I saw this story about the disabled little girl whose parents decided to stunt her growth to ensure that they would be able to treat her at home for a longer period of time. While realizing that the parents did what they thought was best to continue to treat her themselves, something still seemed wrong about the whole thing and I have not quite been able to put it into words. Nor have I had the time to sit down and really think about it – this is something new to me. Wesley Smith, however, has an excellent take on it:

“Still, the core questions as I see them, are whether these interventions supported Ashley’s intrinsic worth and whether they were therapeutic and therefore ethical for a doctor to perform.

The answer to both questions, I think, is no. The treatment involved invasive surgery requiring full anesthesia, the potential for infection and significant pain, perhaps even death. The purpose was to prevent healthy and natural development, not treat an illness or ameliorate an injury. The motive was love, I agree. But, in the end, I think it was wrong…

Cases like this are very tough. The parents, I believe, genuinely wanted to do what was right by their daughter. But in the end, actions matter more than the motive. I believe the doctor should have refused to perform the surgeries and probably not have agreed to prescribe unnecessary hormonal therapies. As for the parents, I honor their love and devotion to Ashley, but this was a step too far…

Post Script: How’s this for an irony. Ashley requires a feeding tube. If her parents had wanted her to receive “death with dignity” by removing tube-supplied sustenance, there undoubtedly would have been less of a ruckus and cluck-clucking.”

Read Wesley’s full assessment.

See Ashley’s parent’s blog