Article Text
Abstract
In 2006, a paper in the journal Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine described a novel case of growth attenuation therapy and other treatments carried out on Ashley, a severely cognitively, neurologically and physically disabled 6-year-old girl. Some of the moral arguments that have sprung up in respect of the so-called “Ashley treatment” are considered, and it is suggested that they all miss something—that the proper treatment of Ashley may have as much to do with doctors’ duties to themselves as with their duties to her. It is suggested that the Ashley treatment may have been in violation of doctors’ self-regarding duties and that this possibility is worthy of further investigation.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Parental reasoning about growth attenuation therapy: report of a single-case study
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- Moral uncertainty and the farming of human-pig chimeras
- Kant on euthanasia and the duty to die: clearing the air
- Is there a ‘new ethics of abortion’?
- Why is it possible to enhance moral status and why doing so is wrong?
- Growth attenuation therapy: practice and perspectives of paediatric endocrinologists
- The Ashley treatment: a step too far, or not far enough?
- Defining Personhood: towards the Ethics of Quality in Clinical Care
- Ashley X: a difficult moral choice