"Her name is Ashley X, and she is the little girl who will never grow up.
Until New Year's Day, not even her first name was known. Ashley was a faceless case study, cited in a paper by two doctors at Seattle Children's Hospital as they outlined a treatment so radical that it brought with it allegations of "eugenics", of creating a 21st-century Frankenstein's monster, of maiming a child for the sake of convenience.
The reason for the controversy is this: Three years ago, when Ashley began to display early signs of puberty, her parents instructed doctors to remove her uterus, appendix and still-forming breasts, then treat her with high doses of estrogen to stunt her growth.
In other words, Ashley was sterilized and frozen in time, for ever to remain a child. She was only 6 years old.
Ashley, the daughter of two professionals in the Seattle area, never had much hope of a normal life."
Shocked?!?!
Well, you weren't alone. Furthermore, I would venture to say that this wasn’t an accident; more like one of the most blatant examples of the sensationalist brand of journalism
The article clearly lead the reader to believe that this is a twisted case of parents abusing their child in ways that Stephen King, Hitler’s crazy scientists or Dr. Moreau couldn’t even imagine.
However, when (and if) you make it to the rest of the article, which by the way is,
- More than a 1/5 of the way down from the top of the page
- After a couple of advertisements
- And, well below the fold
…you come to realize that Ashley X, is severely physically and mentally disabled. She cannot, walk, sit-up, talk and at 9 years-old has the mental ability of a three month old baby.
In order for her to survive she will need to be cared-for for the rest of her life. Her parents AND her doctors have taken these extreme measures (hormone therapy and various surgical procedures) citing reasons that would benefit Ashley’s health as well as her parents’ ability to care-for her.
And that, my friends, is the crux of what has sparked an international debate.
Now maybe in a future entry I will reach my own point of view on this issue (after educating myself a bit on the topic), but for now let’s focus on the couple of points that makes this foxnews article, such a horrendous display of journalism.
The intro piece of the article states “The reason for the controversy is this: Three years ago, when Ashley began to display early signs of puberty, her parents instructed doctors to remove her uterus, appendix and still-forming breasts, then treat her with high doses of estrogen to stunt her growth.”
Hmmm, that’s the reason for “the controversy”, really? What exactly does controversy mean again?
Controversy (as defined by Webster’s Dictionary): A discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views.
Now I ask you…where is the controversy? What person in their right-mind, with 1/10 of a soul and 1/100 of a conscience would be able to rationalize this behavior? (Now remember, at this point in the article the “journalist” makes no mention of the child’s condition)
It is the child’s condition and the radical treatment the parents pursued (which by the way was approved by a panel of ethics experts at the
Finally, Journalism 101 teaches us (which most of us learned in middle school), to give the reader all the pertinent facts within the first paragraph.
Here are two examples of how others covered the same story, on the same day (
BBC:
CNN via the AP:
Note that even though the examples above are not classic, they still present one of the more important facts the reader needs to know.
I’m not entirely sure why this bothered me so much. Normally I don’t pay attention to things like this and just go about my day, but for one reason or another; this got me got me goin’.
But then, in a moment of clairvoyance, I found solace in this.
Without news networks like Fox, who would “The Colbert Report” spoof? Who would the “Daily Show” look to night-in and night-out to fuel their hilarious TV show?
For all of that, I thank you FoxNews. After all, someone has to be you.
