A girl known to the world only as Ashley, her parents’ beloved “Pillow Angel,” recently set aflame a large-scale, ethical debate – but she’ll never know she did.

The parents of the mentally handicapped daughter had her undergo a series of surgical operations meant to limit her size and prevent her from going through puberty, to make caring for her in the future easier.

The “Ashley Treatment,” as it is called on her parents’ blog, has initiated a flood of hot media coverage that began late last year. People from all over the country have responded with flaring emotions, both against and in favor of the procedure.

Ashley’s parents have taken care to conceal their identities and location from the media, declining any and all requests for interviews.

Instead, they opted to explain their motivations and the scientific procedures at great length by their own means.

According to their blog, the treatment took place without complications in July 2004 at the Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle.

The decision to move ahead with the radical procedure was made after deliberations with the medical center’s ethics committee.

The procedure consisted of three separate moves.

First, her final height was limited by way of high-dose estrogen therapy. In the ’60s and ’70s, this treatment was performed on adolescent girls in order to prevent them from becoming taller than what was considered attractive.

Second, in order to avoid the confusion menstruation could have brought Ashley as someone who wouldn’t have been able to understand the changes and pain menstruation brings, her parents had her uterus removed in a hysterectomy.

Third, her breast buds were removed because of concerns about their eventually becoming a source of discomfort for her while sitting with straps over her chest in her wheelchair, according to the blog.

The parents also cited a family history of large breasts and a desire to keep the child from becoming sexualized as reasons for the removal of the buds.

The avoidance of sexualization, according to the blog, was related to concerns that a caregiver could abuse her some day, as there have been many cases of people with disabilities being sexually abused.

As the nation moves forward in its pursuits in the human sciences, the immense potential to alter – either to drastically improve, deform or even destroy – human life will continue to frighten and enrage, just as it continues to inspire.

Clark Wolf, director of Iowa State’s Bioethics program and associate professor of philosophy and religious studies, said the story demonstrates a “pretty questionable thing to do,” but after the initial gut reaction, a delicately complex situation is brought to light.

In Ashley’s case, Wolf said he believes one must ask several different questions in order to flesh out the ethical implications: What is in Ashley’s best interest? Who is in the best position to speak for her interests?

In general, Wolf said, the person best-equipped to make life-changing decisions for someone with a disability would be his or her parents, unless abuse is involved.

He said he sees no reason to believe this procedure was done for the wrong reasons, after having read the parents’ blog.

In most cases, he said, this would be the wrong thing to do – that is, it would be wrong to perform a very dramatic surgical treatment changing the physical structure of a child.

However, the motive behind the action remains an important factor to Wolf.

“The motive of parental love deserves a certain amount of parental respect no matter what,” he said.

Adrienne Asch, professor of bioethics and epidemiology and population health at Yeshiva University, said it is clear the parents care about this child.

Nevertheless, she agrees with the position of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund which, while empathizing with Ashley’s family, opposes their decision based mostly because no persons with disabilities were included in the decision-making process.

Asch said she wishes to learn more about the specifics of Ashley’s situation. However, even in light of the case’s nuanced nature, there is a fundamental problem: The parents changed the child’s body.

“They modified her body for their benefit,” Asch said.

Ashley’s parents deny the notion that they stunted their daughter’s growth for their own convenience, but rather, they said in their blog, they acted out of concern for their daughter’s well-being.

Still, Asch said, treatment was done hastily. There are resources, she said, such as social supports, which have creative ways of helping the family care for their daughter.

Norman Fost, professor of pediatrics and director of the medical ethics program at University of Wisconsin-Madison, said he is astonished by the intensity and breadth of reaction to Ashley’s story, since the medical procedures her parents asked the doctors to do were very simple things and were not experimentally driven.

The majority of the public’s reaction to Ashley’s parents’ actions has been overwhelmingly supportive, but the condemnations have been extremely fierce, Fost said. He referred to one woman who said on “Larry King Live” that the parents’ actions were an instance of eugenics.

“This case has nothing to do with eugenics,” Fost said.

An example of eugenics, he said, is a state-sponsored and scientifically flawed program to stop mentally handicapped people from reproducing, in order to keep them from having handicapped offspring.

“This was not a eugenic proposal,” he said, “and it certainly wasn’t state-sponsored.”

Fost said a big part of the opposition to the treatment has come from disability rights advocates, who may be acting out of a general societal frustration when using heated language.

People advocating disability rights, he said, have accomplished a great number of positive things in society. Even so, they may often feel as though their voices are not heeded well enough.

“Sometimes, to be heard, people think they have to shout louder,” Fost said.

DREDF essentially believes Ashley’s intellectual disability should be honored just as any of her physical disabilities would be, Breslin said.

“All people with disabilities are entitled to human rights protection,” said Mary Lou Breslin, cofounder and director of DREDF.

“The decisions were made, we think, without input from the disability community where acceptable, workable alternatives could be offered.”

Ashley’s story, along with detailed comments from her parents and glowing encouragement from well-wishers, can be found at Ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com.