Ethical Conundrum?

According to recent media reports such as http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/01/04/ashley.treatment.ap/index.html, there is a controversy in the field of medical ethics, and among the general populace, about the parents and physicians of Ashley having submitted her to growth-inhibiting treatments. Ashley is a "severely mentally and physically disabled" 9-year old Seattle child. Her parents and physicians indicate that the treatment, which included surgical and hormonal prevention of sexual maturation, was undertaken to improve her quality of life.http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/

Why do I have a sense that some of the same people who are protesting this were supporting the "right" of Robert Latimer and Michael Schiavo to end the lives of their disabled family members? What is the nature of the ethical objections? That's not clear to me, except to the extent that some seem to assume that the disabled person is being "mutilated" for the convenience of the caregivers. The parents and physicans obtained medical ethical approval before proceeding with the treatment to ensure it was being done for the benefit of the patient. If, for example, all proposed abortions were submitted to this scrutiny with the child veiwed as the one for whom the treatment is planned (since the mother is typically not ill nor having any pathological condition), how many would proceed?