Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The second rule of holes...you are one. I guess agreeing to disagree is just not a viable option for those who are equally as vehement about certain subjects as I am about this one. I have a 3-month old disabled child and I hate to tell you, but he is much more of a human being than your cat.
Your continued judgement of my opinions makes it quite obvious that your glass house is in need of some repair also...
My mother had a stroke several years ago.
Her cognative abilities were only slightly altered; almost exclusively restricted to short-term memory abilities. The affected leg suffered a 50% reduction in strength/coordination which affected her ability to walk accordingly.
The most traumatic result of the stroke was the loss of 95% of the use in her left arm. She counts her blessings because she is right-handed. She says her biggest curse now is having that useless left arm always in her way. While awake, she suffers the 'phantom pain' of any amputee - with the added annoyance of having a 15-lb dead weight to keep out of the way.
It's worse at night. Every move she makes at night involves dealing with that same dead weight. It reduces her quality of sleep and in doing so, also reduces her ability to maintain the upbeat state of mind she needs in order to deal with the reality of having her formerly active lifesyle reduced by over 50%.
She has begged physicians to amputate the arm. The majority say they would do so in a heartbeat - were it not that the wrong combination of heartbeats during that surgery carry serious, indeed, fatal risk of another stroke.
I also have a paraplegic sister who would rid herself of half of both legs if the risks were not so great.
These are only 2 adults I will quote (able to think, reason and argue for themselves) who would, if able, undergo huge physical alterations for the sake of larger benefits. I haven't walked a single step in their mocassins but I stride alongside them every day.
But the size limitation would still be a problem. As one who has had to help care through childhood for a functioning Kanner's Syndrome victim (he died of a heart attack in his mid 20s), I find the "I refuse to belive the size is an issue" person naive. It is harsher and more taxing than you realize. MY mother could not physically do it after my brother and I left home for jobs. We had him in a good group home, but still, between visits, IEP, and worrying about who worked there, the care did not cease. We took him out, especially when my brother and I came home for visits. There were NO jobs in my specialty in that area. Period. How much of my life and well being was I to sacrifice for my brother?
And that is the question. The naysayers is demanding not just of the parents (for whom it is a choice) but the siblings (for whom it is NOT a choice)a massive sacrifice of life and future. Was I to spend my life at home, supervising and cleaning behind a man in his 20s with a 9 month old brain? At what point to the other siblings (Ashley HAS siblings) have a right to their parents care, attention?
It is the siblings who really pay this price. Ashley's needs have to be balanced against her parents AND her siblings. She is mentally three months old, with NO motor control. She will never be autonomous, she will never live alone, she will never control her own urination and feces, she will NEVER enjoy and of these "RIGHTS" of sexuality and autonomy, even WITHOUT these surgeries. Her parents and her siblings will be able to care for her, and moniter her care, in safer environments.
It's ironic. The siblings are the afterthought here, even though they will presumable take over the care, especially if she is institutionalized. They will navigate the labrinth of insurance, inheritance, permissions and government regulations. They will face the burden and guilt of institutional care, or the guilt of feeling like they neglect spouse and children of caring for sibling at home. These are far harder, nuanced choices than portrayed here.
I will not judge this family. I've been there. I've had to make sacrifices I did not choose for my family and brother's sake. I lost a normal childhood to Kanner's.
So if you are NOT a direct caregiver, you really have no clue about the sacrifice. You have to do it, day in, day out. You have to face the embarrassment of certain public acting out. You have to know the fear of "losing" your child (for they are children; they do not have the mind or anything near the self-protective impulses of a 1 year old), having the police find them and shoot them for not following directions (the bridge shooting in New Orleans is one of my still-occuring nightmares). Have you have to follow a naked adult male down a street who outweighs you by 150 lbs to grab him, guide him home, and pray no one calls the police or mistakes him for a rapist? Have you have to explain this to a possible significant other? Have you ever cleaned feces off a wall? Chained a refridgerator?
You focus on Ahsley's non-existant autonomy. She has no autonomy; the reality is that she is damn lucky to be in the situation she is now. Foster care is an awful outome in a case like this, and far too common. Focus on the siblings' essential loss of their parents' time and childhood instead. This is a far harder burden than you understand. To blithely say it is about the parents' "convenience" is so far wrong I have no words to really begin to explain it to you.
>I guess agreeing to disagree is just not a viable option
We aren't talking about agreeing to disagree here, we're talking about your apparent inability to comprehend what it is you're reading. You spoke of Ashley as if she had aspirations, or would have aspirations. She has none, and will never have any. She's incapable of even reacting to her environment coherently, let alone aspiring to anything.
>I have a 3-month old disabled child and I hate to tell
>you, but he is much more of a human being than your
>cat.
I hate to tell you, but my cat's a hell of a lot more intelligent than any 3-month old child, disabled or not.
And isn't it convenient you just happen to have a 3-month-old child. What are the odds of that, anyhow? Forgive me if I'm somewhat dubious regarding this claim.
Anyhow, the point still stands – we routinely surgically modify, and even kill and eat animals a hell of a lot more intelligent than Ashley. Which sort of blows the whole argument of yours that the procedures performed on Ashley were wrong because she's an "individual" with "aspirations". If what was done to an individual in Ashley's severely limited mental condition was morally questionable, what we do every day to pigs – individuals far more intelligent than any infant – is morally abhorrent.
But I'm guessing most of the finger-wagging scolds on here aren't about to give up their bacon.
I'm still puzzled at why you're freaking about the surgery Ashley's parents elected to have performed on their child, while you're apparently completely oblivious to the millions of American boys who undergo painful, potentially dangerous circumcisions every year in hospitals across America. I mean, if you're so concerned about children being mutilated by their parents against their will, I should think that stopping hundreds of thousands of elective, mutilating procedures a year would take precedence over any concerns regarding a few hundred, potentially life-enhancing or even lifesaving surgeries (at most) conducted annually on individuals as severely disabled as poor Ashley. After all, individuals in Ashley dreadful condition are never gonna know what's missing, anyhow.
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
