tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25425497.post116822072022326409..comments2007-09-03T09:26:19.160-07:00AnneChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04940566603711834053noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25425497.post-1168309116822022352007-01-08T18:18:36.823-08:002007-01-08T18:18:36.823-08:00Hi George,<BR/><BR/>My uneasiness with this sort of organ removal has nothing to do with whether the person in question is likely to "use" them or not. <BR/><BR/>The fact is that a person was subjected to major surgery and hormonal treatments (which are by no means risk-free). Now, if this had been done with purely medical justifications in mind (and the parents, etc. had stuck to the defense on purely lifesaving, medical grounds), the situation would be somewhat different.<BR/><BR/>However, the parents and others have managed to (in addition to the medical arguments) also come up with a truly bizarre set of non-medical justifications -- such as the idea that "her body should match her mind" (that's an opinion, not a medical recommendation, and certainly not anything that by itself would or should convince any reasonable ethics board), or that removal of these parts would somehow help shield Ashley against inappropriate forms of contact from potential caregivers, etc. <BR/><BR/>Plus, there's the way they objectify her in speaking of her -- the term "pillow angel" and the explanation for its use makes Ashley sound like some sort of novelty doll, which she most certainly is not. <BR/><BR/>I know it's probably a coping mechanism on the part of the parents, and an attempt to make the best of a difficult situation. But I'm disturbed by the overtones in the parents' statements that make it sound as if they're trying to maintain their daughter as a child for reasons that are just as related to fear of her growing up into a woman (and all that might entail) as they are to fear of medical complications associated with her size and development. <BR/><BR/>Notice that none of this has anything to do with whether Ashley would have or would not have used the removed organs, or how she might have used them, or the fact that she doesn't have them now. Rather, it's about the notion that any nonmedical justification is being invoked in defense of a treatment like this. Hopefully that makes sense.AnneChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04940566603711834053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25425497.post-1168282321315510822007-01-08T10:52:01.316-08:002007-01-08T10:52:01.316-08:00Hi Anne,<BR/><BR/>Some very interesting considerations. <BR/><BR/>Your point is very well taken re: my assertion about the 'wrong minds being in the wrong bodies.' I actually agree with you -- but only insofar that a self-aware and self-determining agent is involved. I used this language simply to draw out some of the inconsistencies that people were holding in regards to the accusation that the Ashley Treatment would prevent her from becoming an adult -- which is not entirely accurate. Yes, it would prevent her body from entering her adulthood, but it would not constrain her mind any more than it already was.<BR/><BR/>And in regards to consent, there is nothing new here; parents *must* make decisions on behalf of their children. They are a special class of persons and citizens because of this. <BR/><BR/>I have to question your argument by analogy re: the removal of organs of healthy children to extend their lives. Again, it is utterly unfair to compare the two situations; they are contextually disparate. Ashley has no hope of entering into active adulthood and having a sex life. For this reason is it not mutilation, but rather a compassionate measure. <BR/><BR/>Cheers!<BR/>GeorgeGeorgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13003484633933455827noreply@blogger.com