The Ashley Treatment
Such a sad story.
It would be nice if the condition from which Ashley suffers, static encephalopathy, did not exist. It's uncomfortable to imagine what that means to Ashley -- a perpetual 3-month old child -- and to her parents. It's uncomfortable to imagine what it would mean to love, nurture, and care for a child like that, in a practical sense. It's much more pleasant to gloss over the details and consider the situation in some abstract way. To make it an ethical dilemma.
The fact, however, is that the condition does exist. And what's merely uncomfortable for us to imagine is someone else's reality. It takes a lot of balls to try to dictate what someone else should do in a situation that is clearly ugly and uncomfortable no matter what the decided course of action is.
Yes, it's horrible to physically alter a child to stunt her growth. It really is. But you know what? It's horrible to insist that the body of an adult must house the brain of an infant. This is not about making a good choice vs a bad choice. There is no good choice to make. This is about trying to make a better outcome for Ashley.
What is Ashley being deprived of, exactly? The transition to adulthood? The ability to have babies? Adult relationships? She'll never have those things -- they're already lost to her.
What does Ashley gain? Physical comfort. More family interaction. The ability to receive better care.
If this were just about her family's convenience, Ashley would be languishing away in some profit-driven, long term care facility being presided over by minimum wage staff. Obviously her parents love her and care about her quality of life. They're trying to do the right thing for her. Let's quit demanding that they become fodder for the "moral outrage" machine. The real moral outrage would be letting some casual observer turn it into one.
It would be nice if the condition from which Ashley suffers, static encephalopathy, did not exist. It's uncomfortable to imagine what that means to Ashley -- a perpetual 3-month old child -- and to her parents. It's uncomfortable to imagine what it would mean to love, nurture, and care for a child like that, in a practical sense. It's much more pleasant to gloss over the details and consider the situation in some abstract way. To make it an ethical dilemma.
The fact, however, is that the condition does exist. And what's merely uncomfortable for us to imagine is someone else's reality. It takes a lot of balls to try to dictate what someone else should do in a situation that is clearly ugly and uncomfortable no matter what the decided course of action is.
Yes, it's horrible to physically alter a child to stunt her growth. It really is. But you know what? It's horrible to insist that the body of an adult must house the brain of an infant. This is not about making a good choice vs a bad choice. There is no good choice to make. This is about trying to make a better outcome for Ashley.
What is Ashley being deprived of, exactly? The transition to adulthood? The ability to have babies? Adult relationships? She'll never have those things -- they're already lost to her.
What does Ashley gain? Physical comfort. More family interaction. The ability to receive better care.
If this were just about her family's convenience, Ashley would be languishing away in some profit-driven, long term care facility being presided over by minimum wage staff. Obviously her parents love her and care about her quality of life. They're trying to do the right thing for her. Let's quit demanding that they become fodder for the "moral outrage" machine. The real moral outrage would be letting some casual observer turn it into one.
posted by Logic101 at 1/05/2007 10:00:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home