infant when there are more recent photos of her at her parents' blog which would give a better sense of her current condition. Rosemary Amey 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated photo--new photo shows Ashley in 2006. Rosemary Amey 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The parents mentioned pregnancy as a concern in their blog. Although it is very unlikely she will ever be able to willingly consent to sex, she will be very vulnerable to sexual assault, especially once her parents are no longer able to care for her. Rosemary Amey 03:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read through the blog, and have found it indicates that the prevention of pregnancy was an incidental "benefit." I would suggest that that particular phrase be removed as it stands, as it seems to imply that she is in danger of becoming pregnant now. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 03:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What alternative wording do you suggest? Rosemary Amey 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be moved to slightly later when the article mentions that the treatment may make her less of a target for sexual abuse, seeing as that's the only way she ever would have gotten pregnant anyway. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Can someone do this already?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.98.198 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Issues / Pending 

message: As I'm a fairly new contributor to Wikipedia, I'm not so familiar with Infoboxes.  Additionally, it appears much of the needed information is not available, due to Ashley's parents' decision to remain anonymous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjk1971 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what infobox would be appropriate. (See: WP:IBT) Suggestions? James Kidd 05:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I reverted the rearrangements by terriersfan. The first paragraph needs to be more explicit as to the procedures and why they are controversial. Your current lead paragraph did not contain that info. Second, it made no sense to remove the general info about the problems of disabled children from the Background section where it belonged. I deliberately put the general info separately from her history. The reader unfamiliar with the issues needs to know what the controversy is all about. Too many of the news stories were way too vague about the specifics of the treatment. Suggest better wording if you wish but do not remove it thanks. alteripse 11:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a disappointing action. The present arrangement is confusing and the lead para is overloaded. Reverting rather than improving is not the way to go. TerriersFan 14:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to take a stab at it. Rosemary Amey 19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I wasnt trying to offend, but a lead paragraph should give the reader at least a capsule overview of what the controversy is about, and the previous version was so vague as to be unintelligible. alteripse 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reasons for restoration

message: Active media interest seems to have passed for now so I propose that the Current Event tag is removed. TerriersFan 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose Disability rights activists are just getting started with their protests, which may result in more media coverage. Rosemary Amey 19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current event 

message: Could someone give a source for the claim that Ashley exhibits no spontaneous behaviours? Her parents' blog seems to contradict this. Thanks. Rosemary Amey 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the parents blog : although they say she moves her arms and legs to sounds, she stays put on a pillow and cannot reach for a toy. Normal babies in the first weeks try to change position for discomfort, have some protective movement, and will not stay put in the same spot on a mattress. Even a baby a few days old makes eye contact and is clearly responsive to family members, and their statement that she does not make eye contact indicates she is either cortically blind or so profoundly brain-damaged that there is no potential for purposive behavior. Her level of capability is below that of a normal newborn, yet their willingness to describe her "biggest problem" of mind as boredom indicates the degree of imaginatve projection they are willing to engage in. This is not surprising: to provide conscientious and loving care for such a profoundly damaged baby nearly always requires an overestimation of the baby's capabilities and potentials. However, every child is different and perhaps her combination of abilities and disabilities is unique and my inferences are incorrect. Maybe it would be better to say "no purposive behavior" than no "spontaneous behavior". I guess the other reason I am estimating her brain function as so low is that it would seem far more unconscionable to carry out those procedures on a child with potential social awareness whose only problem was immobility, and I assume these parents are not monsters. The procedures are only defensible if there is no potential for social interaction or communication. alteripse 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no source that actually says Ashley is incapable of purposive or spontaneous behaviour, than it strikes me that your interpretation of her behaviour is original research and doesn't belong in the article. Rosemary Amey 00:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My inference is no more "original research" than yours is. It is directly what is described in the blog. alteripse 02:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're referring to, I don't think I put anything in the article about Ashley's condition that wasn't in the blog. Rosemary Amey 04:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. In response to your question I provided you a detailed explanation of what the blog said. It is not "original research". alteripse 13:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No spontaneous behaviours?

message: *Photograph of Ashley added.  Her parents, the copyright holders, grant permission on their blogsite, provided attribution is given (attribution given on WikiCommons photo page).
:I'm wondering why Ashley is depicted as an infant when there are more recent photos of her at her parents' blog which would give a better sense of her current condition. Rosemary Amey 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated photo--new photo shows Ashley in 2006. Rosemary Amey 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Permissions 

message: does anyone here think the Catholic church will respond to this? i mean,if they were very vocal on teri shiavo's death, then they must find faults with this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.1.237 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  catholic church response 

message: "...menstruation; to prevent pregnancy; to avoid..."
This particular line was mentioned and discussed in a chat I was in, so I know I am not the only one who thinks there's something wrong with the idea that there's a chance this child will be involved in anything resulting in pregnancy any time soon. Is this a legitimate concern? Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 02:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The parents mentioned pregnancy as a concern in their blog. Although it is very unlikely she will ever be able to willingly consent to sex, she will be very vulnerable to sexual assault, especially once her parents are no longer able to care for her. Rosemary Amey 03:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read through the blog, and have found it indicates that the prevention of pregnancy was an incidental "benefit." I would suggest that that particular phrase be removed as it stands, as it seems to imply that she is in danger of becoming pregnant now. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 03:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What alternative wording do you suggest? Rosemary Amey 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be moved to slightly later when the article mentions that the treatment may make her less of a target for sexual abuse, seeing as that's the only way she ever would have gotten pregnant anyway. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Can someone do this already?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.98.198 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pregnancy?

message: ===Background section (Done)===
It seems to me that a lot of the information in the Background section is a repeat of the introductory paragraph or else belongs in the Arguments for the Treatment. I would like to eliminate the Background section and move the relevant material to the Arguments for the Treatment section, if no one objects. Rosemary Amey 03:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I have gone ahead and restructured. Hope its OK! TerriersFan 04:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support The problem with the pillow angel article at the moment is that there is rather too much on Ashley and too little on the generic concept. For it to be a worthwhile keep it needs to be cleaned up with more editorial on the generality. I am prepared to change my position if worthwhile editorial is added to Pillow angel. TerriersFan 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support The articles are almost entirely about the same info. If you removed the info about "The Ashley Treatment" from Pillow angel, all you'd have left in that article is that her family made up that pet name because she's angelic and is often placed on pillows. The overall issue of and controversy surrounding her condition and treatment has received enough news coverage to be notable, but unless the term "pillow angel" catches on in general use for such children, it's a non-notable pet name. That article has a lot of good info in it, though, so it should definitely be merged into this one. --Icarus (Hi!) 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support Due to the redundancy between the two pages. It would be better to at least merge everything pertaining to Ashley's treatment to this page, and either flush out what remains at pillow angel or move it to Wictionary.  Sorry for my previous premature merge, but I had assumed it was a foregone conclusion due to the high percentage of redundancy. -- Nakamura2828 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary tag added, see Pillow angel. James Kidd 07:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed tag per discussion. --James Kidd (Contr/Email) 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct. James Kidd 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The article as tagged had no assertion of notability. As it has been updated to include said notability, along with references, this is no longer a speedy deletion candidate. The tag has been removed. --Kinu t/c 07:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. The consensus for this is pretty clear on WP:NCD: If the name of the article is not the title of a work, an official name, or another proper name, avoid the definite ("the") and indefinite ("a"/"an") articles at the beginning of a page name. James Kidd 00:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. For all the reasons above -- Nakamura2828 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'll need an administrator to move this page, as "Ashley Treatment" redirects to "The Ashley Treatment".  Can anyone take care of this? James Kidd 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the correct tag for Speedy Deletion CSD G6 James Kidd 05:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No need for an admin, I just moved it myself. Hopefully I didn't jump the gun again by doing so, but it seems unanimous here. -- Nakamura2828 22:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I couldn't figure it out because the page already existed or something? lol. James Kidd (Contr/Email) 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Growth attenuation should have its own page and not redirect here. Growth attenuation was practiced long before Ashley was born to keep girls from getting "too" tall. Ashley's parents explain in their blog that the Ashley treatment includes hysterectomy and bilateral mastectomy as well as growth attenuation. Rosemary Amey 17:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Sorry, just seen Infobox. TerriersFan 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completed

message: It seems to me that a lot of the information in the Background section is a repeat of the introductory paragraph or else belongs in the Arguments for the Treatment. I would like to eliminate the Background section and move the relevant material to the Arguments for the Treatment section, if no one objects. Rosemary Amey 03:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I have gone ahead and restructured. Hope its OK! TerriersFan 04:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background section (Done)

message: Why was there no discussion concerning the merge of Pillow angel with the Ashley Treatment?  A pillow angel is not the same thing as the Ashley Treatment.  Please start a discussion first. James Kidd 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support The problem with the pillow angel article at the moment is that there is rather too much on Ashley and too little on the generic concept. For it to be a worthwhile keep it needs to be cleaned up with more editorial on the generality. I am prepared to change my position if worthwhile editorial is added to Pillow angel. TerriersFan 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support The articles are almost entirely about the same info. If you removed the info about "The Ashley Treatment" from Pillow angel, all you'd have left in that article is that her family made up that pet name because she's angelic and is often placed on pillows. The overall issue of and controversy surrounding her condition and treatment has received enough news coverage to be notable, but unless the term "pillow angel" catches on in general use for such children, it's a non-notable pet name. That article has a lot of good info in it, though, so it should definitely be merged into this one. --Icarus (Hi!) 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support Due to the redundancy between the two pages. It would be better to at least merge everything pertaining to Ashley's treatment to this page, and either flush out what remains at pillow angel or move it to Wictionary.  Sorry for my previous premature merge, but I had assumed it was a foregone conclusion due to the high percentage of redundancy. -- Nakamura2828 04:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary tag added, see Pillow angel. James Kidd 07:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed tag per discussion. --James Kidd (Contr/Email) 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article merge with "Pillow Angel" (Done)

message: The X in her name is used to protect the privacy of the family and not used like the X in Malcom X, right? WP 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. James Kidd 05:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the X 

message: I highly disagree that this page should be deleted, now, or in the near future.  The last few days are the early opening of a clearly long-term medical ethical dilemma.  If you don't believe me, check the references.  And/or Google "The Ashley Treatment" on Google News.
:The article as tagged had no assertion of notability. As it has been updated to include said notability, along with references, this is no longer a speedy deletion candidate. The tag has been removed. --Kinu t/c 07:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? (Tag Removed)

message: I very much prefer Ashley Treatment. It is normal to drop the definite article in such cases (see WP:MOS), which helps both searching and cataloguing. Views please. TerriersFan 00:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. The consensus for this is pretty clear on WP:NCD: If the name of the article is not the title of a work, an official name, or another proper name, avoid the definite ("the") and indefinite ("a"/"an") articles at the beginning of a page name. James Kidd 00:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. For all the reasons above -- Nakamura2828 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'll need an administrator to move this page, as "Ashley Treatment" redirects to "The Ashley Treatment".  Can anyone take care of this? James Kidd 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the correct tag for Speedy Deletion CSD G6 James Kidd 05:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No need for an admin, I just moved it myself. Hopefully I didn't jump the gun again by doing so, but it seems unanimous here. -- Nakamura2828 22:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I couldn't figure it out because the page already existed or something? lol. James Kidd (Contr/Email) 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title (Changed)

message: I created an article for growth attenuation, the name of one of the treatments used in this case, which was then redirected to this page.  So I then added a description stating that the Ashley Treatment was also known as growth attenuation, but this was removed because the Ashley Treatment involves more than growth attenuation.  So we need to decide: if growth attenuation is its own form of treatment, it should have its own page that describes the procedure.  If it is the exact same thing as the "Ashley Treatment", then that should be mentioned on this page. Remember 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Growth attenuation should have its own page and not redirect here. Growth attenuation was practiced long before Ashley was born to keep girls from getting "too" tall. Ashley's parents explain in their blog that the Ashley treatment includes hysterectomy and bilateral mastectomy as well as growth attenuation. Rosemary Amey 17:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth attenuation (Done)

message: I added a PMID for the published account by Dan Gunther and DS Diekema.  There are an amazing number of academic articles in PubMed that quote it.Pustelnik (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PMID

message: Do we have, or can we work out, a year of birth? Referring to Ashley as a 'nine year old child' will soon date. TerriersFan 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, just seen Infobox. TerriersFan 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age (Done) 

message: Has anybody worked in the stuff from the second part of the Time Magazine feature on Ashley? --Lakerdonald 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Article Part II 

message: Is it possible if I could put Ashley X's date of birth and place of birth? The date of birth is September 07, 1997 in Seattle, Wasington, United States. Her birth name is Ashley Delilah X. --Weather72787 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove it. Dancter 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Information 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Her doctor's suicide is thought by some to be related to the treatment and the backlash against it.  If you think it doesn't belong here fine, but please discuss the removal here or at least log in so it can be discussed on your talk page.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tragedy of her doctor's suicide 

message: Summary:
In May 2010 and after two years of stable language, small changes were applied that have significant implications and are inaccurate; also an important reference was downplayed. In August 2010 I first noticed these changes and reversed them.
Discussion:
There were three changes to the language (for reference compare March 24th to May 3rd, 2010): 1) "she is" was changed to "she is assumed to be", 2) "will remain" was changes to "may remain", and 3) "will not improve" was changed to "may not improve". These changes are inconsistent with the way Ashley's parents and her doctors described her condition publicly and on many occasions; for example, see her parent's blog and the presentation of her main doctor (Dr. Cowan) at the Seattle UW symposium of May 2007. Ashley's brain never developed beyond the infant level, in fact there are infant abilities such as track-and-follow and holding a toy that she is not capable of even at age 13. According to her team of doctors, experienced specialists in their fields, her situation is more certain than the new proposed language suggests.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillowangel (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Resolution 

message: There's currently a section for arguments for the treatment, but no section for arguments against it. This doesn't seem very neutral. — DanielLC 00:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against the treatment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ashley Treatment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070617150125/http://www.disabilityrightswa.org/news-1/Investigative%20Report%20Regarding%20the%20Ashley%20Treatment.pdf to http://www.disabilityrightswa.org/news-1/Investigative%20Report%20Regarding%20the%20Ashley%20Treatment.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070104081133/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/15517226/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15517226/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ashley Treatment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070617150125/http://www.disabilityrightswa.org/news-1/Investigative%20Report%20Regarding%20the%20Ashley%20Treatment.pdf to http://www.disabilityrightswa.org/news-1/Investigative%20Report%20Regarding%20the%20Ashley%20Treatment.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is Ashley's Dad at pillowangelhotmail.com from www.pillowangel.org
I added Ashley's photo per WikiPedia instructions; see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ashley_2007.jpg 
When you visit the link the photo shows, so it works.
Then I added the link to her "Ashley X" person box on the "Ashley Treatment" page; however, the photo does not show when the page is displayed.
If you know how to fix it, pls do. Will be good to show her photo.
AD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillowangel (talk • contribs) 21:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it for you in this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Ashley's photo