Parents of a severely disabled girl have opted to use medical treatment to keep her child-sized, performed a hysterectomy, administered drugs and took other measures to stop her sexual and physical development. They claim in their blog (link above) that this treatment will ensure their daughter better care and it is not being done for their convenience. They also say they do not want to get involved in a controversy over this topic.
However, their blog goes on to give resources to other parents after mentioning that Ashley is the first child to have this treatment. So I find their statement that they want to avoid controversy as well as the overall tone of their blog to be disingenuous.
It is deeply disturbing to me that doctors in Seattle went ahead with these treatments without any legal parameters. The ethics board at the hospital made this decision.
In response to someone raising the issue of the dignity of Ashley, George Dvorsky, an ethicist, responded that, due to her cognitive limitations, Ashley is not capable of feeling indignity.
Those words make me shudder. They strip every person with a cognitive disability of any right over his or her body.
Those of us with physical disabilities need to take heed, if we haven't already, of the many infringements occurring to our rights, not only on the issue of euthanasia, but in cases such as these.
Without laws in place protecting the rights of the disabled in situations such as this, parents will, with the aid of the medical field, have unfettered rights to take extreme medical measures to alter their childrens' bodies. This raisies moral and ethical questions that should be raised before such treatments are legally allowed.
People would shudder if this happened to a child without a disability. The parents of Ashley make the superficially appealing argument that parents who do not have special needs children won't understand their position.
I am more concerned about the fact that Ashley cannot speak for herself.
But we can.
6 comments:
I read through the whole blog. The parents do make a strong case for their decision, but it's a cause for concern that they were able to implement their decision so easily. Surely, there should have been a child advocate bringing this case to court, before the procedures could be done. It seems to me that the doctors and hospital had a legal and moral obligation to provide someone to speak for Ashley in this matter. I'd love to see someone sue them over allowing this so easily. Maybe the courts would have agreed with the parents, but at least Ashley's "voice" would have been heard in due process.
db- this case hit the medical journals awhile ago - and has been ongoing for years. It is extremely disturbing that Ashley had had no advocate, nor has there been any review of the decision in terms of precedent.
I've wondered about that "ethics" board of the hospital too. I think they should have had at least three people with disabilities in that ethics board meeting before making decisions as drastic as this.
Good point Thirza. At least that way Ashley would have had her perspective considered as a PWD.
In response to someone raising the issue of the dignity of Ashley, George Dvorsky, an ethicist, responded that, due to her cognitive limitations, Ashley is not capable of feeling indignity.
*Shudder*
A person's dignity is bestowed upon them by virtue of them being created in the image and likeness of almighty God.
Dignity does not rely on being able to feel indignity. You wouldn't treat a person's dead body like that, and they don't feel indignity either.
If someone had a rottweiler puppy that they thought was cute and wanted it to be a puppy forever and gave it The Ashley Treatment™, PETA would be all over them.
Tony - thanks for your comment from another Catholic's perspective! Sad but true - PETA would provide protection in that case...it's more regulated.
Post a Comment