I blogged about the Ashley Treatment a few days ago. Ashley is a little girl who has the mental capacity of a three month old baby. She cannot sit up by herself, roll over, stand, or walk. She is alert and aware much like a baby is, but she cannot communicate verbally.
Her parents are her primary caregivers. They love her. They include Ashley in their family and in their family activities. They want to keep her at home. To enable them to continue doing so into their golden years, they opted to have Ashley’s uterus removed so that she will not menstruate, they also removed her breast buds because large breasts run in the family and that may interfere with the strapping they have to do to move Ashely around. They also hormonally stunted her growth so that she will be a smaller more manageable size to handle. This has not been without criticism.
Recently Kevin Miller over at Heart, Mind, Strength raised his objections and I e-mailed him. I said:
“I blogged about this on my own blog and got a reply in my comments section from Alexa, another Catholic blogger who took care of her husband for ten years before he died of MS. So she knows a thing or two about care giving.
I think it could be argued that if this procedure makes the quality of life easier for the caregivers, then it also makes life better for the girl. They obviously love her very much, but keeping a full grown women in her condition clean during menstruation would indeed be very challenging. I also understand what they were saying about big breasts.
I think you are being a tad harsh and off the mark on this one.”
Kevin replied on his blog:
I appreciate the response, and I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am. Again, I understand that caregiving can be challenging to say the least. My father, who’s now 77, has Parkinson’s and also degenerative arthritis, and my mother has to do a lot for him.
It still seems to me, though, that for the most part, in this case, the benefits to the girl are not direct, but rather result from things being made easier from the parents. What’s being done directly to the girl is, basically, mutilation. Normal processes of growth and maturation (in this girl’s case, of course, coexisting with serious disabilities) are being stopped. And it just isn’t morally acceptable to do evil in order to bring about good.
I think society should do a lot more to help caregivers. But I don’t think we should help them – and thus, indirectly, those for whom they care – by hurting those for whom they care.
A couple of things. I think there is a world of difference between caring for an elderly person, especially one who still has his/her mental faculties, and a young woman with them mental capacity of a 3-month old infant. For starters, the elderly person in this scenario can at least tell you his wants and needs. Ashley can’t.
Secondly, Ashely cannot help in any way at all with her own hygiene and care. She is totally dependent on her caregivers to provide that for her. But the difference is Ashley still has use of her arms and legs and she can swing them and kick them with power and force. I think that makes her caregiving much more challenging.
Thirdly, Mr. Miller overstates the case by calling this mutilation. An online dictionary defines mutilation this way:
“Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body.”
Clearly neither the uterus or breasts are “essential” body parts. Ashley can live a long life without them. In her condition she is unable to marry and be a wife and mother. If she were in a nursing home, there is the potential that she could be raped and sexually assaulted. Who would know? Synonyms for “mutilate” include mangle, mutilate, murder — (alter so as to make unrecognizable), mar. These words denote a dehumanization and disrespect for this girl. Nothing could be farther frm the truth. The parents had these procedures done so that they could keep Ashley home where she is loved, where she is treated as a beloved person. They altered her physiology and anatomy – they did not mutilate it.
Next Mr. Miller says: “And it just isn’t morally acceptable to do evil in order to bring about good.” He’ll have to prove to me that this comes anywhere near the vicinity of “evil.” In Ashley’s case, I can see much good.
If Mr. Miller’s case rests on the two basic arguments that this was mutilation and evil, then I think clearly he is wrong. At worst, this falls into somewhat of a moral gray area in my opinion, but I don’t see it falling anywhere near the grave moral depravity he seems to see it in.
Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!
