Exploring this dilemma from the point of view of the doctor, it can be seen that his best self-interest is very different than that of Ashley’s parents. Defining the doctor’s self-interest, it can be noted that he is probably seeking to defend his position, allow Ashley’s parents to use the medical services to perform the treatment, and make some form of income. If he was an advocate of the procedure and there was substantial backlash against it, then he would be working against his own interests if he condoned it. As a result, it would be non-permissible for the doctor to do anything that would result in negative legal ramifications or critical backlash. Also, if the operation were to threaten or harm his position then it would also be …show more content…
With the outcome of the surgery being unknown, it cannot be stated without a doubt that it would be in the doctor’s best self-interest. If Ashley underwent the procedure and it was a success, then the doctor would have acted in his best self-interest while doing the least harm. Alternatively, if the procedure went wrong or the medical community deemed it totally unethical, then it would be against his self-interests. Even if the operation is safe, more information is needed in order to definitively ascertain how the factors surrounding the surgery impact the doctor and his interests. Furthermore, there are many alternatives to having the surgery performed on Ashley. These alternatives might not be in the self-interest of her parents, yet they could be for the doctor since they might alleviate the need for the procedure altogether which in turn would take the dilemma out of his hands. Therefore, the procedure is permissible because the doctor could have a lot to gain from it, yet there are less invasive alternatives and a multitude of unknown factors that could either help or harm his position in the medial