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,
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...
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.
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, a 20th century philosopher, offers her argument defending abortion in her paper, “A Defense of Abortion”. She states initially that the fetus has a right to life, although contrary to her argument, she uses it as a premise to develop her thoughts. In short, Thomson says that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the woman’s right to control her body. She forces readers to participate in a thought experiment as she gives an odd example about a violinist suffering from kidney failure. The violist is facing death and in order to prevent it, he needs your help. Because you are the only one with his blood type, you are the only hope for him. You have been kidnapped by the Society of Music lovers and, without your consent, hooked up to him and you are filtering his blood and keeping him alive. In order to save his life, you must remain connected to him and support him for nine whole months. Thomson then asks if it is morally wrong to disagree to remain connected to the violinist. It is quite noble to agree to save the man’s life but should his right to life automatically force you to sacrifice nine months of yours?
‘Is it ethical to have a child for the purpose of saving another child’s life?’
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.
In step six we must, “ Make the decision and document the decision-making process” (p.166). As I did my research and decided what was morally correct to do in this situation, I decided Lori should have the bone marrow transplant done. I do not think she is at the right stage of life to make a life or death decision, when we have the option of saving her life. There are too many parties that feel that this option is the best one and want to at least try to help her. At this point, we can say we tried and if it does not work we never gave up on her.
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
C. By becoming an organ donor, you could save a life of a deserving person.
Nurses’ attitudes, experience and knowledge and unit routines should may significantly affect the identification and care of possible donors and their families (Bidigare and Oermann 1991, Collins 2004, Flode and Forsberg 2009). Relatives’ considerate of the brain death concept, their perceptions of the quality of the attention of the probable donor and the person making the call’s expertise for organ donation is the factors influencing the relatives’ organ donation decision
Who do you save if you have the choice of the unborn child or the mother? This in my mind is...
Maternal-fetal issues spark complex and controversial debates in the field of biomedical ethics (Farber-Post, 1996). The conflicts arise when medical professionals try to determine to whom their ethical obligations are owed. Many ethicists argue that autonomy is precedential and, therefore, the duty of the medical staff is to the pregnant woman because it is her body, and she has a right to make decisions regarding her healthcare. Others argue that equally important ethical principles such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, and avoiding killing override the principle of autonomy, and therefore, these principles that govern actions towards the fetus, in particular the fetus’ right to life, demand that medical professionals override the mothers’ desires at times.
One of the most important and prevalent issues in healthcare discussed nowadays is the concern of the organ donation shortage. As the topic of organ donation shortages continues to be a growing problem, the government and many hospitals are also increasingly trying to find ways to improve the number of organ donations. In the United States alone, at least 6000 patients die each year while on waiting lists for new organs (Petersen & Lippert-Rasmussen, 2011). Although thousands of transplant candidates die from end-stage diseases of vital organs while waiting for a suitable organ, only a fraction of eligible organ donors actually donate. Hence, the stark discrepancy in transplantable organ supply and demand is one of the reasons that exacerbate this organ donation shortage (Parker, Winslade, & Paine, 2002). In the past, many people sought the supply of transplantable organs from cadaver donors. However, when many ethical issues arose about how to determine whether someone is truly dead by either cardiopulmonary or neurological conditions (Tong, 2007), many healthcare professionals and transplant candidates switched their focus on obtaining transplantable organs from living donors instead. As a result, in 2001, the number of living donors surpassed the number of cadaver donors for the first time (Tong, 2007).
It is a big question that most people often struggle with to decide when it is consider appropriate to assist an individual with mercy killing. In 1993, Robert Latimer a Saskatchewan farmer took the life of his twelve-year old daughter Tracy in an act of mercy killing. Latimer’s daughter suffered from the most dreadful form of cerebral palsy. She was severely disabled and had a mind of a four month old baby. Tracy was confined to a wheelchair and had endured multiple operations. She couldn’t walk, talk, or feed herself and she was in constant pain. After Robert Latimer learned that his daughter needed to go through another round of surgery, he knew he had to do something to save her from going through more pain. Therefore, Mr. Latimer decided