The Ashley Treatment: Practical, but Ethical? Essay

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

A team of physicians aided Ashley’s parents in the process of doing all of her procedures. Their roles in this controversy were as enablers. The parents felt that because Ashley had brain damage they needed to stop her growth and

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.

Perhaps one of the most controversial topics in the field of health sciences is the use non-human test subjects by medical research institutions. Animals used for experimentation can provide extremely important information due to their physical and genetic similarities to humans. The tradeoff to furthering the field of medical science is that often times these experiments result in pain, suffering, and death of the test subjects.

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.

In the early to middle 1900’s human experimentation was extremely common and often did not require any consent. As this research was being conducted there were many developments in medicine and research, but the way these experiments were performed were not ethically acceptable. During this time scientists had easy access to the terminally ill, hospitalized patients and soldiers which allowed them to do all of this scientific research. According to Horner and Minifie (2011), without consent from patients, many diseases were transmitted, such as gonorrhea, cancer and countless other diseases as well. These experimentations were condoned by some, but not everyone had the same outlooks toward it. A lot of these experiments eventually hit the media,

Imagine a scenario in which a competent parent would refuse medical care for their child. At first glance, it may sound preposterous. However, what if the medical treatment is hazardous? What if the child is begging for an alternative treatment? Due to the pain the current treatment is causing him or her. The United States of America greatly prides itself on its “rights-based” legal culture. However, it also prides itself on protecting the rights of its citizens. If a parent refuses medical treatment for his or her child, the state could interfere and take that child away, on the basis of child neglect and abuse. The child would then be forced to continue treatment, despite any fears of apprehensions from the child’s parent. This is precisely the struggle that occurred when the Whittaker parents refused chemotherapy treatment for their daughter, Sarah. The central issue of this controversy comes from a struggle between parents’ autonomy in caring for their child, contrasted with the state’s interest in protecting the child they believe is at risk, state paternalism. The ethical dilemma is whether the state may order medical treatment against the parents’ autonomy.