The 'Ashley Treatment'

[kiania]

This is an older story (well, early in the year), but I've got a discursive exam question on the scientific, ethical and social aspects of the so-called 'Ashley Treatment'. And to be honest, I'm so far one-sided, I'm having problems coming up with a logical opposition against it. Any thoughts welcome, I'm just after something that at least makes vague sense!

Here's a link to explain

[Pyrosama]

Some of the cons in the "Ashely Treatment" I think revolve around accountability when doctors misinterpret the role of the ethics committee. I would think that the committee would usually hear benefit to risk analysis which in this case would have proven to have more benefit. However, if the doctors do not recognize the role of the ethics committee, then this could set precedence wherein doctors/hospitals could just apologize for the oversight of their obligation to involve the committee and leave things open to abuse in the future.

To me, since we know that there is benefit in this case, it's easy to agree with the doctors and the procedures that were performed, but from what I've been reading, there was a total work-around that avoided the ethics committee. If there is an ethics committee to begin with, that would lead one to believe that there had been abuses in the past and so part of the process is to involve the committee.

One counter argument that might ensue is the whole thing about committees slowing things down and not coming to a conclusion quickly enough. Hmmm...maybe that's why there was such an oversight in involving the ethics committee to begin with?

You never know.

[Ysadri]

The main "con" I see in this is the precedent it could possibly set. I feel this is a fairly cut-and-dried case. The child will never be more than an infant. It makes sense to not subject her to the physical stress and possible trauma of puberty, as well as to make it easier for her to be cared for at home.

That being said, there are those who will take this as tacit permission to make changes to those they feel are 'inconvenient'. Already some feel that the mentally handicapped should be sterilized, as well as those with cerebral palsy, autism, and anything genetically transmitted. It's a short step from there to eugenics. Which is far more appealing in theory than in practice. After all, who decides who is worthy to breed?

Taking it a step further, if it's okay to sterilize or physically alter anyone who might require care, why not just get rid of them? Don't get me wrong, I think it's horrible that we will mercifully put animals who are suffering to sleep, but force humans to live in pain. Then we go back to the question, who decides? After all, if we use the above criteria, Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant men on the planet, would neither have been permitted to father children or even live. If we enforce the idea that only the "worthy" can reproduce, the most intelligent man in the US, a farmer in Missouri, would probably never have been born.

That is the con in the "Ashley Treatment". The precedent it sets to do this with far less reason.

[kiania]

Two good points. Should be able to waffle those into a page

[Savaric]

I think it's selfish and disturbing.

[Gromgor]

To be perfectly honest I'm not totally certain how I feel regarding this. I tend to view things logicly and with a greater than average coldness. This case is confusing however because everything can explained as being for the childs benefit and I don't actually have a problem with any of the things the parents have done. I am confused regarding the reaction others have given the parents. I usually understand why people react the way they do, I just disagree with it.

In this instance though, the outcry against it seems to stem from "It's not natural" moreso than "it's not humane". Stopping her growth, the changes that would come with puberty and the other things are all a result of the parents wish for her comfort. It has an added side-effect of making it more convenient for them.

I fail to see where all the hate is coming from. Is a parent cursed when they have a child? Is there some divine oration that dictated that parents are only good parents if they are as miserable as it's possible for a situation to be? What is so wrong about the fact that their life isn't made exponentially more difficult than the average parents? Do they REALLY have to be burdened to a greater degree than the average parent before they are considered a good parent in the eyes of the public masses?

So they have a child they can easily pick up. Will never grow up the way other kids do. If I read the article and understood what it said correctly then she would not have grown up the way other kids do anyway. She would have suffered horribly and never had the mentality to understand why. Her mind is stunted, her body would have been in a state of chaos. As she grew larger the difficulties and stresses it would have put on her and her parents would have been far less humane than denying her a "normal" progression. Something nature had already denied her in the first place.

What I do see is parents with a daughter. They have given her what they feel to be the best they can give her. Sometimes normal life is denied and the abnormal must be assumed.

Humanities belief that it's only validated and worthy when lived the way each individual lives it (meaning a few billion different beliefs) is a belief system that will only inspire disagreement. As such, to any who believe the parents have committed some horrible deed, realize that morality and ethics are relative terms. I am certain that the things I find perfectly moral would be considered barbarous to the average person.

[kiania]

Originally posted by Savaric
I think it's selfish and disturbing.

...want to expand as to why?

[Rosuav]

This is a difficult case. If it's true that she will always have the mind of a three-month-old, then letting her have the body of a nine-year-old is not that much different from letting her body grow at its normal pace. She and her parents are not going to have an easy life. Is it better to tinker with the natural order of things, when it won't completely solve the problem anyway?

[asgoth]

Originally posted by kiania
This is an older story (well, early in the year), but I've got a discursive exam question on the scientific, ethical and social aspects of the so-called 'Ashley Treatment'. And to be honest, I'm so far one-sided, I'm having problems coming up with a logical opposition against it. Any thoughts welcome, I'm just after something that at least makes vague sense!

Here's a link to explain

Before i go on - i believe that the decision the doctors and parents took was right. On the other hand, there are ethical, social and medical aspects which need to be weighed.

To start with the ethical issues, those in my eyes mostly revolve around the word when.

When is this kind of treatment correct. Whom do we trust to make that decision, and what are the grounds for this decision. While in this single case it may be easy to answer these question that may not be as easy in other cases.

Another ethical issue is that noone truly knows what Ashley thinks or feels. Would it bring her discomfort ? Would she perhaps recognize someone once she passes puberty ? Would she truly pass puberty ? All these questions are unanswered. The treatment makes these questions moot by ensuring that none of this will ever happen.

There should be a few more ethical issues along those lines. But i would rather poke towards medical issues.

Any surgery leaves scars. Any treatment has side effects. Are all those covered, and is ensured that Ashley will not suffer from side effects while being unable to voice them ? How will this affect her bodily functions ?

Surgery is risky, and with a patient who is unable to give feedback on the situation, this is doubly so.

There is one final large concern, which can be voiced. I would classify this as a social issue, but that can be argued. It revolved around the question if all this truly was done for Ashley, or for her parents. Noone should doubt they love her, but the question wether she would really not appreciate her body growing up can hardly be answered. And it is no secret that this would put a significantly larger strain on the family than the current situation already does. Hence, the question of whom was it done for can be discussed.

Again, after having written all this, i wish to point out again that i do agree with the treatment in this case. In my eyes, the decision for this treatment is viable. I do not call it a good decision, as no decision for such drastic measures can ever be "good" in my eyes.

A.

[kiania]

Had the exam this morning! Thanks for all the comments and thoughts, I think I got everything in