EVERY day Alison Thorpe cleans, dresses, changes and feeds her daughter Katie. It's a routine she's very familiar with because she's been doing it since Katie was born, 15 years ago.

Now, as she approaches womanhood, her mum is asking for permission for Katie, who is profoundly handicapped and believed to have the mental capacity of an 18-month-old, to be able to have a hysterectomy to relieve her of the additional burden of menstruation.

"She is double incontinent and going through menstruation would only add to her discomfort," says Alison with all her authority as the person who knows Katie best, and who loves her the most.

"She is never going to develop into a normal adult with the expectations of getting married and having children."

Alison is absolutely right. And it's also right that her request for this operation is going to be considered by NHS lawyers because no one wants to live in a world where these things are considered lightly.

However, what will be very, very wrong is if it's decided that Katie should not have this operation because of human rights issues.

Andy Rickell of the disability charity Scope described the move as "enforced sterilisation" and said it would have "disturbing implications for young disabled girls across Britain". He described the surgery as "not medically necessary' or in Katie's best interests.

Of course he can't see why it's important for her. Firstly he's a bloke and secondly he isn't her carer, is he? He isn't her mum and he's probably never even met her.

But Alison is devoted to Katie and that's why she's prepared to risk this operation for her rather than see her quality of life deteriorate further.

I'm always amazed in situations like this that every Tom Dick and Andy seems to reckon that people in Katie's position have a "right" not to undergo operations and procedures per se. Even if the outcome will make life more pleasant for them.

It's very easy for them to have a fit of moral superiority and to argue that Katie shouldn't lose her womb and her ability, "right" even, to have children and all the rest of it but the truth is that if she became pregnant she'd have to have an abortion, anyway. Andy, and anyone else who raises objections to this operation for Katie, are not the people who have to care for her. They aren't the people who have to wash and clean her and cope with her mood swings.

Who is the best person to judge what Katie needs - the men and women for whom she is just another juicy legal aid payment, just another TV soundbite or a notch on the campaign bedpost? Or the woman who gave birth to her and watched for 38 agonising minutes while she was starved of oxygen which lead to the condition she now finds herself in?

Good luck to Alison in her difficult legal quest. And lucky Katie, for having such a wonderful mum to love and care for her.