Their roles in this controversy were as enablers. The parents felt that because Ashley had brain damage they needed to stop her growth and menstrual cycle. Even though the procedures were controversial the parents were still seeking for a way to make it happen. The so-called “treatments” that were performed were breast bud removal to discontinue the growth of her breast, a hysterectomy to get rid of her menstrual cycle, and estrogen therapy to weaken her growth. (Peace, 2007, 5) The supporters for the disabled believe that the physicians will never comprehend the true value of their deeds.
Dr. Douglas Diekema, who was the chairman of the ethics board of Seattle Children’s Hospital, stated that even he could not believe what the parents were asking he had to take in to consideration as to why they wanted the procedures done. (Gibbs, 2007,4) The treatment was not even tested yet and Ashley was not in any danger if she did not get the treatment. So was the treatment really beneficial to Ashley or more for her parents? For the sake of convenience, Ashley’s parents were willing to make an unethical request of doctors.
They wanted the treatments for the sake of making it being easier for them to move her and the ability to continue to lift Ashley up for baths and being able to dress her. (Gibbs, 2007,5) Ashley was only 6 years old when her parents decided to have all the procedures done. At such a young age her parents took away her identity. (Gibbs, 2007,8) Could they not find a better way to handle this? There could be a chance of Ashley being able to move an electronic wheelchair with her head had they waited to see if she was capable of that.
The Essay on Ashley Treatment Paper
The Ashley treatment also involves removing the growth factors such as the removal of breath buds and uterus and these are against the natural laws. As doctors, we should do anything possible to benefit the patient and not cause even more pain to a child who is already suffering. This argument is related to the natural law theory where the doctor thinks the Ashley treatment is preventing nature to ...
As much as the doctors wanted to help how far would they go to just to benefit the parents with the care of Ashley? “Turning people into permanent children denies them dignity and whatever subtle therapeutic benefit comes from being seen as adult. ” (Gibbs, 2007, ) This is made even more unethical because her parent’s claimed to be college educated professionals and so their decision goes to prove that it was for convenience. The parent’s preference trumps Ashley’s fundamental human rights.
Ashley’s parents were stunned at some of the comments that were posted on their chat boards. Some of the remarks were stating that they found the Pillow angel Ashley offensive and stated that it was “truly a milestone in our convenience society” and some just could not grasp the thought of why the parents chose this route. (Pilikington, 2007, 7) Would this treatment be tolerated if parents would want this for a healthy child? Mary Johnson who is an editor for Ragged Edge an online magazine for disabled activist said, “People have been horrified by the discrepancy. (Pilikington, 2007, ¶8) Mary Johnson was frightened at the fact that if another child with a different disease would get the same procedure but not have the same effects as Ashley. The co-writer of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, criticizing treatment for Ashley was an experiment without any research, stated that it was a “technological solution to a social program. ” (Pilikington, 2007, 10) The confidentiality laws in medicine are important especially for cases such as these because of the backlash and controversy it can stir.
