Ashley's Rights

I believe that Ashley's rights would have been violated if she was a perfectly capable human being that was able to consciously make the decisions for herself. Just like how people can violate other's rights I believe it is possible for us to violate or own rights especially if we aren't in control of our body or know our rights. From what I understood about the article the surgeries were made to benefit not only the caregiver but Ashley herself. Up to a certain point I believe that depending on your age (this is an idealistic view) you kinda forfeit your rights to your parents. This is a belief made with the hope and assumption that the parents are responsible and truly care about the child. In that case I believe they would do anything they need in order to make sure that their children are safe and healthy. At that young of an age children do know what they want but not always what they need and at such an age what they want may actually be harmful to themselves. only when they are older do they understand the value of a life and how to preserve it. I believe it is at that point that they would be able to make decisions for themselves; however in the article I believe that it says Ashley mind has not grown past the level of a toddler's even if she physically has grown mentally as a human she is still a baby which is why I feel the decision should stay within the parent's hands.

Ashley's Rights

I feel that Ashely's rights were not violated. The surgeries would be considered inhumane to me if she was a normal girl, but because she has very little mental and physical capabilities, it makes it much more easier and convenient for her parents to take care of her. Plus, Ashley does not have the ability to make tough decisions like this for herself; her parents have to do everything for her regardless of what size she is. It is much more convenient for Ashley's parents to take care of her at a smaller size than try to transport and take care of a grown women from about 16 years old until the rest of their lives. Her rights were not violated because it was done for Ashley's well being. Being smaller allows her parents to be able to take care of her with less struggles of taking care of a grown up. The surgeries were done without the consent of Ashley, but she obviously would not be able to have a say because she cannot think at that level. If John Locke had a say in this case, he would not even consider Ashley to have rights because she does not have the mental capabilities that most people have. So if her parents want to stunt Ashley's growth in order to better take care of her in an easier fashion, then I do not believe Ashley's rights were violated.

Ashley's Rights

Given the circumstances of Ashley’s case her rights were not violated. Ashley is a minor living with her parents as her primary caregivers and with her physical disability and her mental condition, the decision for the surgeries was her parent’s rather than hers. Her rights would be violated if she was eighteen or over and was fully capable of making her own decisions. Also, her parents made their decisions in her best interest. While some might say the decision to keep her at a smaller size was a violation of her rights and was for the convenience of her parents. While it is true that it is more convenient for her parents to have her at this size; however, their convenience has to be a factor in the decision making process because if it is more difficult for them to transport her and bathe her then it can make them do it less which in turn would prevent them from caring for her as well and keeping up her basic hygiene. As for the other surgeries which some again say violate her rights were also done in her best interest. Some said the surgeries were inhumane and violated her basic right to gender identity. This is true it does partially take away a large part of her identity; however, if it is for her protection and for the convenience of her caregivers so that they can take better care of her then it is acceptable. While arguments can be made for both sides of the case it, Ashley’s rights were not violated.

Does The Ashley Treatment violate Ashley's rights?

Ashley X, known by her parents as their "Pillow Angel." 

Ashley's rights would be violated, if she had the mental capacity to exert the full extent of her rights. This would seem to be a troubling statement; as if to say: Ashley, as a disabled individual, has less rights than that of a normally functioning human being. However, Ashley will always have the mind of a three month old girl, incapable of thought processes that would lead to making her own decisions. In many developed countries, it is widely recognized that 'normal' children are too young to make their own decisions until the age of 16-21; and often, parental consent is required for many activities which are not already set by a legal age limit due to a child's poorly developed sense of judgment. In Ashley's case, she could never be able to make her own decision, so her parents have the right to govern her as long as their decision are made in her best interest in regards to her health and well-being.

 As her caretakers, Ashley's parents can make decisions for Ashley without her consent. They were acting in her best interest: instead of "abandoning her to the wolves," (as Peter Singer describes the Western culture's raising of children to flee from the nest into the adult world) they are improving her quality of life in the future. Ashley is not the same as other children--she will never be able "to grow up," to mature from her infantile mindset, and therefore would be incredibly unprepared for the struggles that arrive with female adulthood. The treatment protects Ashley's health and happiness, by preventing the onset of the menstrual cycle and other complications. It could be said that Ashley has had her reproductive rights taken away from her--however, mothers with profoundly irreparable brain damage would be a harm to their child, as they are unable to take care of themselves. It could be said that Ashley's ability to have the freedom of gender self-identification would be taken away; however, she is again not of the mental capacity or self-awareness, as other children wouldn't be at that age of psychosocial development, to understand such a concept.

Therefore, as an individual who will always presumably be a child, I think Ashley's rights are not violated because they do not encompass those of a fully functioning, mature adult. I recognize that Ashley is a human being, with the ability to feel emotion and have good taste in Italian music (I read she likes Andrea Bocelli); however children do not have the same rights as adults and do not earn an expanded sense of dignity until they grow older. I do not think the Ashley Treatment degrades Ashley or hurts her dignity--if anything, her dignity is recognized by amount of care put into sustaining her life, the fact that she is still alive and has people who prioritize her life.

 It would be unjustified if it was a treatment fundamentally for cosmetic purposes but this seems to come from a basis that it would benefit her health, as the medical benefits are evident. Rather, an objection would be that another possible motive exists: of physically retaining the innocence through a child's body, by preventing her from growing for the sake of the parents not having to face the psychological consequences of what would be an inevitable dilemma. The concept of the "pillow angel" exemplifies this possibility in their having personal motive for the treatment, outside of their specific care for Ashley, because the fear of the ultimate realization that the individual they see with their eyes as their child is in the body of a full-grown woman...to them it could be embarrassing for Ashley's perception or, they reason, traumatic in terms of the ways she could be taken advantage of.

In conclusion, the Ashley treatment would be a violation of Ashley's rights if she was conscious enough to understand and refuse the operations her parents decided to have had performed on her. Yet, her condition itself prevents such comprehension. The treatment serves to aid her and add means of substance to her life; in no way does it physically or emotionally harm her or her range of feasible freedom given the mental incapacity she is in.

Pillow angel

The issue of whether or not it was right for Ashley's parents to give  her all of the procedures that they put her through is a huge conflict. In my opinion the parents were in the complete right for putting their child through these procedures simply because they were only doing so for her comfort. Every thing that they did was to make her life easier and more comfortable for her. The reduced height procedures were to make her more comfortable and making it easier to transport her so that she could be more part of the family. Also the height reduction would keep her from undergoing the pains of growth which would be miserable for her. The breast reduction surgery was necessary because of her families history of large breasts and the growth and development of such would out her through a great amount of pain and discomfort. Her comfort was of up most importance because of her state that she was in. With her not being able to move or talk she needed to be in the most comfort especially since she would never be able to communicate her pain. This situation would have been completely different if Ashley weren't in the mental and physical state that she was. IF she was able to communicate but not able to move I'm sure she would still want everything that happened to her so that she would be comfortable. Her parents were just always looking out for her and making sure that she could be as comfortable as possible, which in no way was violating any rights of hers or in anyway making her parents selfish.

Blog 2 - Ashley

If Ashley had been completely mentally healthy and her parents decided against her will to go through with the treatment, then Ashley’s rights would have been violated, no question. But because Ashley has the mental capacity of a three month old and is incapable (from what I understand) of speaking, thinking, etc., she is under complete control of her parents, and they chose to go through with this treatment to IMPROVE Ashley’s life, therefor I don’t think her rights were violated. Ashley’s parents want to freeze their daughter in time and essentially keep her as a child forever, so that 1. her mental and physical ages are closer together and 2. so that they can care for her more easily. From what I understand, Ashley’s condition will never improve over time, period. So stunting her growth can only be seen as beneficial to me because it almost ensures that she will be well taken care of by her parents and by caregivers after her parents pass away. As for the removal of Ashley’s uterus and breast buds…it gets a little dicey. I don’t personally see the benefit of going through all that trouble just to avoid POSSIBLE menstrual discomfort and POSSIBLE breast discomfort. One of the parents’ reasons for removing her breast buds was that she would have had large breasts and that “’could sexualize Ashley towards her caregiver, especially when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse.’” Seriously? I think instead of pulling these arguments out of their asses, the parents should have just stated that they felt it would be best for Ashley to keep her prepubescent body and kept it at that. But the bottom line is, the parents thought this treatment would benefit their daughter who cannot speak for herself, and I have to respect their decision. 

Blog Post #2: The Ashley Treatment

I do not believe Ashley’s rights were, or have been, violated by her parents through the “Ashley Treatment”. As a person whose mental and physical abilities have remained the same as a child who is three months old, Ashley is unable to make her own decisions and is unable to know what is best for her. Ashley’s parents have done everything possible to raise her quality of life as much as possible without subjecting her to overly dangerous situations. An ethics committee at Seattle Children’s Hospital also agreed that this treatment was being done in Ashley’s best interest.

The article which criticizes the Ashley Treatment and her parents compare the use of estrogen to keep Ashley smaller to chopping legs off to accomplish the same goal. The authors defend the comparison by stating, “But this kind of surgery could not be ethically performed on healthy children because it is not plausibly in their interests, given the risks to, and the stress such an operation would impose on, their bodies.” This is an outlandish comparison to make. Of course amputation is not the more ethical option in this situation. The estrogen use is proven to be safe, effective, and have no side effects whereas chopping off a child’s leg, as the authors of the article state, can have several unanticipated effects and puts undo stress onto the child’s body.

I believe Ashley’s parents have made the right choices for their child. Not only is Ashley a minor still, but she is mentally and physically unable to know what is best for her which leaves the responsibility to her parents.

Blog Post #2

I believe that Ashley’s rights were not violated. The parents are doing everything they can to make informed decisions so that they can keep Ashley at home. These parents had doctors confirm that her mental state is that of an infant. Indicating that she does not have the mental capacity to make her own decisions. Which leaves it up to her parents to look out for her best interests. 

Ashley’s parents have shown that there is no way she could make a decision for herself. The parents haven’t done anything that isn’t in her best interests. They chose the surgeries to remove the uterus and appendix, and to remove the breast buds to make sure she is as comfortable as possible. 

I truly believe that Ashley is an infant in every way possible. All the medicines and procedures done were to ensure that she would be in as little pain as possible in her future. They were also done so that the parents could keep her at home for as long as possible.

Critics claim that the parents are being selfish and that they kept Ashley small to make life easier on them. However, the parents have done her a favor by keeping her small. They have not only made her less prone to skin sores, pneumonia, and balder infections, they have also given her a better quality of life. By keeping her small, the parents are able to move her, hold her, take her places, and move her around more, which is better for her joints.

Ashley’s rights were not violated because every thing that was done to her was done so that she could stay as comfortable and as pain free as possible.

Blog Post #2- The Ashley Treatment

I believe Ashley's rights are violated because she was unable to be involved and have a say in what was being done to her body. In volunteering with kids who are like Ashley I think severely disabled people sadly don't have much of a quality of life as it is; I believe that controlling these people even further than they already have to be, which is in practically everything, is wrong. Almost everything else is taken away from them/out of their control, so I think they at least ought to have the right to be as “normal” as they can be, i.e. have a grown body if it.

            The main objection to that is: well because Ashley doesn’t have any control and is almost solely responsible on her caregivers then it’s morally okay for her parents to decide what to do with her body, i.e the surgeries. What I have to say to this is: yes, Ashley’s parents and caregivers do everything for her, but just like every other human being, Ashley has rights as a person, most of which are already hindered or out of her control as it is with her disability. Her parents/caregivers often act as her conscience and she’s probably not treated equally in the majority of setting. To keep Ashley alive her parents/caregivers do have to do the majority of everything for her, but making the decision to do these surgeries on her isn't something that absolutely needs to happen in order to keep her alive,

Blog post #2 - Post by Thursday, Jan. 29, 9:00 PM

Post to the blog before Thursday, Jan. 29 at 9:00 PM on the following: Are Ashley's rights violated or not?

Remember that the first sentence of your 250-300 word blog post should be the thesis statement of your whole post.

Place your post on the blog's main page (not as a comment to this post).

Racial Identity

Allegedly Bruce Bechdel traveled to the future about 47 years and then returned to the year 1976 with the assumptions that he acquired from his journey. Honest to gosh I believe that he would believe that America has come a long way when it comes to homosexual rights but not a long way when it comes to race. If anything these times that we live in now are even more dangerous than the 1960’s because people are suffering in silence and the rage and anger are building. America has always struggled when it came to multiple races intergrading and the struggle is not over and probably will not be over until America admits that it has committed a great sin of injustice. Truly think that Bruce Bechdel would be disgusted to see and hear that America thinks that it problem and its battles with injustice among the people of the nation are over. He would go back to his time and tell people that America is still as selfish and brutal as it is in 1967. The same system that was in place in the 1960’s is the same system still used today; the system that keeps the rich still rich, the poor still poor and that only appreciates the people who follow blindly in Americas shroud  and the obis of untruth and deceit. He also would probably think that America is still two faced and will never be accepting of people how are not their idea of pure and righteous. The gap between this nation and its citizens is becoming larger and pretty soon the gap will have become too large to fix. I bet that Bruce Bechdel would come to the conclusion that America has entered into a never ending civil war and this war will probably never reach an end    

 

Bruce Bechdel

Having traveled to the future 47 years ahead and then went back to 1976 I believe that Bruce Bechdel would be interested to see the surface progress we have made with gay rights but at the same time disappointed of the underlying hatred there is when dealing with both gay rights and racial equality and acceptance. On the surface I believe that America has become politically more accepting and is pushing in the direction of equality however no matter how many costumes it wears America cannot hide the anger and ill will a great majority of its people have toward each other. I believe that Mr. Bechdel would still act the same if he lived in this time than when he lived in 1976. America still hasn't apologized for the problems it has caused its people and the world and it still refuses to see or accept its hypocrisy. We have peace loving religions that aggressively degrade and shun those who do not fully oblige to their standards even if that person was a prior member. We have unassuming racists not only in the form of people who "accidentally" say racist comments but those who answer with more racism. I also feel that the people who let such comments slide are at fault. America needs to throw away its pride and understand that it has not been and mostly likely will never be always right. It is when people are able to learn the difference between an argument and a conversation or an educated question v.s. an ignorant one that we will be able to grow.

I believe that, if Bruce Bechdel traveled to our year, then 1967, then back again, he would think that racial identity would be vital to every American's life.  Near the end of Fun Home, he writes to Alison about his regrets in suppressing who he was.  He felt that he lost a big part of himself by conforming to what he thought he needed to be.  Bruce would probably feel that racial identity is important to everyone, as it allows them to gain some insight into who they are.  By providing a "base", racial identity allows people to further develop their own personal identity, and become someone who is truly "themselves".  If people aren't able to be themselves, either because they don't know who they are, or because they feel like they can't be that person, they'll feel constrained, and ultimately unhappy.  In 1967, a large portion of the population felt that they couldn't be who they really were.  Being themselves meant being denied civil right, or even bring violence onto themselves.  Those people chose to do something about their situation, and found a way to improve life for everyone.  Today, we are in a similar situation.  A large group of people felt oppressed for too long, felt that they weren't allowed to be who they really were.  They also chose to stand up and do something about it, and now their situation is slowly, but surely, getting better.  If Bruce saw all this, I think he'd be proud to see what life has become like for everyone in America.

Bruce Bechdel

I think that if Bruce Bechdel could time travel to the present day and then go back to 1967 I think that he would be extremely surprised at how many people are brave enough to take pride in their identity and display to the world who they are. Bruce was a very self conscious human  being and hid who he was from everybody else. I think no doubt he would see some changes in how many different types of people are received but would still be slightly disappointed with some of the racial and social stereotypes that still exist. just for example i think one thing that might still bother him about 2014 is that there is still a law in place that would keep homosexual people from getting married. things like that would still encourage him to keep his identity from the public. Now a days there are a few states where you can legally become married if you are gay compared to in 1967 where there was absolutely no way you could become married if you were gay, so I think Bruce would agree there are some positive changes being made but we still have a long way to go. but for the most part I believe he would be pleased to see how many people accept themselves for who they are and that people can make their identity known to the public and  would not exactly receive the same type of criticism that they would have in 1967.

Bruce bechdel

I think that Bruce Bechdel would claim that racial identity is important in the society of American in 2014 but also see flaws in our racial profiling and other things.  He would see that the identity of your race is very important to people.  Bruce hid his identity through his life so he might see it as impressive as to how accepting people are nowadays.  He would probably see a lot of progress in race affairs, because things are probably a lot better than they were in 1967.  At the same time bruce might see that even though we have come a long way that we still have racial problems in our society but would be optimistic about the progress.  He would see that a person’s race is very important to them.  Bruce would see that people are very proud of their history and race.  I can see Bruce also thinking that racial identity was more important back then because race and equal rights was such a big movement in 1967 because of people like Martin Luther King Jr.  Bruce was also a closeted homosexual until the very end of his life.  He would be impressed as to the acceptance of different sexual orientations in 2015.  He might go back to 1967 with a sense of hope for acceptance.   If her were to see what things were like in 2014 maybe he would not have committed suicide.

Bruce Bechdel

I believe that if Bruce Bechdel traveled to our time, then back to his own time again, he would see that racial identity is still an important factor into one's identity. Many people are proud of what race they are and their family and racial history. Racial identity does have an impact on people's lives. If Martin Luther King was white, he probably would not have the same effectiveness during his speeches and marches than if he was white. He might not have even had a problem with the way society was if he were white. Racial identity can affect our lives whether we want it to or not, like college. Being a white male, most colleges will take me, but I could have potentially been denied to a school because the school felt they had enough white males and needed more Hispanic or Asian students. To the counter point of that argument, a school may take a black student over another student, who has better grades and resume, because they feel that they need more black students. It is kind of screwed up that colleges are able to do this, but race has always been a deciding factor in many events in not only American history, but throughout the world. Bruce Bechdel would see this and know for sure that our racial identity is still a huge factor here in America, when in some instances it should not matter. It impacts us whether it is in a big way or just minor details of our lives.

Blog post #1 - Post by Tuesday 9:00 PM

Post to the blog before Tuesday Jan. 20) at 9:00 PM on the following: Suppose Bruce Bechdel (Alison's dad) time-travels to 2014, then back to 1967; what would he claim about the importance and role of racial identity in the America of 2014?

Remember that the first sentence of your 250-300 word blog post should be the thesis statement of your whole post.

Welcome!

Welcome to the CIE 200 Section ZF class blog!