Our own Ashley X

The case of Katie Thorpe has exposed outdated language and attitudes in the media, says Emma Bowler, a disabled mother of a disabled child.

A hysterectomy, removal of breast buds, oestrogen therapy to stop her growing – it’s hard to forget the case of “Ashley X”, the nine-year-old disabled American who hit the headlines earlier this year.

The case sparked a fierce ethical and human rights debate and the question “surely it could never happen here?” was left lingering, unanswered.

But that answer could be just around the corner as the case of Katie Thorpe, a 15- year-old with cerebral palsy (cp), is thrashed out here in the UK. Katie’s mother wants her to have a hysterectomy to spare her the indignity of periods and she has the backing of surgeons who are seeking legal consent to carry out the operation.

Much of the media coverage has been along the lines of the Telegraph’s “Let disabled Katie Thorpe’s mother decide”, which doesn’t seem like the best idea if you then go on to read the Sunday Times headline, “Keep my daughter a child, mother pleads”.

Several papers still trot out the language gaffs of The case of Katie Thorpe has exposed outdated language and attitudes in the media, says Emma Bowler, a disabled mother of a disabled child yesteryear – “confined to a wheelchair”, “victim”, “suffers from”. The Sun describes Katie as “wheelchair bound” and says the outcome will have implications for other “handicapped girls”.

The Daily Mail lays it on with a trowel how living with a disabled child is akin to a living hell. Their “humbling true story” article quotes Katie’s mum as living “a life sentence”, as she endures “thumping headaches” from her “hard and unrewarding” life.

Fortunately, there have been attempts at incorporating balance and even the voice of disabled people into the debate.

Preethi Manuel’s article, “Parents don't always know what is best for their disabled children”, in the Guardian, explains how she too has a daughter who has cp but they celebrated her coming of age with a special meal, not major surgery.

Andy Rickell in the New Statesman asks who is really representing Katie’s interests. He points out that the UK signed the United Nations convention, in which article 23 makes specific reference to protecting disabled people’s reproductive rights.

If the operation is carried out, it will be the first time a hysterectomy has been performed in the UK without being needed medically. Then where will the line be drawn? Indeed, Katie’s mum also wants her to have her appendix removed, as she wouldn’t be able to tell if her daughter developed appendicitis. Heaven help Katie if she starts getting headaches.