Accidental Blogger

Here is a post and its follow up at Majikthise – a popular and thoughtful liberal blog which sheds more light on the conditions surrounding Ashley and her family.  I was surprised that the opinions there are squarely on the side of the parents’ decison to radically alter Ashley’s physical make-up with surgery and medication. I understand that it is important to note the degree of disability and prognosis for recovery in each case to decide the best option for the patient. Just as healthy persons have individual needs, so do the disabled. According to Majikthise, in this case the procedures were all warranted. She provides many more relevant medical details of Ashley’s condition and treatment than I was able to, based on the newspaper story. The comment threads are interesting too. (I confess I haven’t read the comments carefully, only glanced at some.)  Most commenters seem to agree that what is "convenient" for the parents in this case, is also in the best interest of Ashley.

But I am not convinced that Ashley needed to be "cored out like an apple" to guard against everything that the parents deemed an impediment to the quality of her life. I am sure the parents had the best intentions for their daughter and made all the decisions with appropriate consultation with doctors and ethicists. I just feel that in their zeal to take control of the unfortunate situation, they resorted to some unnecessary radical steps.The irony is that there is a whole host of possible afflictions which may still plague Ashley in the future and the organs that remain inside her may some day fail and make her care a difficult thing in spite of her petite size. One blogger in one of the articles linked by Majikthise said something to the effect that those who oppose the parents’ decision "care less for the girl and more for what is inside her." That is a very curious way to look at life. We ARE to a very large extent, what is inside us.

The only surgical procedure performed on Ashley that I am comfortable with is the hysterectomy (her ovaries are intact, I understand). It does not in any significant way enhance the "convenience" of the parents except perhaps their peace of mind. But it does have a profound effect on Ashley. Although it robs her of the ability to become pregnant and give birth, in the case of a person like Ashley, that inability is an unadulterated blessing. With an intact uterus, Ashley could experience an unexpected pregnancy due to abuse (yes, there are monsters who would take advantage of a totally helpless person), especially if she were to be institutionalized and her family was not around to look after her. Given Ashley’s severely diminished physical and mental capacity, to protect her already battered body from the ravages of pregnancy and childbirth is a prudent and compassionate medical measure, in my opinion.

Coincidentally, while I was in the process of composing this post, Anna sent me the link to an interview on CNN with Paula Zahn where Ashley’s case was discussed with several invited guests. One of the guests was Anna’s colleague, Attorney Stephen Rosenbaum, an advocate for the disabled. Mr. Rosenbaum is also the father of a twenty one year old son who suffers from severe mental retardation. His exchange with Paula Zahn can be found by scrolling down the body of the transcript.

Update: Thanks to Sujatha for the link to the latest development in this case.