In 2004, a 6-year-old child in Seattle named Ashley underwent a hysterectomy, had her breast buds removed and was given high-dose estrogen treatments in order to remain perpetually stunted in growth. The reason for this radical treatment is that Ashley has the mind of a three-month-old baby and is unable to speak, move or even eat on her own, the result of a rare condition known as "static encephalopathy of unknown etiology."

Her parents defend their decision because they say that it will improve her overall wellbeing, keeping her from having to deal with menstrual cramps, discomfort and bed sores due to a large body and breasts, making her easier to move around and less prone to sexual abuse.

People have reacted to the news a number of ways; some supportively, some compassionately, but others with fury.

"Ashley's parents have committed the ultimate betrayal," said David, a man who suffers from severe cerebral palsy, on his blog. "They have treated their daughter as less than human, not worthy of dignity ... What strikes me about 'the Ashley treatment,' and has brought me to tears, is that the very people in all of society whom this child should trust have betrayed her."

Fox News reported one reader reacting to the story by saying, "I find this offensive if not perverse. Truly a milestone in our convenience-minded society."

When I first heard about the story, I was also very upset. While science has provided us with countless advantages, especially in medicine, scientists are merely human and make their fair share of blunders, misdiagnoses, for instance, being among them.

Additionally, among the vast majority of reliable and respectable physicians are some amoral doctors who can lie to patients or misrepresent the truth in order to further their own aims, such as the case with David Reimer who was raised as a girl in an experiment by Dr. John Money, who theorized that gender was due to how the child is raised rather than genetic coding (he was found to be wrong). But after reading everything I could on the issue, I have come to the conclusion that Ashley's parents made the right decision.

Now, I'm a conservative who was disgusted over the fate of Terry Schiavo. I think that the possibility of "designer babies," where parents manipulate their child's embryo in order to design their baby with desirable or cosmetic characteristics, is wrong — ethically, legally and morally. But with Ashley, I think her parents made use of technology not for their own personal benefit, but for the well-being of their child, and I do not believe that Ashley's womanhood or dignity was violated or betrayed in any way.

Before the operation was done, the case was presented to the ethics committee at Seattle Children's Hospital, who approved of the procedure. Despite this, feminist groups and disability activists protested outside of the American Medical Association headquarters in Chicago not long ago, demanding that Ashley's doctors be condemned for the procedure.

Some argue that her womanhood was violated, and by sterilizing her she will never be free to choose to have children. However, since she has the mind of a three-month-old, she will never have the mental capacity to choose to have a child or not, and just as parents make decisions in the best interests of their infants, so did Ashley's parents in carrying out the operation.

"If the concern has something to do with the girl's dignity being violated," wrote George Dvorsky, member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, "then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity ... The estrogen 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."

Some have looked at this issue as perverse because they think the parents are changing their child's body simply for their own convenience, desiring to keep Ashley a child forever. Her parents responded to such allegations on their blog, saying, "A fundamental and universal misconception about the treatment is that it is intended to convenience the caregiver; rather, the central purpose is to improve Ashley's quality of life."

We, on the outside, can speculate about the parent's motives all we want, but none of us can read their minds. It is therefore irresponsible for us to assume the worst of parents who have to deal with so difficult a situation. I think it is better to take them at their word. It is clear to me that Ashley's parents made the best decision they could, solely for the wellbeing of their child.

This is a tricky and touchy subject, for to tackle it means to tread through water that has largely been untouched. Any science that deals with manipulating the very basics of human existence makes me squeamish, but Ashley's parents make a good point when they point out that, "The objection that this treatment interferes with nature is one of the most ridiculous objections of all; medicine is all about interfering with nature." People have strong emotions about this and similar issues, and they generally have the best of intentions. I think in this case we should bless Ashley and her parents and pray that Ashley's treatment ends up bringing her greater happiness.

Reach columnist Brandon Dennis at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.