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 take its course. It also relates to the non-maleficence principle because the doctor thinks we should not add any more pain to the patient. This is a short term vs. ong term situation because by conducting theses surgery under the Ashley treatment, the patient will no longer be able to repossesses puberty, breast buds and height. I oppose with this doctor’s viewpoint because the purpose of removing uterus and breast buds is for the convenience of the patient. Pillow angels only has the intelligence of infants so it’s already impossible for them to take care of themselves for the most basic actions such as eating and sitting, let alone adding menstrual cycle and puberty pain. The surgery under the Ashley treatment only induces a little pain on the patient with pain control nd this would benefit the patient for a long time after the surgery. The estrogen therapy to inhibit the growth of the patient will make it easier for the caregivers to take care of the patient and this is very important because the decision of having the Ashley patient also affects the caregivers significantly. My viewpoint is related to the utilitarianism theory in that I think having the treatment provides the greatest good. It also relates to the beneficence principle, which is to do everything that is best for the patient.
The concept related to this argument is short term vs. long term because having the surgery is a one-time thing, but it can benefit both the patient and the family for a really long time. Doctor 2: The Ashley treatment is a violation of the civil rights of individuals, and it should be prohibited. Parents have rationalized that this is an OK thing to do, but it treats people as though they have no worth. This will be a slippery slope that could end with the idea that people with disabilities don’t have to be kept alive or integrated in society.
This viewpoint associates with deontological theory because the doctor thinks it is not right to treat 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 equal rights as normal people do and that the Ashley treatment is a violation of the human civil rights. The concept related to this viewpoint of justice vs. mercy, the doctor’s viewpoint is supporting justice because he thinks all human have equal rights.
I oppose with this viewpoint because the Ashley treatment’s intent is to improve patient quality’s life, not to take away the civil right of an individual. The parents only chose to undergo the Ashley treatment because they believe it is going to improve the patient’s quality of life. Moreover, the reason that the parent chose to undergo the estrogen therapy was because it will be better to care for the patient at home and also because the parents think no one else would provide better care for their own child, which is reasonable. The disability people have has a wide range of severity from not being able to walk to a pillow angel.
The Ashley treatment is not violating human rights for the fact that the doctors remove breast buds and uterus from a patient; this action only helps the patient from experiencing more pain. Moreover, pillow angels are impossible to survive on their own so they should not be considering the same as other people with disability. People who are not able to walk can still move themselves around with a wheelchair but a pillow angel would die if no one takes cares of her, that’s why it’s important to also consider the ability and convenience of the caretakers.
This viewpoint associates with Utilitarianism because it looks at the consequence that patient that undergo the Ashley treatment is eventually better off. This also relates to the beneficence principle because I think the treatment is going to benefit the patient. Doctor 3: In Ashley’s case, the parents are making all the decision without the patient’s consent. To let a child undergo those surgeries is very cruel and against the natural law. The surgery doesn’t help improve Ashley’s quality of life but the parent’s quality of life.
As doctors, we should make medical decisions based on what’s best for the patient. In this case, what’s best for the patient is to let her grow up naturally and experience what a normal human being would experience. The parents are merely choosing the Ashley treatment because it’s more convenient for them to take care of the patient. This argument is associated with the natural law theory because the doctor things that it’s best to let the patient grow up naturally.
In addition, it’s also related to the respect for autonomy principle because he states that parents are making the decision without the patient’s acknowledgement. Lastly, it’s associated with the justice vs. mercy concept where the doctor supports justice because he thinks the patients deserves to grow up normally like all the other human beings. I disagree with this argument because first of all, it’s impossible for the patient to make any decision or contribute her thoughts given that she’s a pillow angel with the IQ of an infant.
She will never get any more intelligent as she grows up and that’s why her parents need to make the decision for her. Of course her parents would want her to grow up naturally but given the situation she’s in today, growing up to a adult size would make taking care of her a really big problem. The patient will only be better off if her parents are able to take good care of her and the only way to achieve that is to let her remain in a children’s size. The doctors should do anything that would help the patient and the parents therefore getting the Ashley treatment is the right step to take.
The decision of having the Ashley treatment will make the life easier for the patient and the family in the long run. This argument is following the utilitarianism theory because it is looking at the consequence of the Ashley treatment that provides the greatest good. It’s also related to the beneficence principle because it states that the doctors should do anything beneficial to the patient. Lastly, it’s related to the short term vs. long term concept because the patients and family’s life will be better off in the long run.