The case of Ashley X involved a young girl with profound and permanent developmental disability who underwent growth attenuation using high-dose estrogen, a hysterectomy, and surgical removal of her breast buds. Many individuals and groups have been critical of the decisions made by Ashley's parents, physicians, and the hospital ethics committee that supported the decision. While some of the opposition has been grounded in distorted facts and misunderstandings, others have raised important concerns. The purpose of this paper is to provide (...) a brief review of the case and the issues it raised, then address 25 distinct substantive arguments that have been proposed as reasons that Ashley's treatment might be unethical. We conclude that while some important concerns have been raised, the weight of these concerns is not sufficient to consider the interventions used in Ashley's case to be contrary to her best interests, nor are they sufficient to preclude similar use of these interventions in the future for carefully selected patients who might also benefit from them. (shrink)

Recent proposals to punish athletes for taking drugs or to impose mandatory drug testing cannot be defended in ethical terms. Nor is it possible to distinguish consistently between ethical and unethical uses of restorative drugs, additive drugs, painkillers, and recreational drugs. We oppose drugs in sports because they violate the majority notion of acceptable behavior. But such opposition has more to do with defending the ideals of the community than with creating policies that are ethically sound.

: The "dead donor rule" is increasingly under attack for several reasons. First, there has long been disagreement about whether there is a correct or coherent definition of "death." Second, it has long been clear that the concept and ascertainment of "brain death" is medically flawed. Third, the requirement stands in the way of improving organ supply by prohibiting organ removal from patients who have little to lose—e.g., infants with anencephaly—and from patients who ardently want to donate while still alive—e.g., (...) patients in a permanent vegetative state. One argument against abandoning the dead donor rule has been that the rule is important to the general public. There is now data suggesting that this assumption also may be flawed. These findings add additional weight to proposals to abandon the dead donor rule so that organ supply can be expanded in a way that is consistent with traditional notions of ethics, law, public policy, and public opinion. (shrink)

Over-enthusiastic newborn screening has often caused substantial harm and has been imposed on the public without adequate information on benefits and risks and without parental consent. This problem will become worse when genomic screening is implemented. For the past 40 years, there has been broad agreement about the criteria for ethically responsible screening, but the criteria have been systematically ignored by policy makers and practitioners. Claims of high benefit and low risk are common, but they require precise definition and documentation, (...) which has often not occurred, undermining claims that involuntary testing is justified. Even when the benefits and risks are well established, it does not automatically follow that involuntary testing is justified, a position supported by the widespread tolerance for parental refusal of immunizations and newborn screening. (shrink)

The case of Ashley X involved a young girl with profound and permanent developmental disability who underwent growth attenuation using high-dose estrogen, a hysterectomy, and surgical removal of her breast buds. Many individuals and groups have been critical of the decisions made by Ashley's parents, physicians, and the hospital ethics committee that supported the decision. While some of the opposition has been grounded in distorted facts and misunderstandings, others have raised important concerns. The purpose of this paper is to provide (...) a brief review of the case and the issues it raised, then address 25 distinct substantive arguments that have been proposed as reasons that Ashley's treatment might be unethical. We conclude that while some important concerns have been raised, the weight of these concerns is not sufficient to consider the interventions used in Ashley's case to be contrary to her best interests, nor are they sufficient to preclude similar use of these interventions in the future for carefully selected patients who might also benefit from them. (shrink)

A patient is not always told when a student is performing a procedure for the first time. Withholding this information is a form of deception. It is justified on paternalistic grounds (it is in the patient's interest not to know), or on public policy grounds (given the choice, patients would refuse, thus compromising the training of future physicians). Using the spinal tap procedure (lumbar puncture) as a paradigm, 173 patients were surveyed to determine how they felt about first time procedures (...) by medical students, interns, and residents. The patients indicated that they would be willing to be the subject for a student's (52%), intern's (62%), or resident's (66%) first spinal tap. This paper reassesses the ethics of consent for first time procedures based on responses to this survey. (shrink)