Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Of course a non-invasive means would have been preferrable, but 1) that's not entirely possible 2) as the article points out, continuous hormone therapy had much more health risk than this therapy.
This actually goes toward illustrating what I've been wanting to say - that in this case, we are simply not informed enough about a) the details of the procedure b) the actual extent of the girl's level of functioning c) the health risks of the procedure and d) the long-term results to make any kind of judgment, even a meta-ethical one. We are all doing the same exact thing that Frist did with Schiavo - being armchair doctors. I have no qualms with saying that in this case, only doctors with all the information about the case are entitled to make any kind of judgment. And they did, so it's settled. If you're worried about this particular committe overstepping its bounds or making the wrong decision, I believe there is some sort of nationwide government-funded medical committee (or there should be) to make specific rules for all kinds of cases like this. Who should NOT be involved in the discussion are people projecting their own neuroses and social agendas on a case they know very little about, or windbag politicians who spout whatever empty slogans those people want to hear.
I can't get over the idea that not having a uterus and breasts will somehow deter potential abuse - as if children are never abused. I completely understand why the parents want to eliminate that possibility, but it would seem to me that the potential for abuse will never be entirely eliminated for this person or any other. None of us have complete control over our environment.
As to the people who wrote in saying "leave the family alone" (and were subsequently given editorial stars - really?), their decision to request this procedure for their child - and its consequences - did not happen in a vacuum. It should go without saying that this issue is much bigger than one family. This procedure raises huge ethical dilemmas which warrant investigation and debate. In fact, I argue that it's our moral obligation to do so. We can't all go about sticking our heads in the sand simply out of pity for the family or "respect" for their decision. Right or wrong, the procedure happened and will most likely happen again and at the very least, stringent guidelines need to be put in place.
where people will take care of and love you like those who actually do? not even in an *ideal* world. eventually ALL of use (at least the "lucky" ones) will wind up ancient idiots. who's going to take care of us and love us? start NOW! take care of your parents - and your children.
Some of the letters attacking the parents bring up that "amatures" shouldn't take take of the disabled. This stinks of MSWs and other Psych majors protecting their turf and.
What if everyone took care of their own disabled children or family members? Then all those graduates would have to find real jobs instead of sucking tax money from the state for their high professional salaries and lavish perks!
The fact that the parents will be able to care for her themselves will deter abuse.
Her being small keeps that possible.
Now she'll not have to be cared for intimately by strangers in an institution (or at home) once she gets too big for her aging parents to look after. Certainly not all people caring for the severly disabled aren't abusers -- but they aren't loving parents either.
The "if she were a boy..." assertions seem to be missing the point -- they basically MADE her a boy. She won't menstruate, she won't grow breasts. There is nothing comparable to DO to a boy. I suppose with a similar boy they'd stunt his growth and leave it at that. (You can all put your castration fears back in your subconscious again. Where they belong.)
As far as her "sexual pleasure" the only pleasure she'd have ever appropriately had she still does if she ever finds her clitoris.
"Pillow Angel" certainly seems creepy. "Breast buds" makes me wince every time I hear it -- it DEFFINATELY sounds creepy. The whole thing is discomforting and SHOULD be, its not a decision that should ever be made lightly.
As a person, I'm insulted to have Ashley included in the definition of personhood. There's no one home, there never will be. Our society performs painful medical experiments on chimpanzees with greater capacity for understanding than Ashley.
If you're worried about the slippery slope, you should concentrate on where you'd draw the line and why. Personally, I draw it at the ability to improve and mentally develop beyond the age of 3 (a completely arbitrary age, I admit; I'd appreciate count-arguments). But let's all admit that Ashley is a very extreme and rare case that is fundamentally different from someone with Down's Syndrome or CP (even the low-functioning ones). In fact, it insults those people to be lumped in with Ashley.
Ashley is morally no more than a pet, and deserves the same consideration. She doesn't deserve the pain of menustration or the discomfort of breasts. She certainly doesn't deserve to be left in bed all day because it's too difficult to lift and move her. Giving her a hysterecomy is no worse than fixing your dog.
over 450 people and 80 organizations, from 13 countries (49
states and DC & CNMI) who have signed the following statement.
This must never happen again to any other child.
A Statement of Solidarity for the Dignity of People With Disabilities
- A Reaction to the "Ashley Treatment"
We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, are in agreement
that the growth attenuation therapy administered to the little girl
known as Ashley is an affront to her human dignity, and to that of all
people with disabilities. Despite the good intentions of both her
parents and the doctors who have treated her in accordance with their
wishes, we condemn these medical procedures and declare that it is
never ethically acceptable to medically alter a human being for the
benefit of caregivers. Such unnecessary medical procedures without
therapeutic indications demean the essential humanity of the person
undergoing them and of all people with similar disabilities. Whether
disabled or not, people must be given the opportunity to grow and
develop according to their own capacity, whatever that may be. It is
the duty of both caregivers and the hallmark of a progressive,
civilized society to provide the means by which all of us can reach
our full human potential.
Ashley is impaired by an unknown brain disorder. Our hearts go out to
her parents, and we recognize that they love Ashley and are trying
their best in very trying circumstances to care for their daughter.
But these unnecessary medical procedures with no demonstrated
therapeutic purpose, in which doctors have surgically and hormonally
altered Ashley to remain small and childlike, are misguided. While it
is true that none of us can walk in her parents' shoes, we believe
that this approach to easing the hardship of caring for a child with
disabilities makes the child the problem, and by doing so, makes it
acceptable for well-meaning people to deny the essential humanity of
people with disabilities in the course of caring for them. People with
disabilities are not the problem. The real issue is the lack of
support, care, and help from our social, medical, and civil
establishments for Ashley's parents and for all those who care for
people with disabilities. Yes, it is expensive. But the alternative is
morally and ethically unacceptable in a society that honors life and
human dignity. We call on our fellow citizens, our government, and our
medical establishment to treat people with disabilities as people, not
as problems. We stand together and demand that doctors and social
service agencies never again use medicine to strip someone of their
humanity through medical procedures like the "Ashley Treatment," and
call on our legislators to pass laws that codify the right of people
with disabilities to their integrity as people.
To add your name to this document electronically, please go to
http://pub6.bravenet.com/guestbook/501900445 .
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
