What if the parents decided that her intentionally dwarfed stature was not convenient enough for them and they decided to electively amputate her limbs, which are of no use to the child anyway? I guess you would support that decision as well, correct? Please answer this question, as none of the Nazis who support the elective removal of organs from this child even come close to addressing this issue which I have raised about four times now.
And as for this: The most common cause is from allowing a disabled person to sit for long periods of time along with poor skin care - both of which occur when a caregiver is unable to lift and move the disabled person as often as they should.
No kidding. My mother and my aunt, throughout their fifties and early sixties, FOR YEARS took care of my bed ridden grandmother who suffered from severe dementia. There was nary a bed sore ever on her. Proper care eviscerates the need for elective surgeries to unnaturally stunt a disabled person's growth, and you know that.
Please try a little less knee-jerk and a little more thought and compassion here. They have found a way to make their daughter's care manageable. An ethics board found their request reasonable. No ethics board is going to find the amputation of limbs to keep a child small reasonable, and you know it.
Keeping a child small by performing an elective hysterectomy, removing "almond sized" breasts and administering hormones is not at all the same thing as amputating limbs so cut the hyperbole.
Speaking of which, calling people with compassion "nazis" makes you sound like just another lib.
And, unless your grandmother was a 125+ lb quadriplegic with the potential for 70-80 more years of life, comparing her care with Ashley's is hardly fair. But then fairness is not one of your strong points, is it?