- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Two overriding themes I have noted to be underrepresented: 1) quality of life, 2) inevitability (and sanctity) of death.
1) Although "Ashley's Treatment" can be seen as contributing to Ashley's quality of life, just what is that quality? This is a very difficult question to answer for her or any participant of the human endeavor. Imagine one's life dependent on others to sustain and reposition them; no personal control is apparant, no viable ability to interact with one's environment. In Ashley's case, whose quality of life is really in question? The parents have made a decision to have Ashley undergo these procedures in order to more effectively care for her. So the decision was (and is in most cases of life/cognitive situations) is quantity of life over quality. Which brings us front and center to the second theme:
2) Sanctity of death. We all give lip service to dying with dignity, but ultimately our society avoids death at perpetually all costs. We deny it, demonize it, and outlaw it. We believe that to embrace euthanasia would be a bane on our very existence; the ultimate act of evil. I have taken care of many individuals who never had or can no longer interact with their external environment and are completely dependent on others to sustain them. Eventually, some disease process inevitably claims their life (usually pneumonia or sepsis).
Is losing a loved one painful? Undoubtedly. But we are not doing ourselves or our human brethren any favors by demonizing death, which we all eventually experience. To prolong the inevitable in cases whereby the individual has no capacity to interact with their environment, consequently relegating all decision making capacity to others offer no assurance that those making the decisions are doing so in the invalid's best interests. Dying from an infection is not pretty, painless, or dignified. Our collective inability to allow death to ensue without heroic measures to prolong it is a result for our ultimate fear of the unknown. The irony is such that we wouldn't maintain our pet in such a condition (artificially feed them, diaper them, or reposition them), and yet we insist we do with our fellow man.
Even though the parents have been criticized by some regarding their decisions to inhibit Ashley's development, how much more would they have been ostracized by our society had they decided to quicken her death painlessly and with dignity?
This case ultimately raises those questions. Are we as a technologically, 'intellectually' advanced society able and willing to address that issue? Until then, we will continue to embrace 'life' at all cost and suffering to appease our own fear of the ultimate stage of life: death.
