Analysis of Pillow Angel Ethics 12.3.2016

          What does it mean for something to be ethical? The article "Pillow Angel Ethics" discusses the case of Ashley, a brain-damaged girl who is sterilized to keep her small. There has been controversy to this issue, and people argue whether or not the parents made an ethical decision. In class, we talked about how a criteria is needed to evaluate the ethics of a topic and that a nation's ethics will not always be the same as one's morals. This is relatable in reality because everyone has his or her own thoughts, and as humans, we tend to disagree with what others think is right, which is probably why there has been a split in sides of Ashley's case. I personally think that the parents decision was unethical because of its violation to both my morals and my ethical criteria.

          Throughout this article, the author provides evidence and reasoning for both sides. She uses expert opinions to explain why the doctors believed it was ethical. For example, she uses Dr. Daniel Gunther's statement that because of the treatment Ashley's risk for cancer has decreased and there were no long-term risks. By using an expert opinion, her evidence is more credible and convincing. However, her explanations for the parents motives makes the case seem unethical. According to the author, the parents just assume that stopping the growth of their child would make her happy. The parents used the logical fallacy, slippery slope, to try to make themselves seem as if they were doing the right thing. One can't just assume what another wants. Ashley's parents are not mind readers; they do not know what Ashley truly wants. Due to the use of a slippery slope, the parents' action seems unethical. The author then uses rhetorical questions at the end of the article to emphasize the ethics of the situation again. A rhetorical question that the author uses is "How can it be O.K. to make someone "unnaturally" taller but not smaller?"  This question makes the author seem to lean towards the ethical side because it raises the question of whether or not changing a child's physical structure in general is ethical. Overall, the author tries to stay objective; however, it can be argued on what side the author actually leans toward.