Bioethics conference tackles tough medical decisions: the "Ashley X" case
alaur...@yahoo.com
She doesn't have a last name. They call her "Ashley X" or even "Pillow
Angel."
Case: Dr. Jack Kevorkian promoted physician-assisted suicide for
suffering patients that wanted to end their lives. Verdict: Kevorkian
was tried many times for assisting with suicides. He was charged in
March 1999 and is currently in jail. However, Oregon's 1994 Death with
Dignity Act supported physician-assisted suicide in certain
circumstances.
Case: Tirhas was an illegal immigrant from Eritrea that was diagnosed
terminally ill once cancer had spread to her lungs. Verdict: She was
removed from a respirator in Dec. 2005, despite her family's
disagreement with Texas' "Advance Directives Act" that allows
hospitals remove terminally ill individuals.
Case: Like the prominent Terri Schiavo case in 2005, Nancy Beth Cruzan
was left in a vegetative state after a car accident. Her family wanted
the feeding tube removed and fought as far as the Supreme Court.
Verdict: The court allowed her family to remove the feeding tube, and
she died in Dec. 1990.
Case: Many argue medical marijuana provides therapeutic treatment to
individuals in substantial pain, particularly chemotherapy patients.
Verdict: Medical marijuana is legal in 11 states, including
Washington, Oregon and California.
Case: Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and became dependent on a
feeding tube for 15 years. Her husband, Michael, wanted to remove the
feeding tube and fought many legal battles with her parents. Verdict:
The tube was removed March 2005 after a verdict by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
------
Related Links
See Ashley's parents' persepective on http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/blog/
-----
Yesterday, though, people from around the nation visited the UW
because of this young girl, to discuss the issue of limiting growth in
children with severe disabilities. The forum was an all-day conference
held in the Moot Courtroom of William H. Gates Hall.
Ashley's case sparked discussions about disability after her parents
opted to give her what has been dubbed the "Ashley Treatment" when she
was 6 years old. Now, Ashley is 9-and-a-half. The treatment included
giving Ashley, who has a severe brain injury that keeps her in an
infant-like state, hormones to stunt her growth, keeping her body
small. Doctors also removed her uterus and breast buds to prevent the
discomfort of menstrual cramps and breast development.
An ethics panel at the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics at
Seattle Children's Hospital, where the surgeries were performed,
considered the benefits and risks of the hysterectomy, removal of
breast buds and hormone treatment before the surgeries took place.
"Because of the novel nature of the request and need to really make
sure we were looking at the many aspects of the parents' request, it
was obvious we needed to get a group of people," said Doug Diekema,
director of education at the Katz Center and leader of the ethics
committee.
Ashley and her parents played a significant role in the decisions of
panelists, Diekema said. "Ashley's parents were devoted to her,"
Diekema said. "[Their] primary purpose was to make her life as good as
it could have been. They desperately wanted to keep her as a part of
their family and didn't see [a] life without Ashley in their home."
Diekema said Ashley's parents considered several options before
choosing the treatment.
"They were very familiar with options such as outside help or [using]
lifts," he said. "[They] didn't feel there was an option that [would]
be more acceptable."
Diekema said many committee members came to the discussion with a bias
against the treatment.
"It's fair to say that everybody in that room probably walked into the
room thinking, 'We're probably going to have to say no to the
family,'" he said. "At the end of the meeting, it's fair to say that
everybody in that room was in agreement that ... this really would
probably benefit this little girl."
According to a blog Ashley's parents have been updating since the
surgery, they hoped this treatment would increase their daughter's
comfort, while making it easier for them to care for her and include
her in family activities.
Because Ashley's family has a history of breast cancer, removing her
breast buds would evade the young girl's chance of getting cancer and
avoid any discomfort associated with the chest strap she uses, her
parents said. The hysterectomy would prevent Ashley from experiencing
painful menstruation and avoid the possibility of pregnancy if she
were to be sexually abused.
Some, however, feel the surgeries were unwarranted.
"When I first heard about the Ashley treatment, I was devastated for
the advocacy movement as a whole," said Corinna Fale, a representative
from People First, a disability advocacy group. "I was devastated as a
woman. If this can happen, what else can they do? Are they going to be
able to play God and do some other procedures down the line?"
Many are concerned this treatment will become a precedent for parents
who have kids with disabilities.
"It's the Pandora's box opening up," said Emily Rogers, a
representative from The Arc of Washington State, a disability advocacy
group. "We need to preserve the dignity and respect of people with
disabilities as valued participants in our communities. What will be
happening 20 years down the road? How will people be looked at ... at
that point?"
David Woodrum, UW professor of pediatrics and clinical director of the
Katz Center, was closely involved with Ashley and her family
throughout the decision-making process and surgeries. He said Ashley's
story should be taken as a single case, not as a precedent for future
cases.
"Do I think the Ashley treatment should become standard?" he said.
"No. I think this is a unique situation, and I don't think it has
created a slippery slope."
The ethics committee did not consider Ashley's case with the
expectation of it setting an example for the future, Diekema said.
"No one in that room felt this was going to have policy implications
and that just because we said 'yes' to Ashley would mean we'd say
'yes' to anyone," he said.
Parents of children with disabilities were at the conference to
represent both sides of the argument.
Sandy Walker, who has three children with varying levels of
disability, feels the Ashley treatment would help her better care for
her daughter, Jessica.
Walker said Jessica enjoys activities such as going down the slide
with Walker, visiting the beach and swimming, all of which have become
difficult or impossible as Jessica has grown.
However, Walker said there is a fine line.
"It's very difficult to distinguish between what the benefit to the
children is and what the ease of the parent is," she said.
It's important for parents to consider what will happen when they're
gone before making a decision of this magnitude, Rogers said.
"Our focus should be squarely on Ashley and people with disabilities,
so that the quality of life will still exist in 20 years or 30 years
when that person doesn't have family in their life anymore," she said.
One woman in the audience brought up the question of Ashley's
potential to communicate her own wishes in the future.
"I do hope that Ashley isn't [later] able to communicate, 'Why did you
do this to my body?'" she said.
For many, this case raises a larger issue of consent and how much
latitude parents have in making decisions for their children.
"Among the most difficult question that parents ... have to be asked to
ask themselves is, 'have we successfully gotten beyond thinking of our
child as an extension of ourselves and begun to look at her as an
individual?"said Erik Parens, associate for philosophical studies at
the bioethics
research center at the Hastings Center in Garrison, New York. "At the
end of the day, I believe we must respect the decisions of 'good
enough'parents."
In the end, Parens said that the issue is very much a philosophical
one."I do believe different means can express different values and can
emphasize different understanding of ourselves," he said. "I'd rather
change minds than bodies."
http://thedaily.washington.edu/article/2007/5/17/bioethicsConferenceTacklesToughMedicalDecisions