Critical thinking class

 In the debate of the nine year old who was born with a brain condition called static encephalopathy, it’s  where her body will still grow, but her brain would not develop any further than a three olds mind.  Her mind will never grow with her body.  She would need 24 hour care for the rest of her life . Her parents felt that to improve her life that they would  ask for a doctor to perform a growth- treatment on her .  A hospital in Seattle was going to do the operation that included a hysterectomy, removal of her breast bud and given a high dose of estrogen to slow down her growth.  The hospital ethics board approved it  before the treatment was done. Looking at the parents argument that Ashley would be easier to take care of ,they said it was not convenient  for them to do this to her,  but it was for her when her body reached puberty.  Ashley would get frightened  and started to cry when a piece  of hair would tickle her face. What would happen if she had menstrual cramps?  Reducing the chances of having breast cancer and fibrocystic growth (both of which have occurred in her family) and to keep her at a small size was the intention, to allow the parents to be able to manager her better.  The parents would have to buy larger equipment, like wheelchairs, beds, and a lifting device the bigger she got. Being bed ridden all the time at a smaller size the chances of bed sores was greatly reduced.  Keeping Ashley small  would  allow her to  interact with other members of her family easier.   There is a lot of opposition to the treatment from handicap groups and the  medical sector .  Looking at the medical sector numerous  doctors have condemned  the treatment of Ashley they are saying that her basic rights have been violated.  Her freedom as a handicap person has been taken  away without her knowledge.  Ashley’s parents sought legal counsel before any treatments or operations  of her. They said due to Ashley’s condition the treatment was not against the law.  It was later found  that it was against  the law of Washington State to sterilize any  handicap person.  The decision by Ashley parents  was made in good intentions  for their daughters life, but they didn’t think about the debate that has stirred up.  The  premise was the parents decision to allow the medical treatment for easier care for their daughter.   The conclusion  of the story is that  parents who have special needs children must be taken care of in a special way to allow them to live their life. But all so All persons  have basics right in the way have to live  handicap or not

After being diagnosed with static encephalopathy, it was decided and approved that Ashley X would undergo medical treatment and procedures to attempt to ensure her a decent quality of life.  Kivi, R. (2012) defines static encephalopathy as being permanent brain damage.  This damage to Ashley’s brain caused her to mentally remain as a three-month-old child.  She cannot talk, or walk, or roll herself over.  She also requires help just to hold up her head. Ashley’s parents thought it to be in her best interest if she could remain small so that she could be easily cared for.  Their concerns also focused on the negative effects that puberty could have on Ashley’s well-being.  Ashley’s parents, along with medical professionals, devised a plan of care to include procedures to prevent physical aspects of adulthood.  These medical procedures are now known as “Ashley’s Treatment.”  Ashley’s treatment has been the subject of much controversy.  Although opinions on this matter are strong, only inductive arguments can be made as the final outcome is unsure and can only be based on probability (Inductive Versus Deductive, 2011). The only true way to know if Ashley’s parents made the right decision, if in fact it was based on Ashley’s well-being, would be to obtain information from Ashley herself.  This would be highly unlikely due to her brain injury.

The strongest argument within the first article, The Moral Line in Medicine Shifts Once Again, claims that Ashley X’s parents are far more familiar, than anyone, with the needs of their daughter as they are her primary care-givers.  Lewis, J (2007) claims the parents made decisions on Ashley’s behalf to try to ensure she is afforded the best quality of life.  For Ashley, her ability to remain small will give her many years of opportunity to experience human touch by being able to be held by family members and other caregivers.  Govern, P. (2002) explains that human touch is vital to an infant’s overall well-being. Due to Ashley’s static encephalopathy, she will mentally remain a three-month-old.

            The second article, A Convenient Truth (2007), explains a few objections to Ashley’s treatment.  One objection is that the medical treatment and procedures she has undergone are “unnatural.”  Another objection was aimed toward her dignity.  The Code of Ethics (2001) places a high regard toward the respect for human dignity.  Although the respect for human dignity is truly important, I believe this articles strongest argument, what it claims as what matters most in Ashley’s life is that she should not suffer.  With the help of the medical procedures, Ashley will “be able to enjoy whatever she is capable of enjoying” explains Singer, P (2007).

Kivi, R. (2012) Encephalopathy. Healthline. Retrieved from: http://www.healthline.com/health/hepatic-encephalopathy#Overview1

Argosy University Online (2011) Inductive Versus Deductive. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving. Retrieved from:http://vizedhtmlcontent.next.ecollege.com/pub/content/374a4233-dc92-43dc-9ab1-aac0b8565d39/AUO_HUM200_M1_L8_S1_G1.pdf

Lewis, J. (2007) The Moral Line in Medicine Shifts Once Again. The Independent. Retrieved from:http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/311096455/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34899

Govern, P. (2002) Touch Therapy Soothes Infants in Unit. Reporter. Retrieved from: http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=2139

Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (2001) Nursing World. Retrieved from: http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=2139

Singer, P. (2007) A Convenient Truth. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/433487228/abstract?source=fedsrch&accountid=34899

People who posted on mine:

Professor:

Thank you very much Jennifer for your initial post in our M1A2 discussion on identifying with the main arguments involved in this controversial case of whether or not Osama bin Laden’s death will have a lasting effect on the continued existence of terrorism on the United States or not.  You did an excellent job of reviewing many of the arguments in the articles on this case that represent both sides of the issue.  What do you think are some of the strongest (or weakest) arguments on either side and why/how did you identify them as such?