Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
If you wouldn't do it to a kitten, why would you do it to a child?
I understand that when someone like Ashley can't make the decision herself, her parents must act in her best interest, while hopefully not mindlessly subverting that best interest to their own conveniences/preferences.
However - if Ashely were a boy, I wonder if they'd remove his nipples, testicles and penis? Somehow I doubt it - I think Ashton would be permitted whatever autoeroticism he could accomplish, and I don't think anyone would favor castration as a solution to the possibility that a caregiver would sexualize him.
I tend to agree with the POV that the Ashley Treatment subjugated Ashley's person hood to the convenience of her parents. That this was done in the name of love doesn't make it ethical by definition.
It's a tragic situation, that the girl won't ever have more than a 3-month old's awareness of the world. It's the risk we take when we have children - that it won't turn out the way we hope and plan. As painful as the situation is, I simply can't understand enforced mutilation to make the consequences of the decision easier to bear.
Most of the people who criticize the parents display little ability to read and comprehend. The worst are those who complain about "Pillow Angel" and talk about "lapdogs" and such, as if the parents *chose* for her to be immobile. Ashley stays where she's put, not because of the surgery or the parents' choice, but because she's 3 MONTHS OLD (mentally), and that's what 3 month olds do. And she's going to be that way AS LONG AS SHE LIVES. Can people grasp what that means for the parents? The uncomprehending ones can't. But rather than develop great frustration toward their child and denigrate her for her immobility, Ashley's parents lover her with all their heart, and put a positive spin on it. And for this, the uncomprehending ones criticize them.
The talk about disability and autonomy is also very uncomprehending. Ashley is 3 MONTHS OLD (mentally), and always will be. Because of the pelvic position resulting from our upright posture and our large brains, human fetuses can't be carried beyond 9 months. In essence, half the human gestation period happens after birth; most other animal infants are able to move about and feed shortly after birth. Talk about autonomy for a 3 month old human infant, with 6 months of gestation to go, is absurd.
A 3 month old's mind in a 3 month old's body is not disabled, but a 3 month old's mind in an adult body would be severely disabled. A 3 month old's mind in a 9 year old's body is disabled, but not so severely so. It wasn't anyone's choice that Ashley's brain will never develop beyond that of a three month old, but it is possible to choose that her body does not continue to develop, creating a huge mismatch between her brain and her body -- an intelligent choice, by deeply loving parents.
"I wonder if they'd remove his nipples, testicles and penis? Somehow I doubt it - I think Ashton would be permitted whatever autoeroticism he could accomplish"
Ashley's treatment had nothing to do with auto-eroticism. Those of you viewing this through the lens of auto-eroticism in a 3 month old seem to me to be suffering from some sort of sexual derangement.
"The young parents of a severely developmentally disabled daughter have decided to freeze her growth at age nine...As a result, Ashley will remain a perpetual child. She will never experience puberty ...she is Peter Pan, forever frozen in it."
Ashley's mind, her *personality*, what it means to be an experiencing person, is frozen at 3 months old, not through any choice of her parents. She won't just remain a perpetual child, she will remain a perpetual infant. Developing secondary sexual characteristics while having the mind of a 3 month old is nothing like experiencing puberty. She isn't Peter Pan (who was portrayed by an adult), she is an infant. The quoted language is radically misleading. It is dishonest to the core.
Okay, you know what you are a moron if you think removal of the uterus and breasts means no sexual pleasure can be had. Clitoris people, say it again, clitoris.
This is what you people are advocating, putting breast implants and a period on an infant. Then look at that infant strapped in for a pelvic exam.
So you want her to experience the pain of menstrual cramps.
You want her to experience the pain of large breasts that cause back pain.
You want her to possibly have more bed sores because the larger she is the harder it is to mover her around all in the names of disabled rights?
You want it to be possible she can get pregnant when she can never consent to sex.
Okay folks you win, I'm the crazy one.
I don't care what that person who works with the disabled said, this was not done so they don't have to deal with problem behaviors. She can't even sit upright, much less diddle herself.
Medical bioethics is a relatively new field. ... There are no standard ethics committee guidelines that aim to address the prejudices and preconceptions, even very subtle biases, of its members. ...
Disclosing conflicts of interest is important (and, despite the limitations mentioned in the article, medical bioethics leads the way in many respects). But, clearly, in this case, support for Ashley's treatment seems proportionate to closeness to Ashley, and that's good.
Even the article's author has a tenuous connection to the institution, appropriately disclosed. But, did she not have that connection, Salon readers might not have had the benefit of this article, so it's all to the good.
Yes, she IS a pet. Her parents' real, adult lives are being wasted caring for her. Now, they choose to do that. But if her parents grow tired of it, they should be able to put her to sleep like a pet. Nor should Ashley be put in some institution to be cared for at the expense of the state. That is a huge waste of money.
The stupid 'A Statement of Solidarity for the Dignity of People With Disabilities: A Reaction to the "Ashley Treatment"' says "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." Well, Ashley's reached her full human potential, and it's not very human. It's that of a very stupid and immobile dog.
Fuck slippery slopes. We're at the top of the gondola ride on this one.
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
