[statecom-discuss] Re: [statecom] State Committee Minutes -
1/27/07
David Rolde
davidrolde at comcast.net
Thu Feb 1 19:30:03 EST 2007
Statecom followed proper procedure as well as the spirit of our
party's consensus process in making the decision to ask or allow
Adcom to craft a statement about the issue of the Ashley Treatment. I
believe there were 27 people present at the meeting. Nobody there
voiced a concern about the basic premise that what was done to Ashley
is wrong and that we should have a statement about this. Everyone
present agreed that we trust Adcom to come up with the statement
wording. We were not aware that anyone in the party had serious
concerns. Martina had posted the proposal to this very email list
two weeks before the State Committee meeting, and no concerns had
been raised. Adcom, as they are required to be, is open to input
and help from other party members in wording the statement . Thus the
discussion of this issue continued after the statecom meeting on the
statecom-discuss list. And Adam and others have expressed their
concerns prior to a statement being issued. I believe that there
has not been any statement issued yet.
The expedited round is the portion of a state committee meeting where
we consider proposals about which few concerns have been raised. We
allow a few minutes discussion on such proposals in the hopes that we
can adopt uncontroversial proposals towards the beginning of the
meeting. If there are concerns that can't be resolved in a few
minutes then we bump the proposal to the regular round (where we
might run out of time while discussing more controversial
proposals). The proposal to have Adcom write this statement was able
to be adopted by State Committee during the expedited round.
"Disabled" people have been and are subject to terrible mistreatment
and oppression in this country. We need to stand in solidarity with
victims of this oppression and participate in the struggle to end
this oppression. When "disabled" people, and even temporarily able-
bodied people, who are aware of this oppression, see that a little
girl is given a mastectomy, hysterectomy and growth-stunting hormones
because she is labeled "disabled", we are struck with fear that
something like this could be unjustly done to us or to someone we
know or to someone else who we don't know. This case seems to fit
into a pattern of "disabled" people being desexualized and infantilized.
A possible compromise could be a statement saying that the publicity
about the Ashley Treatment prompted us to make a general statement
about medical and other oppression of "disabled" people. We could do
it without taking a specific position on Ashley's case. But I do
actually think that we should take a position on Ashley's case. I
have read part of Ashley's parents' blog. There was no medical
necessity for these extreme procedures that were done to Ashley. It
is not like she had cancer in her breasts or uterus that needed to be
removed. They only cite reasons of comfort and convenience for
themselves and for Ashley. They also call Ashley their "pillow
angel" and want to keep her in the state of being this adorable
little object. In a way this is nice but in a way it is an offensive
way to think of a person. But I think the most distressing thing
that I found in reading their website was that this is groundbreaking
"treatment" - they call it the Ashley Treatment because there is no
name for what they have done to her because it hasn't been done to
anyone else - and that it might set a precedent for this to be done
to other "disabled" children. How would the decision be made about
which child this should be done to or shouldn't be done to? One of
our State Committee members has a brother who was misdiagnosed as
being mentally retarded because he is a dwarf - he grew up in an
institution for mentally retarded children and no one realized that
he was of "normal" intelligence until he reached an advanced age.
Everyone is saying that Ashley has the mentality of a 3-month-old.
But Ashley's parents on their website say that Ashley "loves music
and often gets in celebration mode of vocalizing, kicking, and
choreographing/conducting with her hands when she really likes a song
(Andrea Boccelli is her favorite – we call him her boyfriend)."
This isn't 3-month-old infant behavior according to my experience
with babies. I don't know what Ashley's real mental capacity is.
Perhaps she will be happier than she would have been without this
medical intervention - perhaps not. But I do know that I don't want
these procedures to become standard for people who are deemed to be
mentally defective. This is not just about sterilization. Deaf/
blind people, people who are labeled as being "mentaly retarded",
etc. grow up to be productive adult human beings and have normal
friendships and romantic and sexual relationships. There is no good
justification for medically intervening in order to keep a person in
a pre-pubescent state unless it is necessary to preserve their life.
I hope that Adcom can go ahead with a statement based on statecom's
authorization and request. i do think that we need to adopt more
comprehensive positions on disability rights and against medical
abuse at a future state committee meeting or state convention. We
need to make it clearer where we stand in this liberation struggle.
In a way Adam is right that we haven't been clear enough in
supporting this struggle thus far so these issues do merit more
discussion. But a full State Committee meeting did consider the
Ashley Treatment issue and did send it to Adcom to craft a
statement. This is why the "fast-paced rules and procedures
discussion" at the end of the discussion of the proposal was
important. It is important that statecom asked Adcom to write a
statement rather than having the issue go straight to Adcom without a
statecom opinion. I believe the result of the fast-paced discussion
was that Statecom did, with no concerns, ask Adcom to act on this
matter. I would like the minutes to reflect this clearly.
If some party members have remaining concerns about the statement,
Adcom should try to address the concerns as best they can.
- David
On Feb 1, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Adam Sacks wrote:
> Dear Statecom -
>
> I am appalled at the statecom action in this "Expedited
> Round" (whatever that means). It is crystal clear from the e-mail
> exchanges to date that there is far from general agreement on
> Ashley's medical procedures. Similar to the Israel-Palestine
> issue, to me this response is utterly disrespectful of the
> diversity of opinion expressed to date. Nor, in my opnion, is it a
> rational response to the actual situation, but a general outrage at
> the trespasses of the medical system and social engineering. That
> outrage is frequently well-placed, but to reflexively generalize it
> to just any circumstance is in itself beyond the pale of the
> rational. There are statements about Ashley's treatment that I
> could support such as more extensive ethical review, historical
> concerns, and suggestions of alternatives - but not condemnation of
> any parties involved in this particular instance.
>
> But fundamentally this is not about Ashley, nor is it about IP. It
> is about profound lack of respect by party leadership or by a few
> persistent hypervocal activists for people who don't get to every
> meeting (David's comments about our not having leaders, only
> administrators, notwithstanding). It is about co-option by those
> who will not tolerate disagreement that is not politically correct
> from their perspective, and about undermining anything resembling
> democratic process within the party.
>
> Adam
>
> BTW, I would suggest that sterilization of someone who never should
> have children (since it would only occur by rape) cannot be
> categorized
> as genocide or eugenics, since that person would not reproduce in
> any case.
>
>
>
> =============================
>
>
> "Expedited Round:
>
> F - Ashley Treatment Proposal
>
> Presented by Martina Robinson
>
> Ashley is a severely disabled person in Washington State whose body
> chemistry and physiology is being altered to prevent her from going
> through puberty. Martina believes that the GRP should speak out
> against this procedure because our platform is consistent with
> opposing this. The GRP should issue a press release or statement that
> condemns this issue and offers alternatives.
>
> David Rolde and Elie Yarden agreed that we should condemn the medical
> industry that allowed this to happen and not the parents.
>
> Wanda Boeke asked if the recommendations of the medical profession
> were followed.
>
> Gary Hicks said that anything that goes into this statement must
> relate that "this kind of crap" was going on for a long time, i.e.
> eugenics.
>
> Q: Colby Peterson asked if this has already happened:
> A: Yes, it happened on January 6th.
>
> There was a fast-paced rules and procedures discussion that
> degenerated.
>
> The proposal moves to AdCom.
> Annie Butler trusts that the AdCom and Martina can work out the
> wording."
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
More information about the statecom-discuss
mailing list