The situation that B’s parents are faced with is not an easy one. Having the courage to, in a way, harm their own daughter in hopes of helping other babies is commendable to many. In today’s society the demand for organs far outweighs the supply, but for newborns and infants who need transplants the shortage is especially dire. B’s parents have the ability to help several of those babies who need healthy organs. Unfortunately, they are unable to wait until B dies naturally to be able to harvest her organs. Nevertheless, she is only expected to live for a few days until her vital functions fail. There are many strong arguments for both sides, but in my opinion terminating the life of B to harvest her organs is the right thing to do.
Essentially, B is a purely biological life. There is no mental functioning, which also means there is no morality. Even with no functioning brain, B’s brain stem is supporting all of her vital functions that are keeping her alive. This presents the first moral principle in question; is B going to be harmed if they take her life before her body actually succumbs to the anencephaly? B’s parents believed that since she was going to die soon, her organs were doing her no good. Babies with anencephaly never experience any degree of consciousness, so one might argue that they are also free of any pain or suffering. Others might argue the fact that there is no way of knowing if B would be harmed, but it is clear that being alive is not benefitting her in any way. She has no chance of living a life with real relationships and experiences. B might live a few more days, but it would be of no benefit to her. It might be a loss for others, essentially her parents, but not for her.
By allowing such organ donatio...
... middle of paper ...
... have the ability to be at some point in the future. They have been or will be able to establish an identity for themselves, something that is never possible for an anencephalic child.
Personally, the deciding factors that helped me reach my opinion had to do with the fact that since she would only be living for a few more days at most, her parents would be able to give meaning to her life through donating her healthy organs to babies who desperately need them. Furthermore, I do not believe she would be harmed in the process. Her lack of a functioning cerebrum means that she will never gain consciousness, thus never feeling any pain. It is apparent that there are strong feelings associated with the decision that B’s parents made to donate her organs. We might think we know what we would do if we were them, but we really have no idea until we’re in that situation.
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,
Firstly, by looking at the first patient, whether she gets a kidney from her father or a “cadaver kidney” , there will be no difference because she needs a kidney nonetheless. The second patient however, cannot agree to give his kidney away because one of the main reasons is that he’s scared and lacks “the courage to make this donation”9. So right at this point, it can be seen that it would be better if the father didn’t give his kidney away because it wouldn’t cause him any happiness, whereas the daughter has two options to gIn everyday life, whether on a personal base or on a professional base, difficult scenarios, or also known as moral dilemmas, are present. Depending on whom the person is or what their belief and value systems are, the issue can be ‘resolved’. In this particular case, questions arise about whether it is morally right to lie to family members when something can be done, ignoring the fact of its after effects. The case will be explained in details later on including the patient’s state, but to answer this ethical question, two theorists will be presented for the con and pro side. For the con side, the deontologist Immanuel Kant will be presented with his theory that lying is prohibited under all circumstances, as for the pro side, John Stuart Mill will be presented for the utilitarian theory stating that whichever decision brings out the most happiness is the right decision. After discussing the case, my personal view of what is right will be stated with my own reasons, which is that lying is the right decision to be taken.
Should anencephalic newborns be used as organ donors? This has been a debatable topic within the medical field and anencephalic families. There has been many pros and cons whether it is right for anencephalic babies to donate their organs. With regards to using anencephalic newborns as organ donors, I believe that doctors should be able to use anencephalic babies organs to save another baby live.
Author Christine Mitchell’s “When Living is a Fate Worse Than Death” told the story of a girl Haitian named Charlotte. Charlotte was born with her brain partially positioned outside of her cranium which had to be removed or she would have not survived. Her skull had to be concealed by a wrap in order not to cause further damage. Charlotte was born with less brain cells which allowed her only to breath and not feel much of the pain. Charlotte’s parents thought that the doctor’s in Haiti did not know what was best for their daughter. The doctors in Haiti thought Charlotte should not be resuscitated, undergo anymore horrible treatments and die peacefully. Charlotte’s parents were not happy with the doctor’s guidelines and thought the United States medical care would have better technology and could save their daughter. Charlotte’s parents bought her a doll which
Around this time major changes are happening in the baby 's lungs (Pregnancy week twenty four Pg 10). So the public says it’s okay to kill a baby that is breathing with a regular heart beat, but what about this? Imagine your mother developed alzheimer 's and became a burden to you, her heart is still beating and she is still breathing, but because this isn’t your ideal situation the doctor gives you the option to end her life. You’re obviously not going to do that, It’s ridiculous that he even thought of this as an option! That is your mother whose job was to protect you and she took care of you and she is alive. We think that the option of murdering in this situation is crazy and wrong but why is it not insane to kill a living, breathing, and heart beating child? You made this baby whether it was planned or not you need to
P1) If it is immoral to kill an adult human because you discontinue their ability to experience a future, then abortion is immoral.
Recently, a family decided to end treatment for their 21 month old baby girl in the only “humane way” possible: nutrition withdrawal (Bever, 2014). In September, 19-month old Natalie Newton wandered into the family’s pool unsupervised by her parents. When she was found, Natalie was blue in the face from lack of oxygen and immediately rushed to the hospital. Though they were able to revive her, doctors informed the family that Natalie would not live; she was deaf, blind, unable to move and ultimately brain dead from being withdrawn from oxygen for as long as she had been. While Natalie remained immobile and dead to the world, her parents begged the physicians to euthanize their child. However, currently in the state of Texas, euthanziation is illegal and the hospital’s ethics committee would not allow it. The only method they allowed that they considered humane, was to withhold both nutrition and hydration from Natalie. While it’s always traumatic for any parent to watch their child die, the Newton’s looked on as it took nine full days for Natalie to finally pass away from lack of nutrition. The parents argue ...
I have learned first hand, as my mother was in this position, when I was 3 years old, to make the decision whether to donate my brother's organs or not. She was so distraught that she could not make a rational decision as very few parents would be able do is in this position. 30% of parents that decide against donating their children’s organs wish they had chosen differently in one-year after.
...ther’s sovereignty over her body outweigh the right of an unborn child to live. The answers to these questions are very diverse as a result of the diversity of the American society. With the issue of abortion, one’s attitude toward it is going to be based on many things such as religious background and personal morals. There is no black and white answer to the abortion issue. Luckily we live in a country where we are able to decide for ourselves whether something is morally right or wrong. Thus, ultimately, the choice is ours. As with the many other ethical issues which we are faced with in our society, it is hard to come to a concrete answer until we are personally faced with that issue. All we can do is make an effort to know all of the aspects which are involved so that we may be able to make a sound decision if we were faced with this problem in our own lives.
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.
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...
In the case of a Downs syndrome infant born with other defects such as intestinal obstruction the choice is sometimes made to let the baby die. However, when the Downs syndrome infant is otherwise healthy you are not allowed to kill it. Basically the decision is be...
This case was taken into the British court system where, after a long trial, a judge upheld the doctor’s decision not to resuscitate. The reasoning was that the judge felt he could not order the doctors to perform actions that would cause increased suffering for the child. After considering the doctrines of the sanctity of life and the...
The main advantage of this medical surgery is that it is conceived for the purpose of saving people’s lives – one organ can save eight lives. For a recipient, it means it’s a second chance at life of not having to be dependent on expensive routine treatments to survive and live a normal lifestyle. The family of a deceased donor could take consolation thinking that their loved ones did not die in vain, rather they continue to live on other people’s life. The only downsides to organ donation would be the misconceptions. Families are often believe that the donor’s bodies were kept on life support while removing the tissues which is not entirely the case. Surgeons do not remove organs or tissues unless he is pronounced as brain-dead or dead. Another downside of this procedure is the fact that the donor can’t get to choose who receives the organ, however, there are organizations that arrange a meeting between the recipient and the donor though this can occur on rare cases (Emory Health Care). This study will review the practices of organ donation and its future medical advancements.
The question arises whether a person’s claim to determine what transpires to their bodies afore and postmortem should be respected. Traditional medical ethics lean toward preserving the rights of the person. This translates into the act of not harvesting organs from the living or deceased unless valid consent has been obtained. The basis of this ethical policy lies in the deontological theories that were established by our philosophical forefathers, such as, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Refusing to acknowledge the individual rights of a potential donor; the doctor, or medical facility is committing an act of ethical betrayal of the donor, the family, the institution of medicine and the law. Thus, the individual rights of the donor must be upheld to the highest ethical degree.