Why Do Parents Burden

Difficult Choices: A Parents Burden
Me Me
Rochester Community and Technical College
Abstract
Within this paper I will argue that the decision of the parents and doctor’s in Case Study #15 (p. 713) of our Biomedical Ethics book, were justified, and should not be considered cruel or unusual by any means. I will use the terms and principles advocated in Kantian ethics as explained by Onora O’Neill, to argue my point. The papers thesis is centered around the fact that Ashley’s parents have already committed to providing her with the most beneficial care possible, such that they made the choice and the commitment to care for her themselves, and therefore, they would have no gain in suddenly taking the easy road, over the road
That is the point too, they voluntarily took on this responsibility, and all of the heartache and troubling decisions that would have to be made, because it was what was most beneficial for the little girl, whom they care for despite her flaws. Kant views humans as “the bearers of rational life,” (O’Neill 49.) It could be inferred then, that as rational creatures, we should be expected to take upon ourselves the responsibility of making choices for those who cannot. To use others as a mere means to an end implies non-consent, which is typically categorized by acts of deceit and/or coercion. However, Ashley can in no way give her consent, on any issue, even when she is at an age when you would typically deem a person able to make decisions for themselves. Therefore, if we argue that a lack of consent on her part means that something should not be done or is unacceptable, then that can be expanded upon to say that she doesn’t consent to be feed or bathed. However, we know that these are things that she needs to be as healthy as she can be, and to survive. So how is the argument behind the “Ashley Treatment,” any more or less legitimate anything else? The
(1986). A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics. Regan, Tom (Ed.), Matters of Life and Death (pp. 45-50). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Print. [Edited].
Case Study #15. (2011). Preventing Physical Maturation in a Brain-Damages Girl. Brand-Ballard, Jeffrey, & Degrazia, David, & Mappes, Thomas A. (Eds.), Biomedical Ethics (pp. 713-714). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. (7th ed.), Print.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. (1971). A Defense of Abortion. Brand-Ballard, Jeffrey, & Degrazia, David, & Mappes, Thomas A. (Eds.), Biomedical Ethics (pp. 479-487). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. (7th ed.), Print.
Warren, Mary Anne. (1984). On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Brand-Ballard, Jeffrey, & Degrazia, David, & Mappes, Thomas A. (Eds.), Biomedical Ethics (pp. 468-475). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. (7th ed.), Print.

The Right to Choose: For