Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I just read through the variety of postings generated by this article. I am struck by the number of fierce criticisms that are driven by an agenda to which the poster bends the case. Some writers react from genuine perspectives, but there seem to be a lot of posts that are mainly trying to make certain to get some mileage out of a unique and tragic situation.
Are there larger issues here? Sure there are. Does it require demonizing Ashley's parents to discuss them? No, I don't think so.
The article highlights the issue that ethical committees at hospitals do not have a universal governing law. In scientific research on humans and animals, committees rigorously review proposed methods of research, and decisions are guided by scientific precedence and federal law, written based on a code of ethics. I am surprised that there lacks a similar system for new, unique, or controversial medical procedures. In a sense, aren't these medical techniques that are being applied to unique circumstances experimental procedures?
how about "Lumpy"?
It's the focus on this poor girls sex life that's creepier.
I've been to the parents' blog. What troubles me about this case is the statement, hidden in a group of other statements about Ashley's health, that Ashley having a child-like body is more dignified and appropriate, considering her mental age.
I'm having to guess at what that means, but I'm concerned that it may mean, "Having to care for a 'pillow angel' is poignant and cute. Having to care for a whopping grown woman who's disabled is embarrassing and awkward."
That's why the cutesey-poo term "pillow angel" is squicking me out. This child is not an angel; she's alive. She's a living, human girl with an underdeveloped brain. Not an after-school special. Her condition is an ugly reality that can't be prettified by stunting her growth and blogging about how adorable it is that she stays where she's put, as if suddenly disabled people were hot decorator items. Pillow angels! Gotta get me one of those!
If her parents think that the idea of a retarded adult is undignified, there's a problem, and it's not a problem that needs to be fixed by surgery. If her parents are mutilating their child because they have issues with dealing with her sexual development, there's a problem. There's a real problem, in my mind, when they try to promote "the Ashley treatment" for other disabled children who may not be as severely handicapped as their daughter. Disabled people already have to deal more than enough with the discomfort others feel about their sexuality.
And, on another note, we don't think it's okay to stunt a cat's growth using hormones because kittens are cuter. It bugs me that we do to people what we wouldn't do to a cat. I'm not seeing a clear benefit from the treatment which matches the risks of major surgery and massive bombardment by hormones. Periods are not life-endangering; caretakers can molest girls whether they are sexually mature or not; being difficult to lift and manipulate is an inconvenience, not a health condition.
Has anybody from the disability rights community weighed in on this? They were very vocal about that brain dead woman in Florida who Sen. Frist diagnosed via a video clip. I'd like to hear their comments.
I can understand wanting to make her comfortable, which would make the idea of a hysterectomy at least somewhat palatable. It seems as though the parents went a little too far though. Removing her breasts really serves no purpose. To avoid her being raped? If that was even a valid concern, why don't they just sew her vagina shut? And trying to stunt her growth is also something that serves no purpose for Ashley, but only for her parents/caregivers.
I don't have a disabled child, so I can't claim to be an expert, but it just seems wrong to "modify" someone for ease of care. It's understandable that they wouldn't want someone with the mental capacity of a child to have to deal with adult problems, but you should only go so far. Causing her to be infertile seems fair, and although a noninvasive means might have been better, it can be justified. But stunting her growth and removing her breasts is just not necessary. Why not remove those pesky arms and legs that she can't use either?
One of the continuing themes in many of these letters is lamenting how tragic it is that poor Ashley will never be able to experience "sexual pleasure", since her breasts and uterus have been removed. That this is why it was so wrong, so dreadfully wrong, for her parents to have had her surgically altered/mutilated.
That's pure nonsense. You don't need a functioning uterus, or developed breasts, or even to have passed puberty, to experience "sexual pleasure" - on your own. Pre-school girls often figure this out, to the horror of their parents.
As far as little boys go, "castration" (or in the 21st century, a vasectomy) never stopped a man from having, and enjoying, sex. The ancient Italian castratos were particularly popular sex partners, since they could cause no embarrassing pregnancies.
If all you're concerned about is whether a girl who is effectively 3 months old can "get it on" in her later life (as a 3 month old), I hope this relieves your concerns.
Let's look at it from Ashley's point of view (somewhat), with a dose of reality.
Post-surgery, Ashley - what there is of her, mentally - will be able to stay with the only people she really knows, get cared for by a family who chose to have her, and keep what little enjoyment and stimulation she currently has, which is quite a lot in many ways.
Without the surgery, the reality, unpleasant as it may be, is that she would probably have been institutionalized because her parents would become unable to deal with her. She would have joined the ranks of the ignored, the "filed," someone with the mental capacity of a vegetable who would enjoy no stimulation, no love, and relatively less care. The chances of further medical issues (from bed sores to a mishap with her feeding tube) would be considerably greater.
The difference between Ashley and, say, Terry Shaivo, seems to be that while she has little or no mental capacity, she does have some emotional capacity. Her parents could have neglected that, and taken the easy way out by abandoning her to the system. They didn't. What they chose was a long way from the easy way out.
In an ideal world, this wouldn't have been necessary. Of course, in an ideal world situations like this would never happen. And we don't live in an ideal world.
Someone mentioned the parallels between Ashley and a pet. There's a certain element of truth to that. I mean, what truly is the difference between a 3 month old child and a puppy? Neither one can talk... the puppy probably walks better, and makes less mess in the house... the big difference is that the child can grow up. That is something that Ashley can never do, not where it counts, not even to a functioning child level.
What's the right answer here? The parent's choice, while extreme, seems to have been the one that will bring the most joy into the rest of Ashley's life. Its a crappy choice. It just seems to be better than all the others.
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
