I do not believe Ashley’s rights were, or have been,
violated by her parents through the “Ashley Treatment”. As a person whose
mental and physical abilities have remained the same as a child who is three
months old, Ashley is unable to make her own decisions and is unable to know
what is best for her. Ashley’s parents have done everything possible to raise
her quality of life as much as possible without subjecting her to overly
dangerous situations. An ethics committee at Seattle Children’s Hospital also
agreed that this treatment was being done in Ashley’s best interest.
The article which criticizes the Ashley Treatment and her parents compare the use of estrogen to keep Ashley smaller to chopping legs off to accomplish the same goal. The authors defend the comparison by stating, “But this kind of surgery could not be ethically performed on healthy children because it is not plausibly in their interests, given the risks to, and the stress such an operation would impose on, their bodies.” This is an outlandish comparison to make. Of course amputation is not the more ethical option in this situation. The estrogen use is proven to be safe, effective, and have no side effects whereas chopping off a child’s leg, as the authors of the article state, can have several unanticipated effects and puts undo stress onto the child’s body.
I believe Ashley’s parents have made the right choices for their child. Not only is Ashley a minor still, but she is mentally and physically unable to know what is best for her which leaves the responsibility to her parents.