- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
There are two critical issues here, which most of the letter writers seem oblivious to. They are the ethics of the procedure itself and the ethics of how the decision was taken. Both are in doubt here.
An internal ethics board is subject to the pressures of any internal organization. There is to me, no clarity as to whether this hospital has an independent patient ombudsman, who would be free of those pressures. I also don't see any external organization which was able to review the procedure. Without external, independent review, this procedure should never have even been considered.
The parents seem thoughtful and to wish the best for their child, which is admirable. They also, in particular the mother, have considered some of their child's potential fears upon maturation. They are faced with the particular concern of a child who will not die before them, thus leaving them with the unknown of what happens after they die. It is instinct for them to protect their child, from the world, and perhaps from herself.
There is however, an incredibly troubling specter over the entire process. By justifying the complete removal of all sex organs as unnecessary, the doctors and parents have entered the realm of eugenics. They have called upon the worst lapses of medical ethics of the 20th century. Rosemary Kennedy comes to mind, robbed of the chance to perhaps develop, by parents both well-meaning and ashamed.
I doubt that there can ever be a satisfactory agreement on the ethics involved, and the Ashley Treatment will remain either a black mark on the hospital that performed the work or another footnote in an ongoing debate about our very contorted ethical debate. Had this happened in Germany, Salon readers would be on the barricades, screaming for blood.
