DOCSLIB.ORG

Ashley Treatment - Wikipedia Ashley Treatment from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ashley Treatment - Wikipedia Ashley Treatment from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia 1/31/2017 Ashley Treatment - Wikipedia Ashley Treatment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Ashley Treatment refers to a controversial set of medical procedures undergone by a Seattle child, "Ashley X". Ashley, Ashley X born in 1997, has severe developmental disabilities due to static Born 1997 encephalopathy of unknown etiology; she is assumed to be at an Seattle area infant level mentally and physically. The treatment included growth attenuation via estrogen therapy; hysterectomy, bilateral breast bud removal, and appendectomy.[1] The principal purpose of the treatment was to improve Ashley's quality of life by limiting her growth in size, eliminating menstrual cramps and bleeding, and preventing discomfort from large breasts. The combination of the surgery and the estrogen therapy attracted much public comment and ethical analysis in early 2007, both supportive and condemning.[2] Ashley's parents granted their first written interview to CNN Health in March 2008,[3] and their second to The Guardian in March 2012.[4] In addition, The Guardian published two interviews with mothers of a girl[5] and a boy[6] who had completed the treatment. A 2014 TV program and article tell the similar story of a girl in New Zealand.[7][8] A survey on growth attenuation among pediatric endocrinologists was published in July 2015.[9][10] Contents 1 Background 2 Arguments for the treatment 3 Results 4 Reactions 5 References 6 External links Background Ashley was born with a severe brain impairment of unknown cause, termed a "static encephalopathy" because it does not improve. Although she sleeps and awakens, and breathes on her own, she is unable to raise her head, sit up, hold an object, walk, or talk, and must be tube-fed. Nonetheless, she is alert and responsive to her environment, particularly enjoying the music of Andrea Bocelli. Her parents have nicknamed Ashley "Pillow Angel", because she always remains where she is placed, which is usually on a pillow.[11] In 2004 when Ashley was six and a half years old, she began to show signs of puberty[11] and her parents and doctors began to anticipate a variety of issues common in children with severe neurological impairments. As these children grow larger, it takes more strength to move them and provide basic bodily care, raising the risk of pressure sores from immobility. Precocious puberty is common in children with various forms of severe brain damage. The early appearance of secondary sexual characteristics is often distressing to parents and caretakers. Many parents of severely disabled children explore possible ways to avoid having to deal with menstruation and fertility in a diapered child. A variety of treatments have been used over the last several decades to deal with these issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment 1/5 1/31/2017 Ashley Treatment - Wikipedia In July 2004, Ashley had a hysterectomy (to prevent menstruation) and surgical removal of her nascent breast buds (to prevent development). She also underwent an appendectomy. The surgery was performed at Seattle's Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center. In addition, in December 2006 she completed estrogen therapy through dermal patches, which sped up the natural closure of her growth plates. Ashley's story first broke in October 2006, in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. In January 2007, her parents, who wish to remain anonymous, set up a blog to explain their reasoning for their decision and to share their story with families of other children who might benefit.[11] Arguments for the treatment The parents state that they sought such treatment for the best interests of their daughter, namely, to enable them to personally continue constant care for her at home; to maximize her inclusion in family activities; to avoid the cramps and discomfort associated with menstruation; and to avoid the discomfort from large breasts (which runs in Ashley's family) while lying down or strapped in the chest area while in her wheelchair. Furthermore, they cited additional side benefits: to reduce the risk of bedsores; to prevent breast cancer and fibrocystic growth (both of which have occurred in her family); to prevent pregnancy; and to prevent appendicitis, which occurs in 5% of the population and which would be difficult to diagnose in Ashley as she would be unable to communicate the symptoms. They also believe that without secondary sexual characteristics, Ashley will be less vulnerable to sexual abuse[11] by future caregivers when her parents will no longer be able to care for her. In an article published in June 2009 on Growth Attenuation, two pediatric endocrinologist and two bioethicists concluded as follows: Our analysis suggests that growth attenuation is an innovative and sufficiently safe therapy that offers the possibility of an improved quality of life for nonambulatory children with profound cognitive disability and their families. Pediatricians and other care providers should include discussion of these options as part of anticipatory guidance around the age of 3 years so that, if elected, potential clinically meaningful benefits of growth-attenuation therapy can be realized.[12] The two bioethicists from the previous article also published an article in January 2010 cataloging and countering the criticisms that targeted the Ashley Treatment, and concluded as follows: The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief review of the [Ashley Treatment] 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.[13] Results After a year, Ashley's parents consider her treatment a success: She will never suffer from menstrual discomfort and cramps, she will always be flat chested and avoid breast related discomfort and other issues, and with her growth plates closed, she has reached her adult height of 53 inches (135 cm, or 4 ft 5 in) and weight of 63 pounds (29 kg), an estimated reduction of her potential height and weight of 20% and 40%, respectively.[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment 2/5 1/31/2017 Ashley Treatment - Wikipedia Reactions In the United States, Arthur Caplan, of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics, has criticized the Ashley Treatment in an MSNBC editorial, arguing that it is "a pharmacological solution for a social failure—the fact that American society does not do what it should to help severely disabled children and their families."[15] Three renowned bioethicists spoke in support of the treatment and discussed different aspects of it in opinion statements presented by Scientific American.[16] Disability rights advocates, including Not Dead Yet[17] and Feminist Response in Disability Activism (FRIDA), called the treatment "invasive medical experimentation", "mutilation", "desexualization", and a violation of Ashley's human rights. FRIDA called on the American Medical Association to condemn the Ashley Treatment.[18] The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) declared, "we hold as non-negotiable the principle that personal and physical autonomy of all people with disabilities be regarded as sacrosanct". [19] Ashley's parents reported that 95% of the 5,000 emails they received were in support of the treatment, many of these testimonies and support emails are posted on Ashley's blog.[11] The parents indicated that there was especially strong support among parents and caregivers of children with similar conditions to Ashley's, those who have the direct experience. They cite several ethicists in support of the treatment, including: George Dvorsky,[20] Peter Singer,[21] Norm Fost,[22] and Doug Diekema.[23] In the United Kingdom, the British Medical Association stated, "If a similar case occurred in the UK, we believe it would go to court and whatever decision was ruled would be in the best interests of the child." Dr. Peter Hindmarsh, Professor of Paediatric Endocrinology at Great Ormond Street Hospital was troubled by the treatment decision being taken by a hospital ethics committee. " 'I am not sure the ethics committee was the right place to decide,' he said, adding that it was not clear who represented the child's interests when it went before the committee."[24] In Canada, ethicist Arthur Schafer's nationwide opinion piece[25] defending the operation as justifiable considering Ashley's comfort engendered criticism from disability rights activists such as Dave Hingsburger[26] of the York Central Hospital and Keenan Wellar from the LiveWorkPlay self-advocacy organization. In a rebuttal,[27] Wellar attacked the notion that Ashley's limited mental abilities justified the decisions made on her behalf: "Infants have human rights even though they can't speak for themselves. Why should Ashley have received any less consideration?" On May 8, 2007, an investigative report done by Disability Rights Washington (formerly The Washington Protection and Advocacy System) in conjunction with The Utah Disability Law Center criticized the hospital that performed this controversial procedure for violating Washington State law.[28] References 1. "A slide summary of the "Ashley Treatment" " (PDF). 2. Gunther, DF; Diekema, DS (2006). "Attenuating Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 May 2008. growth in children with profound developmental Retrieved 2008-05-06. disability: a new approach to an old dilemma". Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine. 160 (10): 1013–7. doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.10.1013. PMID 17018459. 3. " 'Pillow angel' parents answer CNN's questions". CNN. 2008-03-12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment 3/5 1/31/2017 Ashley Treatment - Wikipedia 4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nontherapeutic Growth Attenuation, Parental Medical Decision Making, and the Profoundly Developmentally Disabled Child’S Right to Bodily Integrity
    KOLL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 12/17/2009 2:48 PM GROWTH, INTERRUPTED: NONTHERAPEUTIC GROWTH ATTENUATION, PARENTAL MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, AND THE PROFOUNDLY DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILD’S RIGHT TO BODILY INTEGRITY MARY KOLL* Should parents of a profoundly developmentally disabled child be permitted to permanently terminate their child’s healthy bodily de- velopment in order to arguably increase the child’s quality of life? While such a procedure may sound like something out of science fic- tion, a highly publicized medical journal article released in 2006 de- scribed the case of Ashley X, a profoundly developmentally disabled child who received high-dose hormone treatment—along with a mas- tectomy and a hysterectomy—to permanently stunt her growth and al- legedly increase her quality of life. Though the authors of the article presented this type of nontherapeutic growth attenuation as a viable medical option for profoundly disabled children, critics from all over the world characterized the procedure—which came to be known as the “Ashley Treatment”—as a grave and unacceptable human rights violation. Nonetheless, the Ashley Treatment has also been met with support from some, most notably the parents of profoundly disabled children, many of whom have expressed a desire for their own child- ren to undergo similar procedures. This Note explores the question of whether parents should be permitted to choose such interventions on behalf of a child from the perspective of the child’s rights, specifi- cally, the child’s fundamental right to bodily integrity. Following a brief description of the case of Ashley X and the ensuing controversy, the author describes the right to bodily integrity, including its origins, its modern constitutional status, and its application to profoundly dis- abled children.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Statement
    PERSONAL ASSISTANTS AND COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING: PROMOTING A BETTER BALANCE OF AUTONOMY AND WELL-BEING FOR ADULTS WITH MODERATE, MILD, AND BORDERLINE MENTAL RETARDATION by Sarah M. Pope B.S., University of New Hampshire, 2000 J.D., University of Pittsburgh, 2007 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Center for Bioethics and Health Law in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Pittsburgh 2007 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE CENTER FOR BIOETHICS AND HEALTH LAW This thesis was presented by Sarah M. Pope It was defended on April 13, 2007 and approved by Elizabeth Chaitin, DHCE, Center for Bioethics and Health Law James Flannery, JD, School of Law Thesis Advisor: Alan Meisel, JD, Center for Bioethics and Health Law, School of Law ii Copyright © by Sarah M. Pope 2007 iii PERSONAL ASSISTANTS AND COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING: PROMOTING A BETTER BALANCE OF AUTONOMY AND WELL-BEING FOR ADULTS WITH MODERATE, MILD, AND BORDERLINE MENTAL RETARDATION Sarah M. Pope, J.D., M.A. University of Pittsburgh, 2007 Autonomy is a core value of American tradition and is promoted in health care through the doctrine of informed consent. The notion underlying informed consent is that patients should have the right to decide, and are often in the best position to know, what will enhance their own well-being. Although this ethic has been extended to incompetent patients, by employing surrogate decision making, providing surrogate decision makers for adults with moderate, mild, and borderline mental retardation (“M-BMR”), who could potentially make their own decisions if adequate supports were offered, unreasonably restricts the autonomy of such individuals and often results in disregard for the patients’ human dignity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Case of Ashley X
    Forever Small: The Strange Case of Ashley X EVA FEDER KITTAY I explore the ethics of altering the body of a child with severe cognitive disabilities in such a way that keeps the child ‘‘forever small.’’ The parents of Ashley, a girl of six with severe cognitive and developmental disabilities, in collaboration with her physi- cians and the Hospital Ethics Committee, chose to administer growth hormones that would inhibit her growth. They also decided to remove her uterus and breast buds, assuring that she would not go through the discomfort of menstruation and would not grow breasts. In this way she would stay ‘‘forever small’’ and be able to be carried and handled by family members. They claimed that doing this would ensure that she would be able to be part of the family and of family activities and to have familial care. But the procedure has raised thorny ethical questions. I wish to explore these questions philosophically by bringing to bear my own experiences as a mother of a grown daugh- ter with severe cognitive impairments. PRELUDE THE CASE In 2002, the parents of a six-year-old girl with a condition that will require physical care throughout her life, and who had begun to exhibit signs of pre- cocious puberty, requested, and were granted, permission to have high doses of estrogen administered to induce the premature closing of the long-bone epiphyses, thus maintaining the girl’s height at 4’5’’. The intention was to facilitate her care by keeping her small. To reduce the uterine bleeding that accompanies the procedure, as well as the risk of uterine cancer, she underwent a hysterectomy prior to the estrogen treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ashley Treatment: the Current Legal Framework Protects the Wrong Rights
    Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Volume 10 Issue 2 Article 12 2009 The Ashley Treatment: The Current Legal Framework Protects the Wrong Rights Jillian Kornblatt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst Recommended Citation Jillian Kornblatt, The Ashley Treatment: The Current Legal Framework Protects the Wrong Rights, 10 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 773 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol10/iss2/12 The Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. KORNBLATT J. The Ashley Treatment: The Current Legal Framework Protects the Wrong Rights. MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 2009;10(2): 773-800. Note The Ashley Treatment: The Current Legal Framework Protects the Wrong Rights Jillian Kornblatt* In 2006 two Seattle doctors performed several procedures to attenuate the growth of a profoundly neurologically and cognitively disabled six-year-old girl. When the doctors described the treatment in a medical journal, the story gained worldwide publicity and quickly became the subject of a highly contentious and emotionally charged controversy. As a result, a federally-sanctioned disability rights protection organization conducted an investigation and concluded that the treatment should not have been performed without a court order and that doing so violated the girl’s constitutional rights. Part I of this Note considers the legal framework applied to the treatment decision and how the framework would apply to other children whose parents requested the treatment. Part II then analyzes whether this framework adequately protects the best interests and constitutional rights of potential candidates for this treatment and their parents.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet: Women with Disabilities and Legal Issues
    TASC is sponsored by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD), the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA). TASC is a division of the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN). Fact Sheet: Women with Disabilities and Legal Issues Concerning Reproductive Health August, 2011 Prepared by: National Health Law Program Jina Dhillon and Celine Lefebvre1 with a grant from the Training and Advocacy Support Center (TASC) Introduction This fact sheet describes significant reproductive health-related legal issues that women with disabilities may face. Women with disabilities are particularly susceptible to discriminatory standards of care, coercion and misinformation about their reproductive autonomy. Courts have issued decisions involving the capacity to consent to sterilization, abortion and similar procedures, or the ability of a guardian to make reproductive health determinations in the best interests of the individual. This fact sheet provides an overview of case law in this area as well as a brief discussion of other issues identified by legal scholars as important areas for advocacy. Reproductive Health Issues Sterilization People with mental and physical disabilities have often been subjected to forced sterilization. The notion that these women and men are unable to make meaningful decisions about their reproductive capacity often leads caretakers, guardians, and the courts to consider sterilization as the best option for them. Case law regarding sterilization stems from the United States Supreme Court’s 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell, in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statute that instituted compulsory sterilization of individuals with mental disabilities.2 Since then, many cases have addressed the issue of sterilization of women with disabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exploration of the Societal Impact of Neuroethics in Scientific and General Communities
    Syracuse University SURFACE Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects Projects Spring 5-1-2015 An Exploration of the Societal Impact of Neuroethics in Scientific and General Communities Katelyn Marie Edel Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the Other Neuroscience and Neurobiology Commons Recommended Citation Edel, Katelyn Marie, "An Exploration of the Societal Impact of Neuroethics in Scientific and General Communities" (2015). Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects. 847. https://surface.syr.edu/honors_capstone/847 This Honors Capstone Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Exploration of the Societal Impact of Neuroethics in Scientific and General Communities A Capstone Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Renée Crown University Honors Program at Syracuse University Katelyn Marie Edel Candidate for Bachelor of Arts and Renée Crown University Honors May 2015 Honors Capstone Project in Neuroscience Capstone Project Advisor: ___________________________ William Peace, Professor in the Renée Crown University Honors Program Capstone Project Reader: ____________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Case Studies in Nursing Ethics Fourth Edition
    CASE STUDIES IN NURSING ETHICS FOURTH EDITION Sara T. Fry, PhD, RN Brewster, Massachusetts Robert M. Veatch, PhD Georgetown University Kennedy Institute of Ethics Washington, DC Carol Taylor, PhD, RN Georgetown University Center for Clinical Bioethics Washington, DC 80319_FMXx_ttlpg.indd 1 6/24/10 3:31 PM World Headquarters Jones & Bartlett Learning Jones & Bartlett Learning Jones & Bartlett Learning 40 Tall Pine Drive Canada International Sudbury, MA 01776 6339 Ormindale Way Barb House, Barb Mews 978-443-5000 Mississauga, Ontario L5V 1J2 London W6 7PA [email protected] Canada United Kingdom www.jblearning.com Jones & Bartlett Learning books and products are available through most bookstores and online booksellers. To contact Jones & Bartlett Learning directly, call 800-832-0034, fax 978-443-8000, or visit our website, www.jblearning.com. Substantial discounts on bulk quantities of Jones & Bartlett Learning publications are available to corporations, professional associations, and other qualified organizations. For details and specific discount information, contact the special sales department at Jones & Bartlett Learning via the above contact information or send an email to [email protected]. Copyright © 2011 by Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright may be reproduced or utilized in any form, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. The authors, editor, and publisher have made every effort to provide accurate information. However, they are not responsible for errors, omissions, or for any outcomes related to the use of the contents of this book and take no re- sponsibility for the use of the products and procedures described.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Law & Policy Brief
    Volume 1, Issue 2 Fall 2007 HHEALTHEALTH LLAWAW PPOLICYOLICY The Health Care Crisis in America: 2 &Is Universal Healthcare the Solution to Our Problems? Charisse Y. Gates The Legal and Moral 12 Implications of Growth Attenuation Meryl Eschen Mills Where the Action is: 24 Innovative State Health Care Initiatives Nalini K. Pande CAFTA-DR, TRIPS, and Pharmaceuticals 28 Jennifer Cadena The ERISA Roadblock: Can States Overcome ERISA 34 Preemption and Enact Meaningful Health Care Reforms? Sabrina Dunlap The ‘Benghazi Six’ and International 42 Medical Neutrality in Times of War and Peace Johanna Michaels Kreisel COLUMNS 51 AULawBook.indd 1 12/10/07 7:22:49 AM Health Law & Policy 2007-2008 Staff EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Georgiana Avramidis Jennifer Cadena Gabrielle A. Mulnick SENIOR ARTICLES EDITOR Alexander J. Weber MANAGING EDITORS Vashti Mercado Rebecca L. Wolf SENIOR STAFF Bridget Behling Jenny M. Knopinski Eduardo Pezo Jessica E. Smith JUNIOR STAFF Sherine B. Abdul-Khaliq Biswajit Chatterjee Chandana Kolavala William N. Papain Jillanne M. Schulte ADVISOR Corrine Parver, Esq. Practitioner-In-Residence and Executive Director, Health Law Project LL.M. Program on Law & Government COVER DESIGN Cesar Lujan Health Law & Policy (HLP) is a publication of American University’s Washington College of Law (WCL) and the Health Law Project LL.M. Program on Law & Government. No portion of this publication may be reprinted without express permistion of HLP. Views expressed herein do not reflect thos of HLP or WCL. AULawBook.indd 2 12/10/07 7:22:49 AM LETTER FROM THE EDITORS Dear Health Law & Policy Reader: On behalf of the Editorial Board, it is with great enthusiasm that we present our second issue of Health Law & Policy.
    [Show full text]
  • P R a X I S Where Reflection & Practice Meet
    P R A X I S Where Reflection & Practice Meet VOLUME 15 In Honor of the Advocates, Teachers, Clients, and Scholars from Whom We Have Come by This Knowledge Editorial Sam Foist Swart .........................................................................….......….................................................................3 Articles Mindfulness-Based Psychotherapy with HIV Patients Zoya Abdikulov …............................................................................................................................……..................4 Meeting the Torture Survivor and Asylum Seeker: Directions for Clinical Treatment and Political Advocacy Margaret J. Hunter, Brittany Austin, and Garrett Gundlach, SJ.…….……………………....................................11 Treating Borderline Personality in Adolescence Using CAT: Adapting HYPE into an Interprofessional Model Alyssa Jesberger, Kathy Moriarty, Nicole Weinstein, and Rebecca Witheridge ………..............………................ 21 Clinical Implications for Working with Couples Experiencing Infidelity Kristen Okrzesik………………………………………………………………………..........……......................................30 A Theological Reclamation of Feminine Icons in Latin@ Culture: An Empowerment Model Lorena Ornelas …...……………............................…........…….…………………...…………………… ………...36 Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia Bobbi Marie Pollard ............................................................................…….......….................................................44 Polyamory: The Clinical Importance
    [Show full text]
  • Pain and Surgery in the Ashley X Case
    Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2009, Vol. 37, No. 1 & 2, pp. 63-90 Cutting Edge Treatment: Pain and Surgery in the Ashley X Case Dick Sobsey John Dossetor Health Ethics Centre University of Alberta Pain and surgery are phenomena that have frequently been mentioned in the discussions of the Ashley X case. This article describes how pain and surgery have been used selectively to argue for or against the Ashley X procedures. Few if any of the many publications discussing the merits of the Ashley-X procedures can be said to strike a reasonable balance between the pros and cons of the procedures. This lack of balance and extreme polarization may result in part from the lack of precedents and weak research foundation for making decisions around this kind of treatment. In “the Unkindest Cut of All, “ Heidi Janz (2009, this volume) describes how surgery and pain were constructed in discussions of the killing of Tracy Latimer. Surgery is described as an invasive torture that mutilates the body with little prospect of relief and likely to result in catastrophic complications. While the primary purpose of the surgery proposed for Tracy Latimer was to relieve pain, there was little discussion of surgery’s role in mitigating pain and great emphasis on the role of surgery as a cause of pain. In short, those who supported the killing of Tracy Latimer did so because they believed that the surgery prescribed to relieve her pain was actually a fate worse than death. This paper explores images of pain, suffering, and surgery in another case involving a child with severe disabilities, the Ashley X case.
    [Show full text]
  • Pediatric Bioethics Edited by Geoffrey Miller Index More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-13594-8 - Pediatric Bioethics Edited by Geoffrey Miller Index More information Index abortion, 176 Baumrind, Diana, 57 abuse, 176 Belmont Report, 57, 67 adderall, 231 beneficence,57 , 191 Aguirre twins, 207 benevolence, 9 altruism, 9 best interests, 23–35, 39, 60, 127, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), 174, 180, 204, 206, 211, 215, 226, 30, 67, 70, 73, 87, 113, 121, 141, 151, 268–270, 272–274 156, 160, 221, 268, 269 Bijani twins, 205, 207–210 American College of Medical Genetics, birth control, 175, 184 125 brain death, 248 American College of Surgeons, 189, 198 British Medical Association, 74 American Pediatric Surgical Association, Brown v. Board of Education, 45 189 American Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Paediatric Society, 73, 142, 125 256, 270 androgen insensitivity syndrome, 149, cardiopulmonary death, 248, 255 151, 158 Cardoza, Benjamin, 48–49 anencephalic babies, 255–257 Centers for Disease Control and apnea test, 249 Prevention (CDC), 115, 222 artificial hydration,252 , 255 Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Ashley treatment, 182 Act (CAPTA), 28–36, 278–280 Ashley X, 182 child labor law, 43 assent, 11, 59–60, 190 Child Neurology Society, 253 attention deficit hyperactivity disorder children as a means, 40–41 (ADHD), 231–240 clinical determination of brain death, Attard twins, 206, 210–215 250 atypical genital development, 149, 156 clitoromegaly, 157 autonomy, 173, 184, 190, 276 cloacal exstrophy, 155 coercion, 67, 177, 265 Baby Doe case, 165 cognitive enhancement, 240 Baby Doe rules,
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Ashley Treatment: a Case Study of the Bioethical Implications Associated with Growth Attenuation Therapy Through the Lens of the Capabilities Approach
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2020 Examining The Ashley Treatment: A Case Study of the Bioethical Implications Associated with Growth Attenuation Therapy Through the Lens of the Capabilities Approach Allison Hill Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Hill, Allison, "Examining The Ashley Treatment: A Case Study of the Bioethical Implications Associated with Growth Attenuation Therapy Through the Lens of the Capabilities Approach" (2020). CMC Senior Theses. 2421. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/2421 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Claremont McKenna College Examining The Ashley Treatment: A Case Study of the Bioethical Implications Associated with Growth Attenuation Therapy Through the Lens of the Capabilities Approach submitted to Professor Alex Rajczi by Allison Hill for Senior Thesis Spring 2020 May 9, 2020 1 Acknowledgements I would like to begin by acknowledging my late father for piquing my interest in navigating justice for people with disabilities. Even before I was enrolled at Claremont McKenna or had delved into the fields of bioethics and Philosophy, my dad was a strong advocate for working to ensure that people with disabilities had access to resources that they needed in order to achieve similar feats as people without disabilities. I really admired that about him, and his willingness to support a community that was so far from his own, and I feel proud that I wrote my thesis on a topic that is still extremely relevant in terms of examining justice.
    [Show full text]