At this point in the course we are going to tackle an emotive and controversial issue.
In 2004 Ashley was a profoundly disabled little girl approaching her seventh birthday.
It was known that she would never talk or walk, and she was dependent on her parents to meet all of her needs. Her cognitive function was the equivalent of that of an infant.
Ashley's uterus and breasts were removed and she was given high doses of oestrogen to keep her small and to retard her sexual development. The intervention was approved of and apparently promoted by the parents.
The intention was to minimize the likelihood of a future out-of-home placement by maximizing the future comfort of this child and ensuring a manageable care-giving burden for parents who wanted very much to maintain their daughter in their loving environment.
Growth attenuation has been compared to being on a 'super birth control pill' - it shortened the period of time in which she was capable of growing.
Whereas a normal woman might stop growing at the age of 16 or 17, Ashley stopped growing at the age of 9. Ashley is now about 4 feet 6 tall and has achieved her final height - she is no longer being treated with high-dose oestrogen.
Please read more before responding:
www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/01/11/ashley.ethicist/index.html
edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/12/pillow.angel/
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/15/ashley-treatment-rise-amid-concerns
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/an-ethical-dilemma/
Do you agree with the proposal below?
It is proposed that growth attenuation therapy is approved internationally for cases like Ashley