- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I truly don't understand the relevance of her brain damage to justifying the physical mutiliation. The arguments for the Ashley Treatment are that she'll remain small and easier to care for (because she won't grow or be sexualized and thus attract potential abuse). But if she had a fully developed brain, yet still was unable to sit up or speak or move, would they nevertheless still be considering this treatment? What if she had a fully developed brain and could speak, but could not move at all? I simply don't see them coming to the same conclusion and giving her the Treatment. I
It seems that her lack of awareness of herself is the factor driving the ultimate justification for the surgery. This is beyond frightening. I agree with a previous poster; the more helpless and unable to speak for herself, the more a patient requires someone to look out for their rights. People who indisputably love you are not the best advocates for one's rights - not when they have self-interest involved, as is the case here.
