Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FWD It's wrong to keep disabled girl as an 'angel'

Expand Messages
  • Keith Armstrong
    Below was posted on another group which might of interest here Keith It s wrong to keep disabled girl as an angel The history of treatment of people with
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 12, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Below was posted on another group which might of interest here

      Keith


      It's wrong to keep disabled girl as an 'angel'

      The history of treatment of people with physical, developmental and
      psychiatric disabilities is a bleak one, replete with systematic cases
      of abuse, both individual and collective.

      Because of their perceived shortcomings -- mental retardation, twisted
      limbs, behaviours that violate social norms, being a burden on society
      -- people with disabilities have been ostracized, lobotomized,
      sterilized, institutionalized, euthanized and even sent to the gas
      chambers.

      Sadly, in the 21st century, we continue to add new chapters to this
      age-old book of horrors.

      Consider the case of Ashley X, a nine-year-old girl in Washington
      State who suffers from static encephalopathy (severe brain damage of
      unknown origin). She cannot walk, talk, roll over, sit up or speak.
      She essentially lays where she is placed, usually on a pillow, hence
      her moniker "pillow angel."

      In 2004, Ashley underwent a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus and
      ovaries), radical mastectomy (removal of the breast buds) and
      appendectomy, and she was infused with high doses of estrogen to fuse
      her bones together so they would stop growing.

      Ashley's parents, a middle-class, college-educated couple, requested
      these "growth attenuation" procedures to ensure she remains at her
      current size, 4 foot 5 and 75 pounds.

      Details of the case were published in the medical journal Archives of
      Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine in October, and then, this month,
      the story vaulted into the mainstream press after the parents posted a
      defence of their action on a website
      (http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com).

      The response has been impassioned, to say the least.

      The couple, the girl's principal caregivers, argue (just as they did
      before the ethics board that approved the unusual medical experiment)
      that keeping Ashley small will facilitate her care and that depriving
      her of sexual characteristics will protect her from sexual abuse.

      The parents say that what they have done to Ashley is not for their
      convenience but for the girl's comfort. They say the medical
      procedures are not cruel; rather, "what is grotesque is having a fully
      grown fertile woman endowed with the mind of a baby."

      There is no question Ashley's parents love her. They care for her
      deeply, and want the best for her.

      But what they have done is wrong. It is beyond grotesque.

      The doctors involved in this butchery should be ashamed of their
      actions. They have violated one of the fundamental tenets of the
      ethical practice of medicine: Never do deliberate harm to anyone for
      anyone else's interest.

      The surgeries and drugs have no direct benefit to the patient, and
      that makes them inappropriate. The sole purpose of growth attenuation
      is to keep Ashley portable and cute.

      If cutting off the girl's breasts and amputating her uterus and
      ovaries is acceptable, why stop there? She is being tube-fed, so why
      not remove her teeth? Cutting off her arms and legs would certainly
      make her easier to dress. And she is incontinent, so why not replace
      her colon and bladder with colostomy and urostomy bags?

      A slippery slope? Indeed it is.

      The parents say the only reason they have gone public is so other
      parents of "pillow angels" can learn of the treatment and follow suit.

      What we are seeing here is a glaring manifestation of societal
      prejudice. Disabled children are seen as angelic and innocent;
      sexually functioning adults with disabilities, on the other hand, are
      viewed as disgusting and fearsome.

      Is it really true that using hoists and lifts to move people with
      severe disabilities is more dehumanizing than carrying them in your
      arms? Does the added burden of changing sanitary napkins in addition
      to continence pads really justify mutilation? Should not everyone,
      disabled or not, sexually mature or not, be protected from sexual abuse?

      Ashley takes the bus to school, where she spends a few hours every
      day. Like many parents of disabled children, that is the only respite
      her parents get from around-the-clock caregiving duties.

      Unquestionably, parents and their children (of all ages) need more
      help, more support and more understanding. But in Ashley's case, the
      parents have corrected what did not need fixing. They have applied an
      invasive, ethically dubious medical solution to a pervasive social
      problem.

      The challenge of integrating people with disabilities into society,
      affording them the full rights of citizenship they are entitled to, is
      ever-present.

      Due to advances in medical technology, an increasing number of
      children (and adults and seniors) are surviving with incredibly
      challenging conditions. Their care must be grounded in ethical
      decision-making, their rights protected as vigorously as those of
      everyone else in society.

      The way to deal with children with lifelong behavioural, physical and
      psychiatric problems is not to artificially maintain them in a
      permanent child-like body. Care, like people themselves, must evolve,
      grow and adapt.

      Children are not bonsai trees to be pruned and reshaped to suit the
      limitations or prejudices of their caregivers, or of society in general.

      Ashley, like every other child, is entitled to reach her full
      potential, no matter how inconvenient that may be to others.

      Thursday, January 11, 2007
      ANDRÉ PICARD, The Globe and Mail

      apicard@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.