Archive for the ‘Ashley Treatment’ Category

Michigan ADAPT’s Ashley X Action

Wednesday, January 30th, 2008

This came to me from Amber Smock, of Chicago ADAPT and FRIDA. Thanks Amber!

On Friday, January 18th, 2008, members of Michigan ADAPT struck back on the Ashley X issue at a huge lecture given by Dr. Douglas Diekema, the head of Seattle Children’s Institutional Review Board, which ok’d the treatment. Two of the organizers are past participants of the ADAPT Youth Summit—Theresa Squires and Shana Holet.
 
***********

On Friday, January 18th, 2008, after just 24 hours or so of frenzied planning (research, literature development, layout reconnaissance, trumpet calls to local troops, and alerting the media), the efforts of eight members of MI ADAPT culminated in a great and successful action in Grand Rapids, MI, at Calvin College’s the January Series lecture, entitled, “Love, Justice & Humility:  A Bioethicist Meets the PillowAngel.” Lansing ADAPT and Grand Rapids ADAPT joined forces (with encouragement from around the state) at the alma mater of Dr. Douglas Diekema, chair of the ethics review board at Seattle Children’s Hospital that approved what has become known as the “Ashley Treatment,” which stunted the growth of a child with mental and intellectual disabilities named Ashley in 2004.  In addition to the growth attenuation “therapy” from high doses of estrogen that fused her growth plates, thus stunting her growth, it was also decided for Ashley that she would receive a hysterectomy and have her breast buds removed, at 6 years of
age. These three procedures are often collectively referred to as the “Ashley Treatment” (a title that Diekema finds inappropriate and insensitive).

Although our group was small, we had barely a day’s notice of the event (two of our members were up until the wee hours of the morning copying flyers and settling final details), and the temperature was not even 20 degrees, we came on strong.  At a strategy meeting that morning, we decided that, because of our small numbers, our lack of time to do more in-depth planning, and given the fact that we were at a small, conservative college, our best approach would be to educate the public about the Disability Community’s perspective on the case. To do this, we would distribute flyers and ensure that we had a presence at both the lecture and the follow-up discussion.

As our caravan was unloading (contemplating changing our goal to getting this thing rescheduled to a warmer day), sharp-eyed but reasonably cordial Campus Security guards spotted our signs and made it clear that we would not be able to hang or tape signs anywhere or take them into the lecture hall with us, nor could we pass out literature indoors or in the walkway leading to the entrance of the building. This was a slight snag in that holding signs and passing out flyers in the frigid and windy weather would be rough, but in true ADAPT form we were not deterred!

In general, we were well received. In fact, two professors of Disability Studies (one with a significant physical disability), and a few other people, expressed how grateful they were for our presence and thanked us for “fighting the fight.”  With members at every entrance and two people in the main lecture hall (we had only planned on one going inside for the whole lecture, but the wheelchair-using professor of the Disability Studies
class–which is currently studying ADAPT, by the way!–became star struck when he found that he was actually talking to “the Weasel” and insisted that Weasel go in as his special guest), we distributed almost 600 flyers and had several good conversations with the public AND the media! (Apparently, a short blurb was on a regional Grand Rapids television station–Wood TV 8.)

As the crowd arriving died down, we all decided to watch the presentation in the overfill room. Dr. Diekema spoke on the medical facts of Ashley’s case and how the ethics committee came to its decision. We were surprised at how technically he spoke of Ashley and how he said nothing of the social implications of these procedures. At the conclusion, members of the audience had a short opportunity to ask questions of Dr. Diekema. We were fortunate that one of the two questions asked came from one of our members, Joe Stramondo, who challenged him to explain why Ashley’s parents and the
committee opted for such extreme, irreversible medical procedures rather than use personal care services, durable medical equipment (i.e. a hoyer lift) and other such supports. Dr. Diekema appeared a bit flustered at the suggestion that this decision was driven by social stigma and eventually had to admit that these other options were rejected merely because the parents did not want to use them.

Following the lecture was a guided discussion sponsored by CALL (Calvin Academy for Lifelong Learning) that was facilitated by Dr. Ronald Hofman, a pediatrician and friend of Diekema. The participants of this discussion included members of the medical community,
Dr. Diekema’s brother (who had a slight, visible physical disability), citizens who clearly fell on both sides of the issue, and two mothers of multiple children with significant disabilities, whom the facilitator had planted from among his own patients. Our members packed the back of the room. It was obvious by both the setup of the room and the initial direction of the “conversation” that they were not expecting us or our perspective. 
Hofman was clearly of the opinion that the team of bioethicists who signed off on all three of the elective procedures requested by Ashley’s parents (growth attenuation, uterus-removing hysterectomy, and breast bud removal), had NOT overstepped any moral line in the sand in terms of the autonomy, value, bodily integrity, and equality of the patient in her original, natural state. The comments of ADAPT and a couple of other people in the audience made clear that this line drawn by Ashley’s inherent rights as an 
individual human being (regardless of her doctors’ certainty that she would always remain the mentally functional equivalent of a 3-6 month old child), was the heart of the matter and the reason to hold such a conversation, rather than the emotion diffusing “how did it make you feel” questions and the “that’s a very reasonable reaction” responses. 

We did not allow the topic to be coddled or the audience to be lulled to sleep. We were the voice of reason that encouraged others to express their doubt. We know this to be true because we were told so afterward by those very people. To the facilitator’s credit, he rode the wave we created quite well, calling on the “folks in the back of the room” as readily as anyone else in the audience, though this was surely to retain decorum and control, certain that we would make our points whether called on or not. About that he was right, and with good reason because our points were good.

ADAPT’s perspective on the issue is right, true and clear: Ashley X is a real person and denying her the right to be all that she can be (even in the name of providing love and care) is wrong! These operations were elective, in no case alleviating any certain discomfort of Ashley’s.  Numerous alternatives existed and were rejected for non-medical reasons. Ashley would live with the decisions that were made for her parents’ convenience long after she no longer lived with those parents. (That point, made by Ian Engle, got his words, picture, and angle into the Grand Rapids Press the next day!) 

Parental convenience (choice) OVER personal autonomy (choice) is the same as money over freedom (i.e. institutional care over choice, Kevorkian’s “understanding” of the woes of his patients over the treatment and support they deserve, or Nazi Germany’s “solution” over the lives of so many millions of innocent people). The fact that Ashley cannot express her choice does not constitute forfeiture of her right to have one. 

Please, do not mourn, ORGANIZE!!! – Theresa Squires, Melinda Haus-Johnson, Laura Hall, Teresa Christmas, Shana Holet, Joe Stramondo, Ian Engle, and Clark (the Weasel) Goodrich 

ADAPT’s voice needs amplification.  Be proud, get Loud! Lead On!!! 

Lansing ADAPT/Grand Rapids ADAPT 

RA’s note: I sure am proud of these two young wonen, as well as the Michigan folks. What an amazing action! I hope to meet Theresa and Shana in Washington, DC this spring.

After Ashley: Covering children with severe disabilities

Monday, March 19th, 2007

The following article is a critique of sorts about the media coverage of the story of Ashley.

After Ashley: Covering Children with Severe Disabilities
By Leann Frola
Naughton Fellow

The beginning of 2007 brought a new face to our TVs, computers and print media: Ashley. The 9-year-old who will never grow up.

Ashley is developmentally and physically disabled. She has static encephalopathy [PDF], a condition that is the result of severe brain damage that will not improve. At her parents’ request, doctors removed her uterus and breast tissue and gave her hormones to keep her small. Her parents say she will be easier to care for that way.

As coverage continued, the debate grew fiercer and the sides more polarized with this basic question: Was it right to stunt her growth?

But now the flurry of coverage has slowed. So I wondered — how can journalists use what’s been said to broaden the discussion about children with disabilities like Ashley’s? What follow-ups could be written? How do we dig deeper than Ashley?

To find some answers, I turned to Arthur Caplan, Ph.D. He is the director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of Poynter’s national advisory board.

In the following Q&A, Caplan shares what he thinks journalists have been missing and where to go from here.

How do we go beyond what’s already been covered about Ashley?

I think Ashley’s an interesting case. The policy questions are some of the things we need to be focused on, not just the odd or freakish nature of, “Is it right to keep somebody small?”  Is what’s right for this family right for other families? What’s the context? Is this a trend or just the weird, odd story of the week?

Families often can’t get any home-care aid, but they wouldn’t send their kid to a horrible institution. So a journalist could just ask around locally, what’s going on?

What might be causing the lack of home-care help for those with severely disabled kids? Is it a lack of money, lack of resources, lack of knowledge about how to access resources, or what? What needs to be done so that these families do get more assistance?

And what happens to kids like Ashley if their parents abandon them or when the parents are too old to be able to care for them?

Journalism is attracted to wonderful stories and human interest, and that’s what the Ashley story has. But it shouldn’t be just that. Your second-day story should be these policy stories. Otherwise, there’s a risk of turning the Ashley case into a kind of voyeurism.

What else hasn’t been covered?

This is a good example where there’s all kinds of voices that haven’t been heard from yet.

There are various disability groups that have positions on what was done to Ashley. Most of them don’t like it — independent- living groups, disability organizations … I haven’t seen many voices from the disabled community on this case.

RA’s Note: This really bugs me because this isn’t the first time that I have heard this — that the disability community hasn’t raised its collective voice. I know that ADAPT has issued a public statement about Ashley’s “treatment”. I also know that my Center sent out an Action Alert to speak out against the “Ashley Treatment”.  ADAPT chapters and allies in Chicago and Washington, DC have staged protests. There is an online petetion put up by members of our community urging people to sign in solidarity for the dignity of people with disabilities, speaking out aganist what has been done to Ashley. There has been lots of movement and speaking out against this in our community, so I don’t understand why people continue to spread the myth of the silence of the disability community. Perhaps the reason that we aren’t being heard is that our voices are being silenced by those that support the horror that has been visited upon this precious little girl. Perhaps the media is choosing not to hear our outrage. I mean, I don’t know what else we can do to show the public that we are totally against this. Somebody give me some ideas. Anyway, back to the article…

All kinds of professional societies — not the same as the patient-advocacy groups — they’re people who are going to make a living studying something as opposed to having that condition. I didn’t see much from them. What does the AMA (American Medical Association) think or NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) about all this?

Then there are different caregiver groups, some of which deal with severely disabled children or elderly patients — people who’ve had strokes or aneurysms. It’d be interesting to hear what they have to say.

Another issue that did not get much attention: What’s the simplest way to keep somebody small?

Just don’t feed them as much. Caloric restriction is a way a lot of people have dealt with the problem Ashley’s facing. Then there’s a fine line between keeping people well nourished and starving them.

I haven’t seen one word about caloric restriction, which means journalists haven’t been digging that deep.

So that tells me that when people run into these kinds of stories, they tend to be completely dominated by the people who are blogging and by the charms or failings of the particular family. But there’s not a lot of context given in that kind of coverage: Have other families dealt with this? What do disabled people think about this? What do doctors and experts think about this? What is the cheapest place to care for an Ashley? What if the parents abuse her if she is at home — will anyone know? So it’s been a very narrow slice on the Ashley case.

There’s also some other things that’ve been said. The parents want to keep her home. Keep her home from what? An institution? What I’m getting at there is, are institutions for kids like Ashley horrible? Wonderful? Fine? Cesspools? Snake pits? You know, what are they? Do they vary from state to state?

It’s a hard question to ask, but it’s one a good, enterprising journalist would ask: Is it better to keep her at home? And what are the institutional options that are out there? What’s out there for taking care of severely disabled kids like Ashley?

What’s at cost? Do we want someone like Ashley to stay home because it’ll cost the rest of us a whole lot of money? Is it cheaper if her parents are willing to take this on? What’s the financial side of all that anyway? I haven’t seen anybody raise one word about money.

Conversely, or related to this, when the parents of kids like Ashley [die], who takes care of them then? Does it matter if they’re smaller? In other words, there’s another issue out here. Are these kids going to be just kept small while their parents are there? But what happens to them when their parents are gone? What happens to them?

The parents, one of the things they said, they didn’t want her to have breasts. How often are people who are in institutions attacked? If it is the case, that might be worth a little investigative story — is it right to worry about it? Is it really the case that patients are assaulted by their caregivers? Do they screen people for sexual crimes?

So future coverage ideas:

a.. Look into the status of home care and institutional care for the severely disabled.
a.. Look into the financial burdens families face who try to care for a child at home.
a.. Look at the impact of having a severely disabled child on marriages and on siblings.

What do you think of the coverage so far? What’s been done well? What needs work?

I think the core debate over her has been well-covered — the pros and cons. We got both sides of the ethics of the procedure. I think people have a good idea of why the parents did what they did. I think their story has been told pretty well. I don’t think it’s entirely clear what was done to her — with hormones and things. It’s not that journalists didn’t try, it’s just you really gotta stay with that one.

I think the coverage was also pretty good of the thoughtfulness of the parents. Journalists acknowledged it was hard for them to present and were sympathetic to that idea that it’s tough to tell your personal story of life with a disabled kid. But they might have ignored that question of what’s the best place for a severely disabled kid to be. That’s the tougher question to ask.

How do you cover the complexities of a story like this one while still making the information understandable?

I don’t think that’s so hard here. I think people get it. Here you’re asking about institutional care — what do other people who are disabled think about it. I don’t think this is a technical thing.

How does running photos and videos of Ashley and her family affect the story and readers’ reactions to it?

It generates enormous sympathy. It’s skewing the case that way. Anytime you’ve got picture access of the little girl, people are going to identify with that little girl — more sympathy for the idea of keeping Ashley small. She looks cute, she’s appealing.

I think you have to [compensate] for that in the text — making those who hate what was done to her heard. That’s the balance that wasn’t made. Not people who are caregivers — real people with disabilities. Most of them don’t agree with what they did to Ashley, just looking at e-mails from my columns.

I got a fair number of people who don’t like what’s going on with her, and they tended to be disabled. People who supported the family tended to be parents. It was strongly divided that way.

Ashley’s parents blog about their daughter’s condition and their decision to keep her small. How influential were blogs in disseminating information about Ashley? How did audience interaction affect the story?

They certainly made a difference on the story. There’s a huge amount of blogging going on. But more than other stories, I don’t know. They have a very big impact to drawing attention to the story, and seeing people debate it. It got a lot of people to vent their opinions … and a lot of positive impact. Just people talking back and forth on what they thought.

I think most people got their facts out of the news, then they just used the blogs to vent an opinion. I don’t think they learned about it from blogs.

How can journalists avoid exploiting or giving the appearance of exploiting someone like Ashley — a developmentally and physically disabled child?

She’s completely incompetent. You really can’t get away from some element of exploitation. That’s just going to be a part of that story. A 9-year-old, severely disabled girl who can’t give permission … there’s no other way to get around it. You start talking about getting more pictures, more balance, but no, I think you’re just stuck. You’re going to take advantage of her, and that’s just how it is. And I don’t think people were put off by it. I think people were pretty tasteful and respectful about writing about it.

What advice do you have for journalists covering a story like Ashley’s who have a strong opinion about it?

Drop the strong opinion. This is a very complicated issue, and you cannot bring any ethical or ideological baggage to it.

You’ve written a column for MSNBC.com about Ashley, saying that you do not agree with her parents’ decision to prevent her from growing. To what extent would you encourage other journalists who might not have your bioethical background to also write opinion pieces?

I would encourage them. Once they learn about the story, they can surely make sound arguments pro or con, and this is a subject that is so new that it can greatly benefit from debate.

Where can journalists covering Ashley and related stories turn for resources?

Lots of places, but a good start are children’s hospitals, state departments of disability, parent groups at public schools, and clergy who may have counseled families with severely disabled kids.

Exceptional Parent Magazine speaks out

Tuesday, March 6th, 2007

Exceptional Parent Magazine Position Statement on Ashley X
When the Slippery Slope Becomes a Mudslide

This EP Position Statement was prepared by:

Joseph M. Valenzano, Jr., CEO and President
Rick Rader, MD, Editor In Chief
Tricia Luker, Editorial Director-Organizati onal Relationships
Jan Carter Hollingsworth, Managing Editor

In its thirty-six year history, EP magazine has rarely taken a position in areas of controversy or differences of opinion. We prefer, as a matter of journalistic principle, to present objectively all sides to a given argument and debate, adhering to our mission of providing credible information for and on behalf of those involved in the care and development of children and adults with disabilities and special needs.

We have, however, taken a rather strong stance on issues such as:extending the benefits of the Orphan Drug Act, condemning a policythat endorses the use of restraints, and supporting the expansion of newborn screening utilizing tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS).We thought long and hard about taking stands on these issues, and we did what we felt was the right thing. Now we find ourselves met with yet another great challenge the very essence of human life and dignity and our conscience dictates we do the right thing once again.

In January, the story of Ashley and her “treatment” burst out in the national news. Ashley, who is now nine years old and has significant and lifelong disabilities, was given “growth attenuation” surgery and medication when she was six years old to keep her from growing to a full adult size. Her parents, in a decision that they say in their website “was not difficult,” found physicians willing to surgically remove Ashley’s breast buds, her appendix (even though nothing was wrong with it), and her uterus. She was then treated with high doses of estrogen to stunt her growth. These procedures were performed without either court or ethics committee approval. Indeed, the institutional ethics committee that the family and physicians consulted prior to placing Ashley under the knife, decided to leave the decision in the parents’ hands, rather than engaging in the comprehensive, ethical debate the procedure deserved. As one might expect, the story of the “Ashley Treatment,” the name the parents themselves coined for the procedure, generated brief but bitter debate. Things have now quieted down again.

Barely three weeks after Ashley’s story hit the press, Switzerland’s Supreme Court, to virtually no groundswell of public outcry and very little public notice, ruled that it is now permissible in Switzerland to allow assisted suicide for persons with serious mental illness, even if their condition is not otherwise terminal. Switzerland already permitted assisted suicide for people with terminal illnesses at the time this decision was announced.

The “Ashley Treatment” and Swiss assisted suicide stories came along about 15 months after a Netherlands facility announced the creation and implementation of the “Groningen Protocol.” The Groningen Protocol, named for the pediatric hospital at which it was devised, described a five-step process physicians are encouraged to follow to sanction the euthanizing of infants who are born with serious, potentially life-threatening disabilities. The end step in the Groningen Protocol is that the physicians inject medication to kill the infants, rather than letting the infants pass away as a result of their disease or defect running its course. The Groningen Protocol physicians, at the time of announcing the Protocol, also announced that they had implemented the Protocol to euthanize four infants even before the Protocol was announced. One of those was a child with Down syndrome. Despite the implications of what the Groningen physicians call “a deliberate, life-ending procedure,” the story received no substantive coverage in America outside of the medical community.

The deafening silence now accompanying the not-so-subtle threats that people with disabilities face because of procedures like “Ashley’s Treatment,” mental illness based assisted suicide and infant euthanasia is appalling. Ashley’s story emerged three years after the major part of her surgery had been completed. Four infants were euthanized using the “Groningen Protocol” before the public even knew the protocol existed. How and why does this happen? And why does the Ashley story suddenly surface?

History has shown us that children with disabilities have been victims of involuntary sterilization, institutionalization, and widespread abuse, neglect, and death. Historically, society had little or no expectations for children with disabilities, and their families frequently felt shame. In the last 50 years, parents and professionals have united to reject these inhuman practices and to insist that our children have the same opportunity for lives of dignity and achievement that we expect for ourselves. EP magazine has been a leader in fighting to preserve the human dignity of life itself a life we all share, regardless of the existence or degree of disability we might encounter individually.

These dramatic news stories do not represent isolated instances of hard choices in hard times. Each story represents a conscious attempt to expand the number of life-ending or life-altering procedures available to physicians and parents who would choose to use them and, in so doing, rob the child of her or his human dignity. The creators of these procedures want them to be adopted and used by physicians and families throughout the world. The utilitarianism they promote in the name of compassion is nothing other than new language and new ideas designed to encourage the systematic denigration of those with disabilities, stripping them of the basic human right to life and dignity. Over sixty years ago, millions died to rid the world of people who perpetrated these same shameful acts in the name of bogus science. Have we now ignored that sacrifice and the lessons they taught us?

It is an outrage that no court or ethics committee engaged in the soul-searching debate a procedure like “Ashley’s Treatment” should have generated. It is an outrage that society should countenance extreme surgical procedures and hormone injections as a solution to the challenges of caring for a six year old with complex disabilities. It is a shame and an affront to the human dignity of every one of us to permit these procedures on even one child. We need to make it right and make sure it never happens again.

We are heartened that so many organizations within the disability rights movement in America have acted swiftly to condemn “Ashley’s Treatment.” Their actions are justified on several fronts. But we all must become more zealous in our efforts to expose and condemn all similar affronts to human dignity posed by practices like the Groningen Protocol and the use of assisted suicide to address serious mental illness.

We see “Ashley’s Treatment,” the “Groningen Protocol,” and the Swiss assisted suicide decision as thinly veiled attempts to objectify and desensitize the value of human dignity. It should never be acceptable in America for a care-providing parent or guardian to authorize and procure “Ashley’s Treatment” for a child and have the decision be “not difficult.” The difficult action, and the action we at EP choose to take, is to fight for the human dignity we all have the right to possess. Taking that away should not just be difficult; it should be impossible. And it should make us all angry that these efforts to strip human dignity are happening all around us in relative secrecy. We cannot let these
stories fade away or our dignity fades away with them. We need to be ever mindful of the words “all that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to stand by and do nothing.”
Please, for our children’s sake, their children and generations to come, let us not stand idly by. Let us do something. We urge the following:

* EP calls upon all professional medical, dental, and other health
care related organizations, associations, and societies to come
forward with a statement denouncing these treatments and
sanctioning those who take part in it.

* EP asks private foundations as well as federal and state
agencies and departments to consider cutting off all grants to
those hospitals or institutions that allow such procedures to
take place.

* EP calls upon all of science and medicine to denounce publicly
the Groningen Protocol, Ashley Treatment, and the Swiss decision
on assisted suicide.

* EP encourages all disability organizations that have not yet
issued statements to join with us in this effort.

And what will we, EP magazine, do as a publishing and
communications company? We will do what we do best, publish and
communicate. And what form will this take, specifically?

* EP will continue to offer articles in its print publication and
on it website that inform and educate parents and professionals
about resources and best practices. The operative words are
inform and educate. We are not in the business of inciting.

* EP will explore hosting an EPLiveOnLine seminar series
http://www.epliveonline.org which will explore topics
such as:

- the history of human rights and medical abuses perpetrated
against those with disabilities

- the protocol and principles employed by modern day ethics
boards and committees

- a review of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights

* EP will re-dedicate itself to constantly scanning the disability
landscape, nationally and internationally, for murmurs of abuses
such as the Ashley Treatment, the Groningen Protocol, and the
Swiss assisted suicide issue. When found, EP will bring these
issues to the fore, endeavoring to keep them from slipping
beneath the public radar screen.

* EP will encourage, through verbal and written communiquis, the
primary care physicians, pediatric and adult neurologists,
psychiatrists, occupational and physical therapists,
developmental disability nurses, physical medicine and
rehabilitation specialists and other allied health care
professionals with whom we have relationships and contacts to
take every opportunity available when they teach and present to
mention the “slippery slope” phenomena discussed in this
article.

* EP will develop and provide, upon request, a brief PowerPoint
presentation that presents modern day issues that are too
reminiscent of past abuses and horrors.

* EP pledges to provide comprehensive, written materials and
specific informational pieces on how to access relevant
community supports and services and how to navigate federal and
state special education law. These will also be made available
on the EP website.

* In its continuing effort to be open and responsive to its
readers’ most pressing and prevalent questions and needs, EP
will set up a special channel on its website where readers can
pose questions on how to access community supports and services.

* EP will give voice to advocates by providing an abbreviated
version of this Position Statement on its website and allowing
website visitors the opportunity to express their support by
signing their names to this statement online.

Source: Exceptional Parent Magazine
http://www.eparent.com/newsletter/StatementToOrganizations.htm

An Ashley update

Tuesday, March 6th, 2007

At 4:51 CST yesterday, February 12, nine minutes before the FRIDA deadline, a representative of the AMA named Michael Lynch called our contact, Sharon Lamp, and left a voicemail to the effect that the AMA wants to explore setting up a meeting with our coalition.  They also wanted to know who would be at the meeting.  It is unclear at this time what Lynch’s AMA job is.

Sharon left a voicemail back and is working this morning to reach Lynch and nail down a date and time. Until we get a meeting date and time, hold your breaths, folks!!!

We think that, in addition to the letters and calls from the community, that the action conducted yesterday by Capitol Area ADAPT prompted the phone call. Please read on for Bobby Coward’s description:

“Capitol Area ADAPT sought to support Not Yet Dead, National ADAPT and Feminist Response in Disability Activism to demand the American Medical Association issue a resolution or statement condemning the ethics of the Ashley X case; the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA)  meet with FRIDA/ADAPT/NDY coalition to review the Ashley X case and open public dialogue on disability ethics and issue a statement of support for the Community Choice Act (formerly MiCASSA) because community supports should have been an option for Ashley.

“Capitol Area ADAPT entered the JW Marriott  in DC with less than a handful of members, although we was quite effective in our goal. With the small number of ADAPT members, we were not only able to enter hotel and bypass door security, we were able to take elevators down to conference area. When we arrived at the conference ballroom doors, the doors were blocked by hotel security. We tried to enter the first ballroom where the spouses of the AMA members were meeting, but we were stopped from entering. We began using subversion on the spouses, stating ADAPT believes that doctors should REPORT CHILD ABUSE, NOT COMMIT CHILD ABUSE! We also asked the spouses how can you support someone who practices eugenics. The spouses became quite disturbed with ADAPT and steered clear. Capitol Area ADAPT sought the conference site of the AMA members. We found the ballroom were the AMA members were and entry doors was blocked as well by security. Unknown to ADAPT the AMA had alerted the hotel security and police about demonstration activity and as soon as we approached entry doors where hotel security was posted. One police officer and a host of hotel security emerged on us and stated we were wondering when you all would show up. We asked could we speak to an AMA spokesman and we were denied. They told us that we had to leave because we were disturbing the conference. ADAPT received an escort out of the hotel and as we were escorted out, security informed us that the AMA knew we existed. SO FEW DID ACCOMPLISH SO MUCH!”

What a terrific action by Capitol Area ADAPT!!!!  Many thanks to everyone in the community who worked to get the FRIDA demands on the AMA’s radar!  Stay tuned for a follow up on getting a meeting date and time with our targets!!!!

FRIDA

A statement of solidarity

Tuesday, March 6th, 2007

A Statement of Solidarity for the Dignity of People With Disabilities – A Reaction to the “Ashley Treatment”

We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, are in agreement that the growth attenuation therapy administered to the little girl known as Ashley is an affront to her human dignity, and to that of all people with disabilities. Despite the good intentions of both her parents and the doctors who have treated her in accordance with their wishes, we condemn these medical procedures and declare that it is never ethically acceptable to medically alter a human being for the benefit of caregivers. Such unnecessary medical procedures without therapeutic indications demean the essential humanity of the person undergoing them and of all people with similar disabilities. Whether disabled or not, people must be given the opportunity to grow and develop according to their own capacity, whatever that may be. It is the duty of both caregivers and the hallmark of a progressive, civilized society to provide the means by which all of us can reach our full human potential.

Ashley is impaired by an unknown brain disorder. Our hearts go out to her parents, and we recognize that they love Ashley and are trying their best in very trying circumstances to care for their daughter. But these unnecessary medical procedures with no demonstrated therapeutic purpose, in which doctors have surgically and hormonally altered Ashley to remain small and childlike, are misguided. While it is true that none of us can walk in her parents’ shoes, we believe that this approach to easing the hardship of caring for a child with disabilities makes the child the problem, and by doing so, makes it acceptable for well-meaning people to deny the essential humanity of people with disabilities in the course of caring for them. People with disabilities are not the problem. The real issue is the lack of support, care, and help from our social, medical, and civil establishments for Ashley’s parents and for all those who care for people with disabilities. Yes, it is expensive. But the alternative is morally and ethically unacceptable in a society that honors life and human dignity. We call on our fellow citizens, our government, and our medical establishment to treat people with disabilities as people, not as problems. We stand together and demand that doctors and social service agencies never again use medicine to strip someone of their humanity through medical procedures like the “Ashley Treatment,” and call on our legislators to pass laws that codify the right of people with disabilities to their integrity as people.

To add your name to this document electronically, please go to
http://pub6.bravenet.com/guestbook/501900445 .

To read more about Ashley, go to http://www.ashleyx.info

To read about the Martin Treatment, one family’s positive answer to the Ashley Treatment
http://martintreatment.spaces.live.com/

Susan Fitzmaurice
ADA Coordinator,City of Dearborn
ADA Coordinator, Disability Network/ Wayne County

Speak out against the Ashley Treatment

Tuesday, March 6th, 2007

Speak out against the “Ashley Treatment”
ACTION ALERT

Fax/E-mail/Phone Campaign

Feminist Response in Disability Activism (FRIDA), with the support of
Chicago ADAPT, the national ADAPT community and Not Dead Yet,
urges you to speak out about the “Ashley Treatment.”

Our Targets: Seattle Children’s Hospital staff involved in the case of
nine-year-old Ashley’s growth attenuation and sterilization, as well as
Melinda Gates, chair of the Seattle Children’s Hospital fundraising
committee and Susan Macek, Director of Communications for Seattle
Children’s Hospital.

Why: To oppose their permission of what is now known as the “Ashley
Treatment,” and to condemn further permission of such “treatments” for
children with disabilities.

When: Thursday, January 11 & 12, 2007, starting at 9 am in your time zone.

Here’s The Story:

Ashley is a nine-year-old with a severe cognitive disability. In order to
keep her small and more easily cared for by her family, doctors at
Seattle Children’s Hospital are having her undergo hormone “therapy”
to stunt her growth. In addition, they surgically removed her breast
buds, uterus and appendix. The “Ashley Treatment,” as her parents
call it, is a medical “fix” to serious social problems we face in America
today. The first of these problems is a lack of quality home-based
services for people with disabilities. The second is the social attitude
that people with disabilities are less than human and therefore fair
game for experimentation. The third is a lack of understanding of
disability vs. illness: as Joe Hall of South Carolina has stated, “When
I was born my parents knew that I would never walk, but they would
have never thought it would be acceptable to cut my legs off.”

 

Tell these individuals that you oppose the Ashley Treatment, and that
children with disabilities regardless of cognitive level or ability, should
not be subjected to experiments and mutilation for the convenience of
others.

For your convenience, you may use the sample letter below, or edit it to
make it more personal.

Sample Letter:

Dear__________,

I am opposed to the Ashley Treatment. Despite the rationalization that this
treatment will improve the quality of life, it is nothing more than
experimentation and mutilation for the convenience of others. Children with
disabilities regardless of their cognitive abilities should not be subjected
to this barbaric practice. The Ashley Treatment is immoral, inhumane, and
unethical, and the danger is that the medical community can extend this
practice to all children with disabilities, with or without the consent of
parents. I urge you to end your support of this abhorrent “treatment” and
instead, give your support to more personal care services and supports for
parents of children with disabilities. It is the broken system that fails to
provide adequate community supports for people with disabilities that must
be fixed, not children with disabilities.

Sincerely,

Your Name

Contact Info:

Dr. Douglas Diekema
E-mail: Douglas.diekema@seattlechildrens.org
Phone: 206-987-2380
Dr. Daniel F. Gunther
E-mail: Dan.gunther@seattlechildrens.org
Phone: (206) 987-2380
Melinda Gates
Email: info@gatesfoundation.org
Susan Macek
Director of Communications, Seattle Children’s Hospital
E-mail: susan.macek@seattlechildrens.org
To review Ashley’s parents’ blog, please see:

http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/

To review one of the original articles as reported by the BBC, please see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm
We need to let the Seattle Children’s Hospital and its fundraising
chairperson know that the Ashley Treatment has not gone unnoticed
by those of us who live with disabilities.
Dr. Douglas Diekema
B-5520 – Emergency Medicine
4800 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Fax: (206) 987-3836

Dr. Daniel F. Gunther
M1-3 – Endocrinology
4800 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105
Fax: (206) 987-3836

Melinda Gates
PO Box 23350
Seattle, WA 98102
Phone: (206) 709-3100
Fax: (206) 709-3252
Email: info@gatesfoundation.org

Susan Macek
Director of Communications, Seattle Children’s Hospital
Phone: (206) 987-5201
Pager: (206) 469-6310
E-mail: susan.macek@seattlechildrens.org

ADAPT’s reaction to the Ashley Treatment

Tuesday, March 6th, 2007

ADAPT reacts to news of “Ashley Treatment”

For Immediate Release:
January 5, 2007

For Information Contact:
  Amber Smock (312) 253-7000 x191; Ambity@aol.com
  Marsha Katz (406) 544-9504; ADAPTMT@aol. com
  http://www.adapt. org

                 ADAPT Youth Appalled at Parents
         Surgically Keeping Disabled Daughter Childlike

Youth members of the national disability rights organization,
ADAPT, today expressed shock and outrage on behalf of the entire
national membership of ADAPT at the news of nine-year-old Ashley
from Seattle, whose parents had her uterus, appendix and breast
buds removed, in addition to having her undergo hormone injections
in order to minimize her height and weight as she grows older. In
their blog, Ashley’s parents have rationalized these drastic
measures to manipulate Ashley’s size and physical maturity by
saying it will be easier for them to care for her and involve her
in family activities.

“As a young woman with a disability, I am extremely disturbed on
multiple levels by Ashley’s situation,” said Amber Smock of
Chicago, Illinois. ” I am angry that Ashley’s parents, the medical
establishment and society at large think it is acceptable to
surgically and hormonally manipulate Ashley because the reality of
her adulthood as a person with a disability is too ‘grotesque’ for
them. With these drastic measures, her parents and doctors are
physically reinforcing the disrespectful attitude held by many
that people with disabilities are all “childlike,” and can be
treated like property or science experiments. ”

Ashley has now become a modern day symbol of the long and
dishonorable tradition of sterilizing people with disabilities. In
1927 the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Buck vs. Bell upheld that
tradition as a way to “eliminate defectives from the gene pool.”

Today, parents and others rationalize sterilization by saying it
will prevent any possibility of pregnancy from abuse. Ashley has
not been reported to be at risk of either abuse or pregnancy, and
her parents say that her only caretakers are themselves and her
grandmother. Ashley’s parents also say in their blog that removal
of her uterus will prevent her from having periods. For over two
decades there have been far less invasive means of suppressing
menstruation in women when medically indicated. It is not known
why Ashley’s parents resorted to the much more invasive procedure
of a hysterectomy.

“Perhaps even more distressing to those of us with disabilities, ”
said Smock,” is that a medical ethics committee supports treating
Ashley not as a human being, but as a ‘problem’ to be managed in a
way they wouldn’t consider or allow for other children. We have
enough difficulty with the medical establishment’ s power over our
lives, and its lack of recognition of disability as a social
status and not a medical problem that must either be “cured” or
“killed.” This case opens the door for other people with
disabilities to be subject to mutilation and chemical castration,
simply because we have a disability.”

“The severity of Ashley’s disability does not mean that it’s okay
to treat her as less than a full human being,” continued Smock.
“The impact of Ashley’s situation is not limited to just her and
her family. Ashley’s mutilation has started us down a slippery
slope where her case could very well be used as a precedent to
damage one person with a disability after another. Instead of
mutilating children, we need to put our energy into assuring that
people with disabilities and their families have the support they
need to age naturally and live lives of quality in their own homes
and communities. ”

On behalf of ADAPT, Youth ADAPT members encourage the Seattle
Children’s Hospital ethics committee that approved the invasive
procedures to issue a statement acknowledging the socially and
other harmful aspects of what Ashley’s parents are now touting as
the “Ashley treatment.”

Source: ADAPT

The Ashley Treatment

Tuesday, March 6th, 2007

I remember when this story first broke back in early January. I was listening to the BBC some time after midnight, which is the only time that you can catch it on the radio here, and only on NPR, at that. I was experiencing my usual bout of insomnia when this incredible story came on about a couple in Seattle who had a daughter with severe disabilities, who, though she was nine years old, had the mental age of a three month old due to an unknown form of brain damage. The parents, under the guise of making it easier to care for Ashley, their daughter, had her uterus and breast buds removed, as well as her appendix, and if that wasn’t enough, had her pumped full of estrogen in order to stunt her growth! And guess what? This was done to her when she was six years old! The estrogen treatments are ongoing.

Her parents refer to this sickening series of alterations and experimentation as the Ashley Treatment, and recommend other parents of children with severe brain damage to do the same thing to their kids.

As I listened to this, I couldn’t help thinking: no, this can’t be true. This is a joke, right? How can parents who love their child do this? Ashley’s parents say that they did it to make life more comfortable for Ashley, and to make it easier to care for her. They did not want her to be a target for sexual predetors, so they had her breast buds removed. They also said that large breasts ran in their family, as did breast cancer, so they did not want Ashley to have to deal with the discomfort of large breasts, or the risk of breast cancer. Ashley was given a hysterectomy so that she would not have to undergo menstruation. Her appendix was removed just in case it ruptured, and she was and is given estrogen to stunt her growth in order to make her more portable. They said that the decision to do what they did was not hard at all.

The parents call Ashley their Pillow Angel because if placed on a pillow, she remains there. Ashley cannot move or speak, but she is a gorgeous little girl with a beautiful smile, and the prettiest eyes. I cannot believe that parents would do this. As far as I am concerned, the reasons that they gave are a crock. They, along with the grandparents are the only ones who care for Ashley, so what sexual predetors are they protecting her from? Sure, breast cancer may run in her family, but that doesn’t mean that she will have it in the future. As for the discomfort of menstruation, well, what do you think Tylenol, and a heating pad are for? And, too much estrogen is bound to cause major problems. If Ashley got too big for her parents to lift, well, that’s what attendant services and Hoyer lifts are for

Face it — the only reason that Ashley’s parents did this to her was to make life easier for them. The horrors visited on Ashley would not have happened if she were not a child with disabilities, and a girl. If what had been done to Ashley was done to a non-disabled child, the parents would be in jail as we speak. Indeed, they would have been stopped before the first surgery!

I wonder what this slippery slope is leading to? If this can be sanctioned for children with severe disabilities, where does one draw the line? It was not very long ago that people with disabilities were euthanized, or placed in institutions against the will of their families. The Ashley Treatment speaks to the fact that the life of a person with a disability is still not as worthy or as sacred as the life of a non-disabled person, and though we are living in the 21st century, we, as activists, advocates, and parents who love our children, must maintain a strict vigilance and speak out against this injustice, lest we find ourselves repeating history.