Brandon M. Dennis www.oxhorn.

com 1

The Ashley Treatment

Brandon M. Dennis

Published in The Daily of the University of Washington

January, 2007

In early 2004, a six year old child in Seattle named Ashley was given a hysterectomy, had
her breast buds removed and was given high-dose estrogen treatments in order to remain
perpetually stunted in growth. The reason for this radical treatment is that Ashley has the
mind of a three-month-old baby and is unable to speak, move or even eat on her own, the
result of a rare condition known as “static encephalopathy of unknown etiology”.1 Her
parents defend their decision because they say that it will improve her overall wellbeing,
keeping her from having to deal with menstrual cramps, discomfort and bed sores due to
a large body and breasts, making her easier to move around and unable to become
pregnant in case of sexual abuse.
People have reacted to the news a number of ways; some supportive, some
compassionate but others with fury. “Ashley's parents have committed the ultimate
betrayal,” said David, a man who suffers from sever cerebral palsy, on his blog recently.
“They have treated their daughter as less than human, not worthy of dignity.... What
strikes me about ‘the Ashley treatment’ and has brought me to tears is that the very
people in all of society whom this child should trust have betrayed her.”2 Fox News
reported one reader reacting to the story by saying, “I find this offensive if not perverse.
Truly a milestone in our convenience-minded society.”3
When I first heard about the story, I was also very upset. While science has
provided us with uncountable advantages, especially in medicine, scientists are merely
human and make their fair share of blunders; misdiagnoses, for instance, being among
them. Additionally, some doctors can lie to patients or misrepresent the truth in order to
further their own aims, such as the case with David Reimer who was raised as a girl in an
experiment by Dr. John Money, who theorized that gender was due to how the child is

1
http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/
2
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/01/11/ashley.outcry/index.html
3
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241279,00.html
Brandon M. Dennis www.oxhorn.com 2

raised rather than genetic coding (he was wrong, by the way).4 But after reading
everything I could on the issue, I have come to the conclusion that Ashley’s parents made
the right decision.
Now, I was disgusted over the fate of Terry Schiavo. I think that the possibility of
“designer babies”5, where parents manipulate their child’s embryo in order to design their
baby with desirable or cosmetic characteristics, is wrong—ethically, legally and morally.
But with Ashley, I think her parents made use of technology, not for their own personal
benefit, but for the well-being of their child, and I do not believe that Ashley’s
womanhood or dignity was violated or betrayed in any way.
Before the operation as done, the case was presented to the ethics committee at
Seattle Children’s Hospital, who approved of the procedure.6 Despite this, feminist
groups and disability activists protested outside of the American Medical Association
headquarters in Chicago not long ago, demanding that Ashley’s doctors be condemned
for the procedure.7 Some argue that her womanhood was violated and by sterilizing her
she will never be free to choose to have children. However, since she has the mind of a
three-month-old, she will never have the mental capacity to choose to have a child or not,
and just as parents make decisions in the best interests of their infants, so did Ashley’s
parents in carrying out the operation.
“If the concern has something to do with the girl’s dignity being violated,” wrote
George Dvorsky, member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and
Emerging Technologies, “then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the
cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity… The estrogen treatment is not
what is grotesque here. Rather, it is the prospect of having a full-grown and fertile
woman endowed with the mind of a baby.”8
Some have looked at this issue as perverse because they think the parents are
changing their child’s body simply for their own convenience, desiring to keep Ashley a

4
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_Boy_raised_as_girl_suffered_final_indignity_11M
AY04.htm
5
http://www.bionetonline.org/English/Content/db_cont1.htm
6
http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/
7
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/01/11/ashley.outcry/index.html
8
http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/
Brandon M. Dennis www.oxhorn.com 3

child forever. Her parents responded to such allegations on their blog9, saying, “A
fundamental and universal misconception about the treatment is that it is intended to
convenience the caregiver; rather, the central purpose is to improve Ashley’s quality of
life.” We, on the outside, can speculate about the parent’s motives all we want, but none
of us can read their minds. It is therefore irresponsible for us to assume the worst of
parents who have to deal with so difficult a situation. I think it is better to take them at
their word. It is clear to me that Ashley’s parents made the best decision they could,
solely for the wellbeing of their child.
This is a tricky and touchy subject, for to tackle it means to tread through water
that has been rather untouched. Any science that deals with manipulating the very basics
of human existence makes me altogether squeamish, but Ashley’s parents make a rather
good point when they point out that, “The objection that this treatment interferes with
nature is one of the most ridiculous objections of all; medicine is all about interfering
with nature.” People have strong emotions about this and similar issues, and they
generally have the best of intentions. I think in this case we should bless Ashley and her
parents and pray that Ashley’s treatment ends up bringing her greater happiness.

9
http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/