Is it wrong to take Baby Teresa's life so she can donate her organs to others in need even though she can only live for a few days? Although some might argue that it is morally wrong to take an innocent person's life, she could be saving many others' lives by donating her organs. I will be defending the Benefits Argument in this paper, and I will argue that transplanting the organs will indeed benefit other children. I will first present a general overview of the Baby Teresa case, and then I will present the facts to my Benefits Argument. I will then present an opposing argument, how someone would attack my views, and then I will defend my argument from the objection. Finally, in the conclusion I will give certain highlights and restate important facts of this paper.
Teresa Ann Campo Pearson, also known as "Baby Teresa" was born with a rare congenital disorder known as Anencephaly. This type of disorder is sometimes referred to as "babies without brains." Important parts of the brain such as the cerebellum, the cerebrum, and the top of the skull are missing. Because there is a brain stem, autonomic functions such as breathing and heartbeat are possible. However, the baby usually dies within a few days after birth. Baby Teresa's parents, along with her physicians agreed that her organs and eyes should go to other children who could benefit them. Because her organs included her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyes, this could benefit at least a few children who are in need of transplants. At least 2000 infants need transplants each year, however, because there are not enough organ donors, many children die. Although Baby Teresa's parents agreed to donate her organs to other children, the Florida state law denied...
... middle of paper ...
...thers.
Because Baby Teresa was an anenceplaliac, she would have died within a few days, so in attempt to donate her organs to others was a good cause. Since the transplant can benefit others without harming Baby Teresa, and because she cannot feel any pain, we ought to take her organs for the sake of others. However, others might argue that what if her organs did not end up being used to benefit others, then we would have taken an innocent person's life. Because organ donors are in such high demand, it is unlikely that all of Baby Teresa's organs would not go to any recipients. Knowing that Baby Teresa cannot live long, and for the purpose of saving others, donating her organs to others is a good cause for the reason that it can save other's lives. The Benefits Argument presented in this paper, states powerful reasons for the transplant of the organs.
In his article “Opt-out organ donation without presumptions”, Ben Saunders is writing to defend an opt-out organ donation system in which cadaveric organs can be used except in the case that the deceased person has registered an objection and has opted-out of organ donation. Saunders provides many arguments to defend his stance and to support his conclusion. This paper will discuss the premises and elements of Saunders’ argument and how these premises support his conclusion. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the effectiveness of Saunders’ argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, it will discuss how someone with an opposing view might respond to his article,
According to Pozgar (2016), the demand for organs and tissues for use in transplantation far exceeds the available supply. This is largely due to the increasing success rate of organ transplantation. This disparity between the supply and demand for viable organs has created an ethical dilemma. Since, there are not enough organs to help everyone, it must be decided who will, in effect, live or die. Those charged with making those decisions attempt to use a set of guidelines to determine who the beneficiaries will be. However, when a decision results in the suffering and/or death of another, there are going to be ethical questions.
When viewing organ donation from a moral standpoint we come across many different views depending on the ethical theory. The controversy lies between what is the underlying value and what act is right or wrong. Deciding what is best for both parties and acting out of virtue and not selfishness is another debatable belief. Viewing Kant and Utilitarianism theories we can determine what they would have thought on organ donation. Although it seems judicious, there are professionals who seek the attention to be famous and the first to accomplish something. Although we are responsible for ourselves and our children, the motives of a professional can seem genuine when we are in desperate times which in fact are the opposite. When faced with a decision about our or our children’s life and well being we may be a little naïve. The decisions the patients who were essentially guinea pigs for the first transplants and organ donation saw no other options since they were dying anyways. Although these doctors saw this as an opportunity to be the first one to do this and be famous they also helped further our medical technology. The debate is if they did it with all good ethical reasoning. Of course they had to do it on someone and preying upon the sick and dying was their only choice. Therefore we are responsible for our own health but when it is compromised the decisions we make can also be compromised.
People in support of organ transplantation argue the cost/benefit ration and have determined their arguing points to be these: Social Responsibility, Improves the Quality of Life, alleviation of familial grief, encourages hope to live, lessens the cost of patient care, improves research and research methods. The opposing side offers an alternative view, offering these augment points: Risk of complication during and after surgery, degradation of health in the long run, adverse physiological effect on donor’s family, financial burden, objections based on religious belief, unethical trade and harvesting of human organs, and finally, the donor has no rights to choose the recipient.
Thesis: While driving on the highway recently, I saw a bumper sticker which read: “Please Don't Take Your Organs to Heaven, Heaven Knows That We Need Them Here” Approximately 7,000 Americans die annually while awaiting an organ transplant. In other countries of the world thousands more whose lives could be extended or transformed through transplants lost their lives because of unavailable organs. The waiting list is ever growing and the list of those willing to donate seems to be shrinking. This can be attributed to lack of motivation and knowledge among the prospective donors. According to a research done by the World Health Organization (WHO) on Kidney transplant, only one in ten people in need of a new kidney, manages to get one. The gap between supply and demand for organs has created a black market for body parts which has led to abuse of human life especially in third world countries. This high demand has led people to scour the globe to procure the organs they or their loved ones need and unscrupulous intermediaries offer help. There is a need to compensate those who are willing donate if this wide gap has to be bridged.
As being one of the most important issues about people’s lives, organ donation has a crucial place in our lives. Since the first operation of this, there have been many discussions about whether the organs should be donated or not. Organ donation can be defined as the removal of an organ from a human who has recently died, to transform it another one who is in need of it, or from a living donor for the purpose of transplanting; although this is a very important decision to save a life, there still be some questions like; Should there be organ donations or not? And people have different views about this issue. Therefore, I am going to give these opponent thoughts about organ donation.
Raja Mishra puts forward the idea of death row prisoners being able to donate an organ for a life sentence. This creates the argument that the race to meet the growing demand for organs is outweighing important moral values. Ethicists say this is a slippery slope and amounts to a de facto organ sale. But Mishra argues “it is a chance for murderers to give back exactly what they've taken: a life.” These valuable organs should not be allowed to needlessly go to waste in such a large shortage. The organs of these prisoners are valuable and could put a sizeable dent in the ever growing list of those needing organ donations.
I believe that parents are not morally justified in having a child merely to provide life saving medical treatment to another child or family member, but that this does not mean that the creation of savior siblings is morally impermissible. By having a child solely to provide life saving medical treatment, you are treating this child merely as a means rather than an end to the individual child. By having the child solely as a means to save another, you are violating this savior sibling in that you are treating them as a source of spare parts that can be used by the sickly child in order to solely promote the prolonged life of the currently sick child. This view that having a child merely as a way to provide medical treatment does not consider the multitude of other avenues that this newborn child can take, and presupposes that the child will only be used for the single purpose of providing life saving medical treatment through use of stems cells or organ donation. What this view fails to consider is that these savior siblings are valued by families for so much more than just as a human bag of good cells and organs that can be used to save the life of the original child. Instead, these savior siblings can be valued as normal children themselves, in that they can be valued in the same way that any other child who is born is valued, yet at the same time they will also be able to provide life-saving treatment to their sibling. My view runs parallel to the view held by Claudia Mills who argues that it is acceptable to have a savior sibling, yet at the same time we can not have a child for purely instrumental motives, and instead should more so value the child for the intrinsic worth that they have. Mills presents her argument by puttin...
On April 16, 1996, my grandfather passed away of cancer. He had been ill since November of 1995, and he needed a kidney transplant. Unfortunately, he never received one, resulting in the cause of his death. Each day about 70 people receive an organ transplant. However, 16 people die each day waiting for transplants that cannot take place because of the shortage of donated organs, according to organdonor.gov.
In the world of medicine there has been many new discoveries and innovations. Yet, it seems like the government is focusing on the wrong problems. One major problem deals with organ donations, and there is always a recurring question; should the family of the donor be compensated? Each patient unfortunately becomes an insignificant statistic joining the lines of hopeless patients who wait in line on the organ transplant list. The scarcity of transplant organs in the United States is accredited to many reasons: the unwillingness of families to approve donation after the donors death, even if the patient has wished to do so; religious objections; disinclination of medical personnel to approach families after the death; and the crookedness of the medical system. The need for organs far exceeds the number of donated organs, the dilemma becomes apparent: Should Organ Donors &/or Their Families Be Financially Compensated?
Ultimately, Organ donation is ethical because of the shortage of lifesaving organs, promotes giving something back to the community, and the best of all it’s a gift of life. Organ donation is considerably necessary in need to be addressed to make a difference in peoples ' lives around the world. The breakthrough in the demand of organ donation is greatly needed to guarantee individuals to save the lives or progress in receiving the benefit of organ transplant (Hyde, Wihardjo, & White, 2012). Most people don’t realize were organ transplants come from and how important organ donations means to a person in need. The fact of the matter is that organs are useless once we have passed away, to make an enormous impact on others around us we have to take that step and become an organ donor. Most individuals have nothing to lose but to gain a life by being an organ donor. Miller (1987) concludes that the answer to the crucial deficiency of donor organ is the cooperation of expressing society in the community. As well as, the effort of instructive information that clarifies both patient and medical profession to take action and prepare the way for future donors to take place in the cycle of life by renewing the organs. Therefore, it is necessary to look beyond all myths that are implemented in today’s society, organ donation is very much imperative in today’s
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be morally permissible. People would find it more understanding and more willing to help someone who is a relative.
This experiment, proposed by Harris, encouraged people to imagine a world where organ donation was expected to save more lives than it would kill. Under these circumstances, a person is obligated to give up his or her life to save one or more lives in need of a donation when they are drawn from the lottery. Hence, all lives are considered equal and two lives saved are of more value than the one life that dies. Because Utilitarianism is the concept that the right thing to do is the action that maximizes total benefit and reduces suffering, the “Survival Lottery” is morally permissible according to Utilitarianism.
Death is the end. Once you die there is nothing more you can do to change the world. I am here to tell you that those beginning sentences are false. Once you die there is something you can do to change the world. Organ donation can affect tons of lives just from parts of your body once you are not living anymore creating a lasting impact.
In the United States, there are over one hundred thousand people on the waiting list to receive a life-saving organ donation, yet only one out of four will ever receive that precious gift (Statistics & Facts, n.d.). The demand for organ donation has consistently exceeded supply, and the gap between the number of recipients on the waiting list and the number of donors has increased by 110% in the last ten years (O'Reilly, 2009). As a result, some propose radical new ideas to meet these demands, including the selling of human organs. Financial compensation for organs, which is illegal in the United States, is considered repugnant to many. The solution to this ethical dilemma isn’t found in a wallet; there are other alternatives available to increase the number of donated organs which would be morally and ethically acceptable.