Ethical Dilemmas in Three Cases

Limiting Human Physical Development Process

1.Case -1 Limiting Human Physical Development Process 

Ashley

Parents refer to their daughter as "Pillow Angel"   because she does not move from wherever they put her, usually on a pillow.    

A Seattle couple has a nine-year-old daughter, named Ashley, who has static encephalopathy, a rare brain condition which will not improve. As a result of this condition, Ashley has the mental ability of a three-month-old baby and cannot walk or talk. Instead of putting her in an institution, the couple decided, out of love obviously, to take care of her at home. Contrary to Ashley’s quite limited psychological (mental) development, the rate of her physical growth was normal apart from the fact that, at six year of age, she was already showing signs of puberty. But, as her body was developing, Ashley was, like any other girl, getting bigger and heavier; and Dad became the one who was lifting her from one place to the other. Ashley’s gradual growth in size and weight made the couple realize that their ability to keep providing her with a more personal type of care will go diminishing as they get older. At that point in time, they would be forced to consider using a mechanical lift, which is much more impersonal. To ensure not only that they are able to care for their daughter as long as they are alive, but also that the latter is provided with the best possible quality of life, the parents sought and obtained a hormone treatment to limit Ashley’s growth. They further opted for surgery to block breast growth and had her uterus and appendix removed. 

In support of their action, the parents argued that, 

(1) “Because she will remain the weight of a child, it will [would] be easier for them to move her around, bathe her and involve her in family activities - movement that will benefit her physical and mental well-being.” 

(2)“The treatment will help to improve her quality of life.” 

(3)"A fundamental and universal misconception about the treatment is that it is intended to convenience the caregiver. Rather, the central purpose of the treatment is to improve Ashley's quality of life."

(4)“Keeping her "frozen" as a girl rather than letting her go through puberty and growing into a woman will give her a better life.” 

Question: 

Do you approve the decision made by Ashley’s parents?

Case 2- Counseling and Sexual Orientation

You are the best (more knowledgeable and experienced) psychologist—counselor—in a relatively small town. You also happen to be a hard core fundamentalist Christian who is horrified by the prevalence of homosexual behaviors and gay culture. One day, a gay client, referred to you by a colleague of yours who had been unsuccessful treating this client, knocks at your door for your services. Due to your long practice experience, you realize that, if you were to accept this person as a client, you will be subjected to listening to him talking, in a detailed manner, about his/her gay/lesbian practices, behaviors and commitment to the promotion of the gay/lesbian cause. This prospect triggers off a moral dilemma for you. Now, should you accept this person as your client or not? If you turn him/her down, account in an ethical way, for your refusal, bearing in mind that you’re really the only good and effective psychologist in this town which is 30 miles away from the closest city where alternatives to your services are available. If you decide to receive him/her as your client, how would you deal with him/her? But first, explain your decision. Second, what will you be guided by in whichever course of action you choose? 

Question: Would you accept this man as your client or not? 

Case 3-Freedom of Speech

In September 2005, Denmark's largest newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published under the headline “The face of Muhammad” (or “Mohammed’s ansigt” in Deutsch) a number of cartoons depicting the Prophet of Islam in less than flattering way. These included a cartoon showing the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in the shape of a smoking bomb, another with Muhammad on a cloud in heaven telling an approaching line of suicide bombers that he had run out of virgins with which to reward them, and a third depicting the prophet grinning wildly, with a knife in his hand and flanked by heavily-veiled women. The publisher of those cartoons claimed the right to do so, based on the freedom-of-speech principle.  Muslims---in Islamic as well as non-Islamic countries---however, disagreed and found those cartoons not only demeaning but also offensive to them.

Question: In your enlightened opinion, was the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten right or wrong to publish such cartoons?