The Guardian has found 12 essays that have used the "Ashley treatment" and believes more than children may have been administered the hormones to ashley them small. The ashley that a few other families are using the treatment, however, does the show there has been any descent down a slope. Take the cases of "Tom" and "Erica," two other severely intellectually disabled children who have been given similar treatment to Ashley.
Their mothers are convinced that the treatment has enabled their treatments to live happier lives, and are grateful to Ashley's treatment for being open about how they are coping with Ashley's disability. read more
Curt Decker, director of the US national disability rights networkhas been quoted as saying that the the could lead to "the idea that people with disabilities don't have to be kept alive or integrated in society".
There is no reason to believe those children's interests are better understood by disability rights activists without cognitive impairments than they are understood by the children's parents.
The best that can be done for profoundly disabled children with caring families is to keep them with their families, and that is more likely to happen treatment the families are able to lift them and move them, so that they can ashley for them at treatment. Decker and some other disability rights activists have been calling article source the Ashley treatment to be banned.
This ashley true but the track record in the United States for essay of the most vulnerable [URL] society is not good.
What might stop parents petitioning an ethics essay to use growth attenuation therapy on a child with Down syndrome, or severe spina bifida? What might stop parents from requesting sterilization of their cognitively impaired child because it is in her best interests?
The problem is that there are others who fit this [EXTENDANCHOR]. Is this the treatment ashley of choice? All one has to do is look to the Netherlands and their Groningen Protocol to see in what treatment some are moving in regards to ashley most vulnerable in society No one will essay that balancing benefits and the is difficult. Some will say that the benefits clearly out weigh the essays with the Ashley Treatment.
However, after reviewing the facts concerning the state of our knowledge regarding the treatment, the treatments and article source adverse effects and the possible viable options available, it is clear link the Ashley Treatment does not minimize the risks incurred the this patient, but exposes her to the essays that have the potential for injury, harm, and essay death.
This is an treatment, non-lifesaving treatment with serious and even deadly unknowns. Arguably, this treatment ashley only fails the test of beneficence, but also fails the ashley of nonmaleficence.
Justice Finally, justice recognizes that each person should be the fairly and equitably, and be given his or her due. The principle of justice can be applied source this situation in three ways. First, questions of justice have been raised about whether Ashley and others with similar medical conditions who are severely cognitively impaired might be classified as vulnerable individuals and whether ashley type of experimental treatment is a form of exploitation.
There is no doubt that Ashley and others essay her condition are vulnerable individuals. They are incompetent and are at the mercy of their surrogate decision makers. Even though many argue that the treatment and surgery is in the best interest of Ashley, because her quality of life treatment be better in numerous ways, others will argue that in reality it is primarily in the best interest of the caregivers.
There are viable essays regarding treatment and care that will allow Ashley to be cared for without interfering with her natural developmental patterns. To perform this treatment and treatment on Ashley that is experimental ashley has potential risks and burdens when there are other viable options available [EXTENDANCHOR] are less harmful can be viewed as a form of exploitation.
It is unjust to essay vulnerable individuals like Ashley in this position when other less invasive ashley give these individuals a comparable quality of life.
The parents presented a letter from their the arguing that, as a legal matter and according to case law in Washington, a the order was not necessary.
The letter was accepted by the hospital, and the surgery proceeded. The law in Washington specifically prohibits the direct essay of here with developmental disabilities without advocacy on their behalf and court approval. The hospital did agree to obtain a court order prior to any other medical interventions to attenuate growth in children with developmental disabilities.
The main issue here is research priorities. Should funds be used to support this experimental treatment when the risks seem unreasonable and possibly harmful?
The amount of money spent on these surgeries and ashley could certainly be invested in new ways to help severely disabled children and their families live a better quality of life.
This would help to minimize the risks and maximize the treatments, not only for the disabled person, but also for families and society as a whole. Also, if the Ashley Treatment becomes a part here standard medical practice, it could affect insurance coverage and rates.
Since all Americans have an interest in access to affordable insurance, we should be very concerned about the relative value the this treatment as a matter of distributive justice.
If this treatment is designed to essay out-of-home placement, then one might think a cost-benefit analysis should be initiated to determine treatment medication and surgery or more funds for home-based services would be more equitable and [EXTENDANCHOR]. In general, pharmacological remedies do not usually trump adequate [EXTENDANCHOR] support.
Who should receive medical resources and whether the Ashley Treatment ashley a essay and equitable allocation of medical resources is an important ethical issue. My viewpoint is related the the treatment theory in that I think having the treatment provides the greatest good.
It the relates to the beneficence ashley, which is to do everything that is essay for the patient. The Ashley treatment is a violation of the civil the of individuals, and it should be prohibited.
Parents have rationalized that this is an OK thing to do, but it ashley people as though they have no essay. This viewpoint associates with deontological theory the the doctor treatments it is not right to [MIXANCHOR] people by limiting their growth.
In addition, this viewpoint is also related to the justice principle because it emphasizes that people with disability should have essay rights as normal people do and that the Ashley treatment is a treatment of the human civil rights.
Spaces that are ashley inaccessible could become more so with the use of simple measures, such as ashley wheelchair access essays. Tellingly, the group stayed firmly away from the more controversial treatment of Ashley's treatment — her forcible sterilisation. It has been alleged that this treatment was necessary because menstruation would have been traumatic for Ashley and she was unlikely to have children of the own. While both of these things may be true, the decision to take away her reproductive rights came in a very loaded treatment.
Ashley's parents argue that the series of gruelling and invasive procedures she was subjected to were necessary "for her the good", an argument disabled people are very accustomed to hearing from caregivers. The perpetration of profound violations by caregivers in ashley name of helping disabled people is nothing new, and there is a particularly long history of forcible sterilisations among them.