Organ donation is truly one of the most philanthropic deeds one human being can do for another. Given this idea, however, organ donation is a gift that is given freely. It is not something that should be forced upon someone. From the second a saviour sibling is born they are denied full rights to their own bodies. The subject of saviour siblings brings along many controversial issues. It is an ongoing dilemma that brings multiple questions to mind. Is it morally correct and ethically right to have a donor baby? Can parents make the decision about painful procedures and donating for their unborn child? Although the idea of saviour siblings seems quite intriguing, it is however a procedure that should not be carried out as the cons outweigh the …show more content…
Cells from embryos are selected to undergo the process of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. The screening helps doctors and parents determine if particular embryos are in fact a perfect match for the sick child. Additional embryos free of genetic problems are frozen, while one is placed in the womb for development (Fertilisation, 3.) Embryos that fail to be the perfect match or have a problematic genetic diagnosis are simply discarded as it is of no use to the terminally ill child who is in need of desperate help. In other words many of these “embryos are [simply] selected for destruction.” (Sparrow and Cram, 667-674.) It is for these reasons that along with the procedure of conceiving saviour siblings, the issue for a future of the healthy but un-matching embryos which are not placed in the woman arises. If life starts at conception then the human embryo has the same status as a child or an adult. Thus, making the process of creating a donor baby similar to abortion. Therefore, morally it is wrong to conceive a savior sibling for the obvious reasons that these embryos are in fact humans and destroying them is murder as they would have developed into a human being. Moreover, many other complications can arise when trying to conceive a child through in vitro fertilization. For example, in some cases “the parents of a terminally ill child are unable to find a suitable donor and are also unable to have another child due to the woman’s inability to carry another child to term,” (Sparrow and Cram, 667-674.) It is in cases like these, the help of a surrogate mother is needed, however this can
I chose this dilemma for reflection because of the true dichotomous nature of organ transplantation. Someone must die in order for someone else to live. Additionally, with the current demand outweighing the supply of organs available, another ethical “layer” is formed. In
First of all, we can assess issues concerning the donor. For example, is it ever ethically acceptable to weaken one person’s body to benefit another? It has to be said that the practiced procedures are not conducted in the safest of ways, which can lead to complications for both donors and recipients (Delmonico 1416). There are also questions concerning of informed consent: involved donors are not always properly informed about the procedure and are certainly not always competent to the point of fully grasping the situation (Greenberg 240). Moral dilemmas arise for the organ recipient as well. For instance, how is it morally justifiable to seek and purchase organs in foreign countries? Is it morally acceptable to put oneself in a dangerous situation in order to receive a new organ? Some serious safety issues are neglected in such transactions since the procedures sometimes take place in unregulated clinics (Shimazono 959). There is also the concept of right to health involved in this case (Loriggio). Does someone’s right to health have more value than someone else’s? Does having more money than someone else put your rights above theirs? All of these questions have critical consequences when put into the context of transplant tourism and the foreign organ trade. The answers to these questions are all taken into account when answering if it is morally justifiable to purchase
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.
Recent high profile cases, films and books all around the world including the UK, Australia and the United States have brought to the public’s attention a new type of IVF. ‘Embryo Selection’ meaning ‘Embryos are fertilised outside the body and only those with certain genes are selected and implanted in the womb.’ Henceforth meaning that doctors are now able to select specific embryo’s and implant them into the mother of who may have another sick child in order to gain genetic material such as bone marrow which will match the ill-fated child and therefore hopefully be able to save their life. Creating a ‘saviour sibling’. ‘A child conceived through selective in vitro fertilization as a potential source of donor organs or cells for an existing brother or sister with a life-threatening medical condition’ a definition given by Oxford Dictionaries (1.0). Cases of this are happening all around the globe and many are highly documented about. The most famous case could be noted as in the fictional book of ‘My Sisters Keeper’ By Jodi Picoult. I will further discuss this throughout my dissertation and how books and films can affect the view on certain ethical subjects. Furthermore, I am also going to discuss a range of factors such as certain religious beliefs and the physical creation of saviour siblings compared to the creation of designer babies. Strong views are held by many both for and against the creation of saviour siblings.
Our culture has a stringent belief that creating new life if a beautiful process which should be cherished. Most often, the birth process is without complications and the results are a healthy active child. In retrospect, many individuals feel that there are circumstances that make it morally wrong to bring a child into the world. This is most often the case when reproduction results in the existence of another human being with a considerably reduced chance at a quality life. To delve even further into the topic, there are individuals that feel they have been morally wronged by the conception in itself. Wrongful conception is a topic of debate among many who question the ethical principles involved with the sanctity of human life. This paper will analyze the ethical dilemmas of human dignity, compassion, non-malfeasance, and social justice, as well the legal issues associated with wrongful conception.
Couples experiencing infertility issues now have a number of options at their disposal from in-vitro fertilization to intrauterine insemination or going as far as using a surrogate and donor eggs or donor sperm. Technology has made it possible for someone to experience the joy of parenthood regardless of whether they can naturally conceive children. All of these procedures come with their own ethical questions and pros and cons. One of the biggest moral dilemmas is what to do with the left-over embryos still in storage when a family has decided they have had enough children. Most couples see this ethical quandary because they recognize that the embryos are whole human beings and do not think it is morally right to dispose
Apostles of Disunion explores the contrasting ideologies that eventually lead up to one of the bloodiest wars in American History. However, many argue whether the clashing political philosophies were the cause of a different economy or paranoid leaders. Hence, the North consisted of free-labor, meanwhile, the south was planter-dominated. The needs of the two sides differed which was a major aspect of the causation of the civil war.
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.
...on of human embryos but they successfully argue that the benefits of therapeutic cloning outweigh the morally based objections regarding the process” (2011). Furthermore they emphasize the fact that human lives are spared and improved by the use of genetic engineering and that the destruction of human embryos can eventually be omitted out of the process in a near future through other forms of technology.
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...
Imagine yourself in a society in which individuals with virtually incurable diseases could gain the essential organs and tissues that perfectly match those that are defected through the use of individual human reproductive cloning. In a perfect world, this could be seen as an ideal and effective solution to curing stifling biomedical diseases and a scarcity of available organs for donation. However, this approach in itself contains many bioethical flaws and even broader social implications of how we could potentially view human clones and integrate them into society. Throughout the focus of this paper, I will argue that the implementation of human reproductive cloning into healthcare practices would produce adverse effects upon family dynamic and society due to its negative ethical ramifications. Perhaps the most significant conception of family stems from a religious conception of assisted reproductive technologies and cloning and their impact on family dynamics with regard to its “unnatural” approach to procreation. Furthermore, the broader question of the ethical repercussions of human reproductive cloning calls to mind interesting ways in which we could potentially perceive and define individualism, what it means to be human and the right to reproduction, equality and self-creation in relation to our perception of family.
The addition of a child into a family’s home is a happy occasion. Unfortunately, some families are unable to have a child due to unforeseen problems, and they must pursue other means than natural pregnancy. Some couples adopt and other couples follow a different path; they utilize in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood. The process is complicated, unreliable, but ultimately can give the parents the gift of a child they otherwise could not have had. At the same time, as the process becomes more and more advanced and scientists are able to predict the outcome of the technique, the choice of what child is born is placed in the hands of the parents. Instead of waiting to see if the child had the mother’s eyes, the father’s hair or Grandma’s heart problem, the parents and doctors can select the best eggs and the best sperm to create the perfect child. Many see the rise of in vitro fertilization as the second coming of the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. A process that is able to bring joy to so many parents is also seen as deciding who is able to reproduce and what child is worthy of birthing.
This report will outline the ethics of conceiving a child for the purpose of using cells, tissues or even organs to treat an existing child with a fatal disease. In outlining the ethics of saviour siblings, the question of whether it is ethical to conceive a child for the purpose of becoming a saviour will be explored.
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.
In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense2007, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it maximizes adult organ donations (which are the greater good) so that the number of lives saved would increase along with the quality of life, and also saves money and time.