Article info
Controversy
Agency, duties and the “Ashley treatment”
- Correspondence to Naomi Tan, Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; naomitan{at}doctors.org.uk
Citation
Agency, duties and the “Ashley treatment”
Publication history
- Received March 1, 2009
- Revised April 14, 2009
- Accepted June 5, 2009
- First published October 30, 2009.
Online issue publication
October 30, 2009
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics. All rights reserved.
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