Strolling in around 7 tonight, I thought I’d instigate a little productivity before indulging in the cinema of Tarintino. An abundance of light reading material has amassed on my closet floor, the culmination of my English endeavors while at college. I was hoping to sink in to a tranquil short story, hopefully forget my academic pressures, and learn a little something about anything; I stumbled on to a short story about Ashley. Ashley was a nine year old suffering from a rare case of static encephalopathy, a mental retardation that maintains the fundamental capabilities of a 3- month- infant without mental progress or evolution.
Although this CLEARLY was not the short fiction I was hoping to gravitate towards, it provoked a few thoughts worthy to voice. Ashley’s parents have been subjects of tumultuous prosecution during recent years when in 2004 they resolved to have Ashley undergo a controversial procedure that entailed the removal of Ashley’s appendix, breast buds, and uterus. They then introduced high levels of concentrated estrogen in Ashley’s bloodstream, this manipulated her bone growth and significantly impeded bone growth later in life, keeping Ashley about the size of a 9 year old the rest of her life. The medical benefits (improved digestion, mitigated menstruation, improved circulation) sufficed for many observers, but for many skeptics it offered no solace, tenaciously criticizing in what is now referred to as “The Ashley Treatment”. They claim a surgery of this magnitude without any conceit dehumanizes the handicapped and robs them of their rights as a human.
It is this conflict from which the question to my readers stems. Ashley only has the mental capacity of a 3-month infant, with negligible chances for mental growth. What then makes her, or anyone for that matter, human? This is an incredibly crude and apathetic sounding question and case for application… I know. But does a physical representation constitute a human, or is it our mental perception and capabilities that partition us and define us as a species. Isn’t humanity defined by intelligence, subjectivity, volition, self-awareness, and ingenuity, or is it simply a material manifestation synonymous with our visual concept of a “human”, with only the universal obligation of sustenance and air to convey life? I’ve been thinking about it for a while and could use a more perceptive insight. Thanks!
Penelope
Connected to Microsoft Exchange
1 comment:
It is very difficult to say what constitutes human and what does not. Who really has the right to dictate this, to put a label on a life? Because Ashley had undergone those procedures, was she suddenly less human than she was before? How much, exaclty, did that surgery rob her of? It is a very subjective matter, although to me it seems cruel to suggest such an idea.
It seems as though she is being treated as a vegetable, and it is truly sad. It might be true that she is not capable of making such decisions on her own life, but who says who gets to decide for her? She obviously cannot opt for anyone herself. It is a difficult matter to decide, with so many difficult questions and answers.
It feels as though people are looking through a camera lens, and they are focusing on the background, leaving Ashley as a blur. I really hope her parents were truly looking out for her best interests, and not for their own benefits---I hope they were focusing on her.
Post a Comment