Does The Ashley Treatment violate Ashley's rights?

Ashley X, known by her parents as their "Pillow Angel." 

Ashley's rights would be violated, if she had the mental capacity to exert the full extent of her rights. This would seem to be a troubling statement; as if to say: Ashley, as a disabled individual, has less rights than that of a normally functioning human being. However, Ashley will always have the mind of a three month old girl, incapable of thought processes that would lead to making her own decisions. In many developed countries, it is widely recognized that 'normal' children are too young to make their own decisions until the age of 16-21; and often, parental consent is required for many activities which are not already set by a legal age limit due to a child's poorly developed sense of judgment. In Ashley's case, she could never be able to make her own decision, so her parents have the right to govern her as long as their decision are made in her best interest in regards to her health and well-being.

 As her caretakers, Ashley's parents can make decisions for Ashley without her consent. They were acting in her best interest: instead of "abandoning her to the wolves," (as Peter Singer describes the Western culture's raising of children to flee from the nest into the adult world) they are improving her quality of life in the future. Ashley is not the same as other children--she will never be able "to grow up," to mature from her infantile mindset, and therefore would be incredibly unprepared for the struggles that arrive with female adulthood. The treatment protects Ashley's health and happiness, by preventing the onset of the menstrual cycle and other complications. It could be said that Ashley has had her reproductive rights taken away from her--however, mothers with profoundly irreparable brain damage would be a harm to their child, as they are unable to take care of themselves. It could be said that Ashley's ability to have the freedom of gender self-identification would be taken away; however, she is again not of the mental capacity or self-awareness, as other children wouldn't be at that age of psychosocial development, to understand such a concept.

Therefore, as an individual who will always presumably be a child, I think Ashley's rights are not violated because they do not encompass those of a fully functioning, mature adult. I recognize that Ashley is a human being, with the ability to feel emotion and have good taste in Italian music (I read she likes Andrea Bocelli); however children do not have the same rights as adults and do not earn an expanded sense of dignity until they grow older. I do not think the Ashley Treatment degrades Ashley or hurts her dignity--if anything, her dignity is recognized by amount of care put into sustaining her life, the fact that she is still alive and has people who prioritize her life.

 It would be unjustified if it was a treatment fundamentally for cosmetic purposes but this seems to come from a basis that it would benefit her health, as the medical benefits are evident. Rather, an objection would be that another possible motive exists: of physically retaining the innocence through a child's body, by preventing her from growing for the sake of the parents not having to face the psychological consequences of what would be an inevitable dilemma. The concept of the "pillow angel" exemplifies this possibility in their having personal motive for the treatment, outside of their specific care for Ashley, because the fear of the ultimate realization that the individual they see with their eyes as their child is in the body of a full-grown woman...to them it could be embarrassing for Ashley's perception or, they reason, traumatic in terms of the ways she could be taken advantage of.

In conclusion, the Ashley treatment would be a violation of Ashley's rights if she was conscious enough to understand and refuse the operations her parents decided to have had performed on her. Yet, her condition itself prevents such comprehension. The treatment serves to aid her and add means of substance to her life; in no way does it physically or emotionally harm her or her range of feasible freedom given the mental incapacity she is in.