The Community Garden is growing! This is the third year for the garden, and we are all very proud of it. The garden provides an opportunity to get your hands dirty in a fun social setting.
Sage says "This outdoor classroom will either reinforce your very own gardening skills or it'll teach you the skills you need to grow something mighty and solid from a small seed."
Upcoming gardening days are June 22, July 20, and August 24th from 11:30 to 3:30. Sage would appreciate a call to "reserve your garden tool". (860)823-1898
We hope to see you there!
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Week of July 1 through July 7
To keep all readers apprised of the current happenings here at DNEC, we want to let everyone know that DNEC staff will not be readily available to take phone calls or see consumers during the week of July 1st through the 7th. All staff will be checking voicemail in case of emergencies though so feel free to call.
Pillow Angel Treatment = Eugenics?
The following is being reprinted from our winter 2007 newsletter
Do “Pillow Angel Ethics” = Eugenics?
Over the past few weeks I have seen a growing number of stories on the “Pillow Angel”. The internet is full of blogs and websites arguing the ethics of a family’s moral dilemma. The basic story behind this ever-expanding controversy is a short one: Ashley, a nine-year-old girl, was born with “static encephalopathy of unknown etiology”. In English, Ashley has a disease of the brain which has no obvious cause. Because of the alterations the encephalopathy caused in Ashley’s brain, she has significant cognitive disabilities. Doctors say that, intellectually, she functions at the same level as a “typical” 3 month-old infant. Ashley’s family loves her very much, and includes her in family life in every way possible including family vacations.
The controversy itself is simply that Ashley’s parents have used medical science to ensure that Ashley will remain the size of a child. Ashley received high doses of estrogen to halt her growth. In addition, she was given a hysterectomy, an appendectomy, and her breast buds were removed so that she would not develop breasts. The storm rages on surrounding this choice, and the debate has become ugly. Websites call Ashley’s parents “Nazi's”, and accuse them of practicing Eugenics.
The question I am faced with is a difficult and confusing one to answer. At DNEC, we believe in consumer choice and consumer control. These two ideas are paramount to what we do and supersede any of our personal opinions. Ultimately, the question becomes: “at what point is it acceptable to make decisions for other people?” Ashley, according to everything medical science knows, will never be able to make any decision for herself. The high-dose estrogen therapy was used in the 60’s and 70’s for cosmetic purposes to keep “typically” developing young women from getting tall, is this so tremendously different?
Ashley’s parents give logical and true reasons for taking this action. They say that it will be easier to provide for her care at home where she is loved and appreciated, reducing the need for institutionalization. They say that having less body mass will decrease the chance of skin breakdown, improve her digestion and reduce the risk of infections such as pneumonia.
On the other hand, did she need to have her uterus and ovaries and breast buds removed? Her parents say “yes”. Disability rights advocates say “no”. I say “I don’t know”. Legally, Ashley cannot have children because sexual intercourse with Ashley is considered to be a crime. Ashley cannot legally consent, and so any pregnancy would be the result of rape. In this regard her reproductive rights were not taken away because she never had any to begin with. This just seems to be such a slippery slope! At what point can we draw that line between the right to personal choice, and acknowledging that some individuals, like Ashley, cannot make choices.
I don’t have the answers to these difficult questions. In fact, I can’t even find the first thread to pull to try to unravel the messy knot of ethical dilemmas involved. I would, however, like to hear what you, the readers of this newsletter think. Send your thoughts to me at carriednec@yahoo.com or post them in the comments section here on the blog.
written by Carrie Czerwinski
Do “Pillow Angel Ethics” = Eugenics?
Over the past few weeks I have seen a growing number of stories on the “Pillow Angel”. The internet is full of blogs and websites arguing the ethics of a family’s moral dilemma. The basic story behind this ever-expanding controversy is a short one: Ashley, a nine-year-old girl, was born with “static encephalopathy of unknown etiology”. In English, Ashley has a disease of the brain which has no obvious cause. Because of the alterations the encephalopathy caused in Ashley’s brain, she has significant cognitive disabilities. Doctors say that, intellectually, she functions at the same level as a “typical” 3 month-old infant. Ashley’s family loves her very much, and includes her in family life in every way possible including family vacations.
The controversy itself is simply that Ashley’s parents have used medical science to ensure that Ashley will remain the size of a child. Ashley received high doses of estrogen to halt her growth. In addition, she was given a hysterectomy, an appendectomy, and her breast buds were removed so that she would not develop breasts. The storm rages on surrounding this choice, and the debate has become ugly. Websites call Ashley’s parents “Nazi's”, and accuse them of practicing Eugenics.
The question I am faced with is a difficult and confusing one to answer. At DNEC, we believe in consumer choice and consumer control. These two ideas are paramount to what we do and supersede any of our personal opinions. Ultimately, the question becomes: “at what point is it acceptable to make decisions for other people?” Ashley, according to everything medical science knows, will never be able to make any decision for herself. The high-dose estrogen therapy was used in the 60’s and 70’s for cosmetic purposes to keep “typically” developing young women from getting tall, is this so tremendously different?
Ashley’s parents give logical and true reasons for taking this action. They say that it will be easier to provide for her care at home where she is loved and appreciated, reducing the need for institutionalization. They say that having less body mass will decrease the chance of skin breakdown, improve her digestion and reduce the risk of infections such as pneumonia.
On the other hand, did she need to have her uterus and ovaries and breast buds removed? Her parents say “yes”. Disability rights advocates say “no”. I say “I don’t know”. Legally, Ashley cannot have children because sexual intercourse with Ashley is considered to be a crime. Ashley cannot legally consent, and so any pregnancy would be the result of rape. In this regard her reproductive rights were not taken away because she never had any to begin with. This just seems to be such a slippery slope! At what point can we draw that line between the right to personal choice, and acknowledging that some individuals, like Ashley, cannot make choices.
I don’t have the answers to these difficult questions. In fact, I can’t even find the first thread to pull to try to unravel the messy knot of ethical dilemmas involved. I would, however, like to hear what you, the readers of this newsletter think. Send your thoughts to me at carriednec@yahoo.com or post them in the comments section here on the blog.
written by Carrie Czerwinski
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
