![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been thinking about the Ashley X furor all weekend, and I think I finally have a comment worth making, but it's not directly about the case. Just to set up the situation - Ashley is a nine-year old with a really, really severely disabling condition - basically she's got the mind of a three-month old infant, and slightly less mobility than said infant, and that's not going to change ever. Her parents have been caring for her at home since she was born, but at fifty pounds, she's getting to the upper end of what they can lift, and they're not getting any younger; so with the approval of the local medical ethics commitee, they've been using hormone treatments to arrest her growth, so they can keep caring for her at home; thay've also had most of her reproductive organs removed so she doesn't have to go through the pain of menstruation, etc, with no idea why she hurts.
For the record, I think it sounds like the parents and their advising doctors are genuinely trying to make the best of an awful, and very rare and specific, situation. I've been reading a lot of the arguments people have been posting online against the procedure, and my reaction to each one, as I've thought it over, has been - that's a very good point (society should have given the parents other options by improving wheelchair accessibility, etc), but I'm not sure it applies in a case this extreme (Ashley would still have to be lifted in or out of her chair several times a day, and because of her near-total lack of mobility, she'd have to be moved as a dead weight - also, according to the parents, she freaks out if strapped into a wheelchair).
This point I want to bring up, I guess, is that "disabled" is a huge category - a deaf, ASL-literate teenager with a social network of other deaf people, an adult in a wheelchair following a spinal injury, a legally-blind woman who needs a powerful magnifying glass to read, a kid with Down's attending public school, a kid with severe classic Autism, a guy with debilitating depression, a woman with no higher-brain functions, etc, are all human and have rights, but they've got wildly different needs, and I think it's important to take that into account when arguing the right, or at least the less-wrong, thing to do.
For the record, I think it sounds like the parents and their advising doctors are genuinely trying to make the best of an awful, and very rare and specific, situation. I've been reading a lot of the arguments people have been posting online against the procedure, and my reaction to each one, as I've thought it over, has been - that's a very good point (society should have given the parents other options by improving wheelchair accessibility, etc), but I'm not sure it applies in a case this extreme (Ashley would still have to be lifted in or out of her chair several times a day, and because of her near-total lack of mobility, she'd have to be moved as a dead weight - also, according to the parents, she freaks out if strapped into a wheelchair).
This point I want to bring up, I guess, is that "disabled" is a huge category - a deaf, ASL-literate teenager with a social network of other deaf people, an adult in a wheelchair following a spinal injury, a legally-blind woman who needs a powerful magnifying glass to read, a kid with Down's attending public school, a kid with severe classic Autism, a guy with debilitating depression, a woman with no higher-brain functions, etc, are all human and have rights, but they've got wildly different needs, and I think it's important to take that into account when arguing the right, or at least the less-wrong, thing to do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-08 11:34 pm (UTC)From:...and you're welcome!