That brand new baby girl that you've waited so long for and love so much has severe neurological and cognitive disabilities of unknown origin.,”Imagine that after years of trying and waiting you just found out that you are going to be the parents of a baby girl. You're happy and excited but when that day comes that she is born, something is wrong.

That brand new baby girl that you've waited so long for and love so much has severe neurological and cognitive disabilities of unknown origin. She can recognize you, but she will never be able to speak or move on her own.

How would you take care of your daughter whom you love?

This is no hypothetical situation-this is Ashley's Case.

Ashley's Case became one of the most debated bioethical cases in American history when, in July of 2004, two doctors took it upon themselves to remove the 6-year-old Ashley's perfectly healthy sexual organs, perform breast bud removal and start hormone treatment to stunt her growth.

The idea behind the surgeries was to prevent Ashley from growing to be too big and prevent sexual development so as to make caring for her, as a disabled person, easier for her parents and to shelter Ashley from the pains of the menstrual cycle.

The bioethical debates that ensued were highly critical to those two doctors who performed the surgery, and undoubtedly played a prominent role Ashley's pediatric endocrinologist Dan Guenther committing suicide less than six weeks ago.

Last Thursday, Doug Diekema, Ashley's treating pediatrician and bioethicist, spoke at the Medical College of Wisconsin where he explained the facts of Ashley's Case, defended the doctor's actions and spoke of the late Guenther.

"In retrospect I truly believe there's no question that there is nothing wrong with what we did with Ashley," Diekema told the crowd of more than 100 people.

"Ashley's parents were both very large people and they were afraid of how it would be possible for them to take care of her if she were to grow naturally. She was not going to get better and thus be a mental 3-month-old for her entire life and she will never walk, talk or care for herself," Diekema said.

Perhaps the most important objection to the treatment was that it was a "slippery slope" and could lead to other less legitimate treatments of patients with neurological disorders.

Of the policy concern and the slippery slope argument, Diekema responded by saying, "the slippery slope argument is a warning of the dangers on the path you're on.

"But I'm a mountaineer and if I'm climbing a slippery mountain then I will get out my ice pick and I'll climb it anyway, because if you stay off the path of the slippery slope you will never fall but, more importantly, you will never reap the benefits of that path.the benefits for Ashley were worth it."

Groucho Marx once said, "These are my principles, if you don't like them I have others."

Marx was just trying to be witty, but there is significance to what he said. In our ever-changing world, our ideologies are challenged and sometimes must be modified with differing circumstances.

Especially in the field of bioethics, where science and medicine are progressing and making impossible treatments more and more possible, each case must be seen as an individual circumstance and analyzed as such.

Therefore, it's important for us Marquette students, as future doctors or simply future leaders in the community, to have a firm ethical foundation.

Ashley's Case is a prime example of the real world importance of ethics and why Marquette is dedicated to challenging students to examine the values that guide our lives and not just prepare students for today's workplace, but for the world in its most urgent and deepest complexities.

“