Nonmaleficence and Beneficence Reply Post 1
Classmate Post:
In my opinion, Ashley’s treatment is unethical. I understand and relate to her parents’ reasons for her surgeries and treatments. I agree that we should consider the importance of quality of life for these children and do everything we can to make their lives better, but I also believe that parents should exercise some restraint regarding making such healthcare decisions for their children. I agree with parents who have voiced concerns and oppose growth attenuation therapy (GAT), who have stated, “there is no point on a scale of cognitive impairment at which it is permissible to treat a child in a fundamentally different way and argue that it not only devalues the life of their child but also the lives of others who have disabilities,” (Kerruish, 2016). I agree with the opposition that feels that GAT advances Ashley’s parents’ interests, not the interests of Ashley (Harnacke, 2016). Cureton & Singer (2017) made valid points when they said that “to respect a person requires us to take up their point of view, and assess whether the treatment is justifiable, even if Ashley cannot communicate her wishes. This doesn’t mean that parents aren’t right about what is in their child’s best interest, but her parents should acknowledge that if Ashley didn’t have a disability, how would she feel about all of the treatments being done to her?” (Cureton & Singer). “Even children with severe cognitive disabilities who cannot actively participate in their lives deserve to be respected as individuals, and healthcare providers should uphold the child’s dignity by differentiating what is best for the child from what the parent’s interests are” (Salter, 2017).
From her parent’s point of view, I see how they feel obligated to provide treatment that will make her condition better and is in line with the prima facie rules of preventing harm to their daughter by removing constraints that will cause harm to her and potential harm caused to those who care for her, as well as helping her with her disabilities. Yet, I do not believe that these obligations align with protecting and defending her rights and feel that her condition does not put her in any real danger where she needs to be rescued. “We are not morally required to incorporate ideals of beneficence in all situations, even when we can. We aren’t violating the obligation of beneficence when we fail to act this way” (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
In Ashley’s case, do you think it would have been better to appoint an advocate to ensure that she was appropriately represented as an individual and in her best interest?
As healthcare providers, we understand that parents should be supported in making the best decisions for their disabled children, considering that this lifelong condition will not improve. Knowing this, would you be able to separate yourself from what is in the parent’s best interest from what is in the child’s best interest?
