- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I can understand wanting to make her comfortable, which would make the idea of a hysterectomy at least somewhat palatable. It seems as though the parents went a little too far though. Removing her breasts really serves no purpose. To avoid her being raped? If that was even a valid concern, why don't they just sew her vagina shut? And trying to stunt her growth is also something that serves no purpose for Ashley, but only for her parents/caregivers.
I don't have a disabled child, so I can't claim to be an expert, but it just seems wrong to "modify" someone for ease of care. It's understandable that they wouldn't want someone with the mental capacity of a child to have to deal with adult problems, but you should only go so far. Causing her to be infertile seems fair, and although a noninvasive means might have been better, it can be justified. But stunting her growth and removing her breasts is just not necessary. Why not remove those pesky arms and legs that she can't use either?
