The Ashley Treatment: Practical, but Ethical? Essay

It has been more than five years since the Ashley Treatment but the topic is still very much alive for a few reasons. One being, that the treatment is still being given (at least 12 given so far in the U.S.), secondly because of the legal issues raised and thirdly due to the moral issues it raises. In my opinion, the moral issues it raises are enough to oppose the treatment in itself.

This Rights model, more specifically Ashley’s human rights is very present in the article. It could be argued that she doesn’t need or require the treatment to medically improve her life. The Equal and Human Rights Commission (2008) suggest that human rights are the freedoms that we are all entitled to as a result of our shared humanity. I understand that she is unable to speak and is unlikely to have the mental capacity to make that decision but does that automatically transfer that decision to her parents? The United Nations Convention on the Rights for a Child (1989) plays an important part of the Rights model for this text as I feel it both supports and opposes the parent’s actions. Article 23 concentrates on children’s disability by stating that ‘Children who have any kind of disability have the right to special care and support, as well as all the rights in the Convention, so that they can live full and independent lives.’ This could support Ashley’s parent’s’ motives. However, Article 3 states ‘The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children.’ In this case are the parents doing what’s best for Ashley or themselves? This is a good example where the Rights model can get itself in a twist!

Intro: Parents will often refuse to treat their children with modern medical sciences that could save their child, but how they go about refusing it makes it very frustrating for the government to intervene.

The Physically handicapped are maltreated in today's society. Although the teasing and maliciousness is behind more closed doors it still frequently occurs

Looking at the extraordinary medical procedures that have become routine today, one rarely stops to CONTEMPLATE the backgrounds or research that went into creating our rich medical knowledge, but not a single one of these few could ever imagine the dark background behind much of our understanding of iatrics. It would often be assumed to be a result of tests on animals, dissections of cadavers, or through observational study. On the contrary, much of it comes as a result of twisted, malicious, and inhumane experimentation on live human beings, with a complete disregard for human life. To these doctors, the victims weren’t human; they were much less than that. Seeing as they personally designed these experiments and desired to learn more

Although I can understand why her parents chose to begin this therapy and that they are her legal guardians, I find it hard to agree that it is ethical. My main reasoning for this is that when listing out their reasons for providing Ashley with the treatment they discuss the increased mobility thru caregiver and chance of living at home. This to me, appears more as a direct benefit to the caregiver, not necessarily Ashley. It seems as though the parents are choosing this option so that the difficulties associated with raising a disabled child are

Ashley has preexisting medical issues including a single functioning kidney, heart murmur, and bi-polar disorder which would put her at high-risk during a pregnancy. The unplanned pregnancy has resulted in additional damage to her only functioning kidney, job losses for her and her husband Kyle due to excessive absences, medical bills, and expenses to date totaling approximately $64,000.

After appearing as a contestant on "The Swan," Arias faced a lot of negative reactions from those who knew her before the surgery” (Huffington Posts). Her two sons said, “She does not even look like my mom anymore.” Nobody deserves to wake up in the morning, in regret to a life changing decision that altered the inner beauty that they had. Another negative effect is the

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

This option is ethically wrong as it results in long term effects on her wellbeing but ethically right to provide independence to Sandy, but she is a minor and does not adequately understand her health risk and status. So, some of the paternalism can be obligatory. Sandy’s should not be more responsible and avoid the negligence as it is a matter of fact it may result in long term heath

There have been many instances in science where ethical consideration for human participants has been called into question. Between 1920-1970 many ethical guidelines were put into place to ensure researchers were conducting experiments safety, ethically, and fairly. Out of all the experiments that took place within this time frame, a few stand out. These cases were groundbreaking for ethical treatment within the scope of research done on human subjects.

Ashley took a long time to open up to people. Some people may think, why is it so hard for her to open up to others? All you had to do is start up a conversation. Why does she shut herself out of the real world? The reason why Ashley had such a hard time opening up to others was because she was abused. Her foster parents put it into her mind that she shouldn’t speak about what she was going through or else she would be punished. One time the Moss’s had some inspectors come by the house. She told the kids to put on a show to make it look like a great foster home, “ Surely Mrs. Moss would punish me if she thought I was ruining her little show” (Rhodes-Courter 92). Mrs. Moss chose to have the children sing, You are my Sunshine after she heard Ashley sing it to one of the younger kids to cheer her up. By doing so, she struck a chord in Ashley because that song was Ashley’s mother and her song. That song was the song that tied happiness to her relationship with her mother. That moment symbolized the loss of hope Ashley had to be taken out of the foster home. Another reason some people may not agree that Ashley Rhodes-Courter is successful is because, after living with her adoptive family for a few months, Ashley drugged her parents. No kid should drug their parents, it’s wrong. Even if the child is mad or finds it amusing they shouldn’t do it, because it’s not ethical. The reason why Ashley had the audacity to drug her parents was because she was peer pressured into doing so. She was friends with a girl named, Brooke. Brooke wasn’t a great influence on Ashley, Brooke was that child that liked to do the wrong things. She once had Ashley wait 30 minutes after a movie was finished so she could make out with her boyfriend, “When I dragged Brooke outside, Gay- who had been waiting for more than a half hour- was seething” (Rhodes-Courter 242). Brooke wanted to hang out with her boyfriend, but her

People could die from these type of things, they may be saving lives but in reality when they see if the medicine, treatment, or procedures are tested things can go wrong and people suffer because of this, Human experiments are just horrible to do we can't do this to people, they have families to get back to and they can't take that person away from that family. If that ever happened to you how would you feel if you were taken away from your family. Experiments on living beings are just horrible because you're just acting like that its life doesn't matter. We need to take care of these kind of

It is easy to see the reasons that led Sara and Brian to make the decision, but following your heart is not always the ethical thing to do. The doctor mentioning the option of genetically engineering a child is unethical. The code of ethics that challenges both these actions is “act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustee, and shall avoid conflicts of interest,” (Grimm). Both decisions are conflicts of interest as the doctor and parents do not see the effects of both Kate and the future child. First, as the doctor, I would never mention genetically engineering a baby as an option to a family I would not have the right to suggest something so life changing, and the possible outcome of the family could be severe and are unknown. The doctors decision in not ethical. Also, as a parent, I would not create a child to cater my other child’s needs, due to the fact that it is not fair to both children. I believe the decision made my Brian and Sara is unethical. They decided to create a baby for the sake of sacrificing one child to save another's life.

In real life, people who have undergone serious physical medical experimentation can end up having medical complications further on in life. People have filed lawsuits against people who medically experimented on them, and there are many law firms who fight for this sort of thing. I end up feeling sorry for people who ended up having complications after certain procedures. Part of me can’t ignore the serious experiments on human beings or animals.