To Orla,

I'm slightly offended that you'd claim that ownership of a womb is vital for womanhood. It's not even vital for motherhood! A person's physiology does not define them. A woman missing a uterus, clitoris, cervix, breasts, whatever, is still as much a woman as the rest of us.

Also, these aren't cosmetic operations. It may not be medically necessary, but it is pragmatic. Removal of the appendix, I should think, would be an entirely clever move. Thorpe is quite right to suggest that the organ should be pre-emptively removed, and I applaud her foresight. I'm also in favour of the hysterectomy, because it does appear to be in this girl's best interest. The question isn't 'why is society so horrible that this disabled girl is maligned', but 'why should this girl, who would likely only conceive a child through rape, be forced to menstruate when the function would distress and confuse her, and cause her indignity?' I admire Thorpe; it must have been so hard to make that decision.

Damiya, Sydney, Australia

The 'feminist lobby' is surely equally ashamed of you, Jane.

Jess, A Better World,

I can seriously understand the mother's concern with trying to prevent future problems with her disabled child. As a father of a 5 year - old severely disabled boy, my wife and I are not only concerned about his daily care, but also of his future problems.
This situation is not as easy to judge as you think. Imagine that you are hurting you are not exactly why or where, you cannot use your hands and you cannot speak. How do your parents and caretakers know that your appendix has just burst? Your parents realize that all your crying for the last 3 days was not from your new formula. You die a horrible and painful death that could have been pro actively treated by a removal of this useless organ a year earlier.
You don't always know what is going on with a child who cannot speak. You can guess. You guess wrong for too long and you could seriously hurt or even kill your child. That is not time for regret.

Rick , Melrose, USA/ Massachusetts

As a intellectual disability trained nurse, I am really appalled at how people can consider to remove organs that although may not be "in use" are vital nonetheless for womanhood! It seems that the benifits of this procedure will reduce the mothers caregiving burden but as rightly put in this article, why do we change the person, surely is it not the macrosystem that we should be changing. It is not clear that there are advantages of such a procedure besides the girl not developing as a "normal" woman being a so called advantage. Rights and ethics have a huge part in this but what about nature, how much will people change. Another article by Templeton on the 24 oct talks about people having abortions up until birth for minor disabilities in the expected child! How far will we go? plus transitions in our lives such as adolescence and puberty make us more resilient. Finally why do we as a nation not accept human beings, intellectual disability or not, without having to change them

Orla, dublin, Ireland

Okay, Everybody! Say it with me: Eugenics!

If this Nut of a mother is worried about the 'trauma' of menstruation (which is probably HER trauma, not the daughter's), what kind of trauma would this young woman endure undergoing surgery? There's something seriously wrong here and I'm amazed that this isn't considered abuse.

Kyle, Lansing, MI

i completely agree with the mum- as the carer of a completely discbled child she is living the child's life day in and day out. she must have the option- no one else has the right to say

shi, india, india

i totally agree with john from preston , i too was amazed that the guy from scope said he could see no benefit for this girl having the operation - anyone in their right minds can see this girl would hugely benefit - isnt it obvious? why add to this girls discomfort when something simple could improve her quality of life.
Her parents are doing what is right for their child , as she is unable to make that decision for herself , i do not understand anyone who would not support the parents actions

S, london,

The new UN Convention on the RIghts of People with Disabilities that the UK Government signed in March '07 is very specific in saying that sterilisation and similar procedures are a contravention of rights. Mrs. Thorpe is using the same arguments as Ashley X's parents and it their veiwpoint is understandable - but Katie is growing into an adult and whatever her understanding of that process she should be allowed to experience adolescence as best she can. Sterilisation will not impede her growth. An early menopause carries just as many dangers as having hormone treatment while sitting in a wheelchair. But all these arguments are really irrelevant beside the fact that Katie is a human being and has much right to choice and control over what happens to her as any one else. If her mother considers her to be unable to make choices - why does she say that she likes certain things and not others? I speak as a wheelchair using woman and a strong advocate for our rights.

Hurst, Wiltshire,

As a disabled woman I find this story very disturbing as I thought this attitude disappeared thirty years ago. Should they remove the gonads of disabled men cause they probably won't cope with the hormonal changes of puberty. Society needs look more closely at its abhorrence of the possible sexuality of disabled people and come up with alternative solutions to surgery.

Patsy Wakefield, dUNEDIN, New Zealand

I'm surprised that horse riding should not be available, whatever the weight of the individual. Contact the national charity Riding For The Disabled for information.

Jane Russell, Rugeley, Staffs

No-one has the right to deny this child comfort and happiness, and to make her suffer from incomprehensible pain , discomfort and embarrassment I am tashamed to be of the same sex as the 'feminist lobby'. I do this much for my female cats, for their sake, not mine - should I do less for another of my own species?
Jane Russell Staffordshire

Jane Russell, Rugeley, Staffs