[statecom-discuss] Ashley's Medical Treatment

[jturner at alum.rpi.edu]

<-----Original Message-----> 
>From: gracegrnrnbw at aol.com [gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]
>Sent: 1/29/2007 10:20:27 PM
>To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Ashley's Medical Treatment
>
> Jeff you write:"I was late and wasn't clear on the whole letter being
issued,
>but I'm
>
>biased
>
>against interfering in the private decisions of others without a very
>
>good
>
>overriding interest."
>
>
>
>That would imply that you totally agree with me - since Ashley was the
object 
>when it is HER decision which was clearly interfered with.

No, I don't. Infants don't make decisions..

>every battered woman has been told that others could not 'interfere'
because it
>was a 
>private situation. And while women were the property of their husbands,
this was 
>totally backed by the courts as well.

But parents can make all decisions for their infants unless their
actions are clearly harmful. Ashley's physical safety is not threatened.

>I had a very 'loving' mother who sexually abused me - even as an infant
when I
>could not 
>possibly have made my needs known. Was that a private matter?

This is not the same thing. Ashley is not going to mature at all and
will never suffer psychological harm as a result of having her growth
and development stunted.

>And I suppose by the same logic, since I was an infant it could not
have been
>painful or 
>destructive - and I guess since it was a private matter with someone
with very
>limited 
>mental capacity it does not matter?

It's a private matter because Ashley will always be totally dependent on
the same caregivers who are making the decision, or their assignees.

>I suppose the same logic applies to elders who are raped or abused as
long as
>they have 
>diminshed brain function?

I don't see this as abuse. I really don't see that Ashley is suffering
physical or psychological harm, nor that this sets a precedent that
would allow the abuse of elders.

>Jeff - this argument about privacy does not hold water as far as I can
tell-
>help me out?

I think Ashley's case is such that there is no overriding public
interest.

--Jeff