David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
American Journal of Bioethics 10 (1):30-44 (2010)
The case of Ashley X involved a young girl with profound and permanent developmental disability who underwent growth attenuation using high-dose estrogen, a hysterectomy, and surgical removal of her breast buds. Many individuals and groups have been critical of the decisions made by Ashley's parents, physicians, and the hospital ethics committee that supported the decision. While some of the opposition has been grounded in distorted facts and misunderstandings, others have raised important concerns. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of the case and the issues it raised, then address 25 distinct substantive arguments that have been proposed as reasons that Ashley's treatment might be unethical. We conclude that while some important concerns have been raised, the weight of these concerns is not sufficient to consider the interventions used in Ashley's case to be contrary to her best interests, nor are they sufficient to preclude similar use of these interventions in the future for carefully selected patients who might also benefit from them
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Benjamin S. Wilfond, Paul Steven Miller, Carolyn Korfiatis, Douglas S. Diekema, Denise M. Dudzinski & Sara Goering (2010). Navigating Growth Attenuation in Children with Profound Disabilities. Hastings Center Report 40 (6):27-40.
Similar books and articles
Douglas Diekema & Norman Fost (2010). Ashley Revisited: A Response to the Peer Commentaries. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (1):4-6.
Ruchika Mishra (2010). The Case: The “Ashley Treatment” Revisited. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (3):407.
S. Matthew Liao, Julian Savulescu & Mark Sheehan (2007). The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision Making. Hastings Center Report 37 (2):16-20.
S. Matthew Liao, Julian Savulescu & Mark Sheehan (2007). The Ashley Treatment: Best Interests, Convenience, and Parental Decision-Making. Hastings Center Report 37 (2):16-20.
Hugh Dalton (1914). Book Review:Gold and Prices. W. J. Ashley; Environment and Efficiency. M. H. Thomson; The Social Policy of Bismarck. Annie Ashley. [REVIEW] Ethics 24 (2):246-.
Benjamin Wilfond (2007). The Ashley Case: The Public Response and Policy Implications. Hastings Center Report 37 (5):12-13.
Ashley Graham Kennedy (2011). Ageing Gametes and Embryonic Death: A Response to Bovens. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (9):571-572.
Richard M. Gale (2003). A Response to My Critics. Philo 6 (1):132-165.
Charles Hartshorne (2002). Personalism Revisited: Its Proponents and Critics. New York: Rodopi NY.
Andrei Marmor (2011). Conventions Revisited: A Reply to Critics. Jurisprudence 2 (2):493-506.
Terrence W. Tilley (1997). IV. A Response to My Critics. Philosophy and Theology 10 (1):93-99.
Joseph Margolis (1989). Relativism Revisited and Revived: Replies to Critics. Social Epistemology 3 (1):39 – 53.
Randall E. Auxier (2005). Personalism Revisited: Its Proponents and Critics (Review). Journal of Speculative Philosophy 19 (1):81-87.
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads13 ( #281,902 of 1,911,917 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #459,829 of 1,911,917 )
How can I increase my downloads?