asterroc ([personal profile] asterroc) wrote2007-05-08 07:41 pm
Entry tags:

"Pillow Angel" surgery was illegal

It's not often we hear follow-ups on headline news, so I figured I'd bring this one to y'all's attention: the surgery that removed "pillow angel" Ashley's uterus has been determined to have been against the law.

"Washington law specifically prohibits the sterilization of minors with developmental disabilities without zealous advocacy on their behalf and court approval," said Mark Stroh, WPAS [Washington Protection and Advocacy System, a private group vested with federal investigative authority for people with disabilities,] executive director, in a statement. The hospital has apologized and says they'll be more rigorous in the future, including ALL future treatments for Ashley herself. WPAS is not intending to prosecute.

[identity profile] l0stmyrel1g10n.livejournal.com 2007-05-09 12:41 am (UTC)(link)
on the one hand, i think it's somehow fitting that a child's mind should be in a child's body, and i can see why her family would be comforted by that. on the other hand, have her family considered that if she does indeed stay a child forever, eventually their child is going to die of old age? that would be very upsetting to me. it's one thing for someone to grow up and then die. if she never leaves childhood, though, she'll die a child.

[identity profile] gemini6ice.livejournal.com 2007-05-09 03:27 am (UTC)(link)
The happiness of their child seems to be the main intent. And in a case where the subject cannot and will never comprehend or demonstrate comprehension of the medical procedures in question, how is the court to decide the subject's wishes. It's power of attorney, pretty much.

I don't see the shame or tragedy in dying a child after a very (over-)long and happy childhood.

I'm afraid this last comment will erupt in flamewar, but I'll say it anyway because it's how I feel: this case is no worse than (I'd argue better than, in fact) the spaying and neutering of animals without their consent.

[identity profile] dirkcjelli.livejournal.com 2007-05-09 03:00 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree. The child is essentially a pet with human DNA, assuming (s)he is as disabled as I think (s)he is.

[identity profile] zandperl.livejournal.com 2007-05-09 08:02 pm (UTC)(link)
To me human babies are pets with more potential - MUCH more, but until they fulfill that potential they are akin to pets. Perhaps if I believed in the soul I'd veiw them differently.