Please read the case, then discuss the questions from an Ethics of Care perspective and then a Virtue Ethics perspective. Respond to at least 2 of your classmates' posts. The goal is a dialogue, not just a quick answer to the case question.
If the parents consent to the transplant of organs from these terminally diagnosed infants then i think it is wonderful. The parents are taking a tragic situation and changing the course of another infant that could die by giving them a life saying organ. I have heard with organ donation stories that knowing that part of your loved one lives on in someone else and saved them is very comforting. I think in these tragic situations that it can be comforting to the parents as they morn the loss of their child. I think we should develop a social policy that allows education to parents in these situations if organ donation can be an option. If more families know about it in these tragic circumstances then it is easier too make a decision when the families are dealing with grief. I think resuscitation of a still born so organs can be harvested is completely immoral. The child is gone when it still born resuscitation would cause pain to the infant can cause the family pain to witness their child that was dead be alive just to take the organs it would be like watching your child die twice. The infant is dead and should stay dead it causes less pain for the infant and family the resuscitation would be unnecessary because just because of resuscitation does not mean that the organs will be viable to harvest so why go through the physically and emotionally stressful time if it will cause more harm then good. A patient in permanent vegetative state organs harvest is justifiable as long as the patient spoke to family about wanting to be an organ donor and the patient had instructions of wanting to be taken off life-support and donate organs. If the family were to decide on their own that they wanted to donate their family members organs without known what he or she wanted i think that is wrong because what if they did not want that and yes i know they are in a vegetative state but their wishes should still be respected. The harvest of the vegetative state is different because with the infant the parents are the guardian and have to give consent so it is up to them where with the patient in the vegetative state they could be eighteen years or older and be able to decide what they would want if faced with death. Overall, organ harvesting is great and it saves lives from the people who do not have another choice.
Emily, great elaboration. I definitely see both side of this argument. Very fine line between was it moral here and what is not. I guess it comes down to the beliefs of different people and how these people affected handle the situation at hand. There are morally acceptable ways to do so, and obviously immorally acceptable ways to proceed with such decisions. A life should never be taken, or broughy back just for the "good" of someone else.
I love the part where you talked about how being able to give an organ and save someone elses life can be comforting to some people. I choose to donate my organs when I pass away. This was a big part in why I choose to make the choice. If God decided that it is my time to go, i would want to help someone else who's time it is not. Organs are how we function and we need them to survive. Being able to harvest them is a great technology that I think we should use.
For the first question I can see both sides of the question. It is not moral to kill anyone so it would not be moral to kill the baby. However, I do think that it would be a moral act to give up what short life the baby has to save another babies life who can grow up to make an impact on the world. Therefor the newborn with the anencephaly would be making an impact on the world by impacting/saving another newborns life. I do not think that it would be disrespectful or unfair to go either way. If the parents of the newborn choose to go with the transplant then that decision should be respected in that they are choosing to sacrifice their own baby to save someone else baby. If the parents choose not to do the transplant then that decision should be respected in that the parents do not want to sacrifice their baby and they want to spend what little time they have with their baby. To continue to the second question I think that there should be a social policy imported that would allow for this act to happen. It is ultimately up to the parents but I feel that the parents should at least have this option to help some parents deal with their grief by saving another babies life knowing their baby was dying too soon. For question three, once again, parent willing, I think that it is justifiable either way. Some parents believe in just letting their baby go on its own. However, other parents may want to keep their babies organs intact until they can be used to save another babies life. Either way can be looked at justifiably and morally depending on the reason behind the decision. So would this same situation work for someone above the age of 18 in a permanent vegetable state? At that point it becomes the wishes of the patient. If the patient wanted their organs passed out then I believe that there is no question that the wishes of A person should be granted and the organs should be preserved and given to someone who needs them. If the patient did not want to donate their organs then their organs should not be donated. Now, when the patient has never specified what exactly they wanted to do with their organs then I believe it should be up to the patients supportive people to discuss and decide what they wanted to do with the organs. Once again, I think that either way is moral and justifiable depending on the reason behind the action. Yes, it would be a great act to give the organs to save someone else life. Is it disrespectful to the patient in the vegetable state? I personally don't think so because they are being kept in a vegetable state to save another life. I can also see where it would be immoral to keep the person in a vegetable state simply for the organs because is the patient truly living? No, and that can be taken as disrespect by either not letting the patient go or dragging on a life that is going to die once its organs are donated. At the end of the day harvesting organs is saving lives but we also have to respect the wishes of the patients and their families. An act is moral or immoral based upon the reason behind the act.
Danny, i agree with your points on the infant with anencephaly it should be the parents choice. Many parents feel great that they are saving other babies since their own baby will not be able to live. Many parent would be unable to make that decision and maybe the parents want some time with the baby before they die. I also agree that patient in a vegetable state to be kept alive to give organs yes this can be immortal but because the patient in the vegetable state will die and their organs could save someone that is not alive.
I love your argument that the parents should be able to decide. I also love the very last point you make on the difference between and immoral and moral act. If the parents are harvesting the organs to save another child it is moral in my opinion. The parents should be fully informed that the child still must be alive, and if they feel comfortable with it, then it should be allowed. Great elaboration!
Danny, I agree with your view on this whole subject. I think that it is ultimately the parents decision as well. It would be a difficult decision to make but justifiable either way it is looked at. I also don't see this as being a disrespectful act, done correctly, in any way, and love the last sentence you posted about it being life saving however, the parents ultimately should make the decision.
I couldn't agree more. I think that without a doubt the parents should have the final say on what the final decision is. I agree that they need to fully educate the parents, and if they are still okay with the situation then i don't see the problem with going through with the transplant.
If we look at this case from a virtue ethics perspective, we must focus more upon being rather than doing. We are not just looking at the action of harvesting or donating organs, but instead looking the character of the person performing them. The case of anenchephalic newborn would clearly be a sad and overwhleming time for a parent; thus, according to virtue ethics, the decision to harvest the organs of the newborn would rely on the parents that they have built through habit. I believe the compassionate person would care deeply about the plight of the deprived and marginalized. So, the compassionate person would also care deeply about those who need medical care and wait for suitable transplant opportunities. Furthermore, they would practice discernment by separating the tragic loss of a baby and the potential life they could save. This is not an immoral or disrespectful act, it provides a glimpse of positivity in an otherwise tragic situation. However, resuscitating a stillborn infant for the sole purpose of organ harvesting does seem somewhat morbid. Yet, I still believe the same principles apply above if it looked at in a virtue ethic point of view. Also, if the person has made it known that they want to be on organ donor and have made it clear that this is there wish in a vegetative state, then this ought to be permissible. However, if this was not their wish or it is unknown what their desires were, then it should not be justifiable because it takes away patient self-determination. I believe the ethics of care would also concur with this because pays attention to moral life with an emphasis on the empathy and concern of needs of others.
Correct. Resuscitating an infant or ultimately taking away their life based on wanting to donate their organs does seem morbid. I mean I understand the want to help others if this infant is going to pass on eventually but it seems like in some cases the infant effected by anencephaly is being "used" as a means for someone else's life, not their own.
I completely agree with your thoughts on the virtue ethics. I think that it is more about the intention of the act and the character of the person performing the act rather than the act itself.
Furthermore, i agree that in regards to patients in a vegetative state if they have advanced directives that dictae they want to be an organ donor, then i s not see why it couldn't be done. However, if it is not written or it is not wanted, or there in uncertainlty about what is being said, then under no circumstances should this be done. It takes away from the patient's self-determiation and autonomy, so should not be done.
Austin, I completely agree with what you have said. I think it is a brave decision for any parent to want to have their dying or vegetative child's organ s harvested. The parent's are may find meaning in donating organs to other ill children and save their life(s). I think it is a tough and challenging decision to make and I applaud parents who made these excruciating decisions.
After reading this case and looking at it from a virtue ethics perspective, no, one should not be able to take the organs from an infant who has anencephaly due for the fact that they would have to take those organs before the infant is declared legally dead. It is not morally acceptable for someone to take a life, no matter the age or condition of a patient, including an infant. Just because someone has 3 hours or 3 days to live, it doesn't mean that amount of life should be deemed any less important.
Amanda I see your point in that the organs would have to be taken before the baby is considered dead as part of the virtue ethics perspective however, from a medical professional stand point i disagree with this. If the child is going to die and it is okay with the parents to donate the organs from the infant then this should be allowed in saving other multiple infants lives. However, this does conflict with the moral principle, but i think in health care sometimes the virtue ethics perspective must be violated to save lives.
There was a good point in saying that there is a clear difference between what is morally correct and what is medically correct. It is not morally correct to kill someone, however if the child is going to die anyways the medical field would want to use the organs to help save the lives of others If the parents give the approval I don't see a problem with doing so.
Imagine being in a room next door with your child who needs a new heart but the family next door who has a child who unfortunately has this condition cannot donate due to a law that inhibited them to do so..... I mention this because our professor stated a very similar real life example in class last year. I understand a life is a life but in my opinion to justify reasons to not donate is an act of selfishness.
Keep in mind that tiny organs to transplant into babies are extremely rare. Some might argue that the scarcity makes it more important for a baby's organs to be "salvaged."
I think that it should be the parent's decision on whether or not the organs should be harvested or not from their child. I think from a virtue ethics perspective it is more about the person and the intention of the person rather than the actual act iself. I think that for some people, knowing their child's organs saving another child's life gives meanign to their child's life. I think that it helps to know that your child did not just die in vain and that thri child lives on in another child. I think that in this type of situation it is the parents' virtues and habits that is the factor i virtue ethics.
Sometimes I think it's hard to be able to see good out of a bad situation. It is very hard to understand each side of the situation unless you've actually been in their spot. People can talk about death until they have to make a decision in a time of someone's last breath of life. We've talked about baby deaths before and for some reason this always seems harder to make a decision.As stated in some people's comments you can see from a virtue ethics perspective that they should not take the life of the infant in order to save someone elses life. If you think about a person that is of legal consent does this change your answer? This is where the situation gets a little bit muddy. It's hard to think of two different situation with people of two different ages. As well as a parent making a decision for their newborn child. We have to respect what the parent's want. There are decisions that are made everyday that aren't necessarily the best decisions. Some may think that a certain decision is moral while others do not.
I agree with the statement that the decisions should be completely left up to the parents. No matter what we want or what the doctors may want, the ultimate decision must be left up to the parents. At the end of the day it is their situation and their hardship and their decisions that they must live with.
In this situation, if the parents are okay with donating the organs from their anencephalic newborn, then I think it is fine to do. This little baby who is going to die in just a few short hours, days, or weeks, could provide a healthy and viable organ for another newborn who can grow up perfectly healthy and normal. The tricky part is that the donation of the organs will be the cause of death for the anencephalic newborn. From that point of view, I do not think that the donation of the organs should be allowed. The newborn is still a human life, and it should not be treated any differently just because it is deformed and will die very soon after birth. If an anencephalic newborn were a stillborn, I do not think that it is right to try and resuscitate it simply to harvest its organs. It is still someones child, and I think it would be traumatic for the parents who have just lost a child.
I completely agree with you that we shouldn't treat the baby different just because it may be deformed and given a very short time to live. I also agree that if the parents are okay with the donation, it should be allowed. It sounds very contradicting, but ultimately I think it should be the parents decision. The donation of such small organs is so rare and could give another child the chance to live a long, healthy life that it otherwise wouldn't be able to live.
I completely agree with you believing that the decision should be left up to the parents and they can decide what they want to do with the babies organs. Not resuscitating a newborn just for the harvesting of their organs is another thing I agree with. I do not think doctors should be allowed to resuscitate a newborn just to take their organs to help another baby. An infant should never have to go through that.
This is a very difficult case to think about. However, if the parents believe in saving another baby's life and they have been informed on how the transplant works (i.e the baby must still be alive and not pronounced brain dead) then I believe it is okay. It's ultimately up to the parents on whether or not to harvest to organs for another child. However, I can also see how it would be frowned upon. The baby is still a human life and shouldn't be treated differently just because it doesn't have much time left. We wouldn't harvest organs from a living adult if they weren't yet dead.
I agree with you, Emily. It is easy for us to say that the answer is simple and very black and white when we aren't the ones with the decision to make. I also agree that it could be frowned upon to "harvest" organs from a living child, in order to save another child. And it does seem like it could be viewed as unfair to the parents with the child who has anencephaly.
I agree, i wrote about how its a lot different from actually being in the situation rather than analyzing the situation from an outside perspective. I agree that the parents need to take into account that the baby is still a human and is still alive, and should definitely take that into account when they make their final decision.
In this case the first thing that comes to my mind is virtue ethics. Evaluating this case using virtue ethics, I believe that it is completely moral and acceptable to leave the decision up to the parents of the infant. This is a terrible situation, however, one decision that the parents should be allowed to make is whether or not they want to help another baby. This is a horrible situation and it is hard to look at any good that could come out of it. By donating the organs of the baby you could be saving the life of at least one other baby. Looking at the other side of the situation I could see where someone has a hard time accepting the thought of harvesting the organs of a baby that hasn't died yet. If we thought of this as an adult there are a lot of people that would be completely against it. We cannot think of the baby being any different of a situation just because they haven't lived as long and cannot make decisions on their own yet. I still support this side of the argument by saying that I believe the final decision should be up to the parents of the baby.
Unlike other ethical systems, virtue ethics focuses on the actor rather than the action. It also serves as a general guide rather than as a set of universal rules. As a result, different virtues may nudge towards different choices. If compassion is emphasized, the donation of a dying baby's organs would help save another baby. If dignity is emphasized, this could be seen as problematic, as a violation of the sanctity of a human life. Ethics of care is similar to virtue ethics in that it focuses on the actor rather than the action. However, it is more specific in its parameters in that it focuses on the interdependence in relationships and calls for extra concern to be given to the vulnerable. A person who follows the ethics of care would see both the dying baby and the potential organ recipient as vulnerable; however, as the would-be organ recipient can be helped, there is probably more weight in favor of donation. Most importantly, the ethics of care would recognize how the donation could both help the baby in need of organs and help the different families come together. Ethics of care strongly focuses on empathy and compassion. The parents of the anencephalic baby should not be forced to remove its life as pure utilitarianism would demand, but the ethics of care would strongly recommend this choice as a way to make the best out of a tragic situation. Ethics of care would ask for the parents of the anencephalic baby to recognize that their baby is not going to make it, and would ask them to empathize with other people and prevent another family from experiencing their pain.
All of this lies within the hands of the child's parents. Is it immoral? I don't believe so, I think that if the parents are willing to consent for it and understand the criteria as well as be adequately educated about the pros and cons that it can be looked at as saving a child life. The parents of the child with anencephaly, will only have a short time with their child and in no way can I ever say that is it fair. It is not fair, and it will never be fair to those parents and I have a hard time acting like it's perfectly okay to take the organs from a living infant. If I was the parent of this child with anencephaly, I dont know that I could agree to harvesting or saving my child's organs and I dont know many parents that would not have a hard time agreeing to it. However, looking at this purely as a chance to save a child's life, I understand the push to harvest the organs from the child who may not be alive much longer to save the child who can grow up to have a full life ahead. It is just difficult for me to say that I would make that decision if it was my child, I would hope that someone would make that decision if my child needed an organ to survive and that's really my only way to look at it. So I understand how people can look at this as saving a child's life as well as ending a child's life. It is too difficult of a question for me to simply say that it can be black and white.
This situation is very difficult, and there really is no right or wrong answer. It honestly all comes down to virtue ethics and what your personal beliefs are. I believe that the parents have every right to make the final decision on what happens to the child's organs. Parent's always have the best interest of the child in mind and will do what they feel is the right thing to do. I also think that it is a lot different to be in the situation rather than analyzing the situation from an outside point of view. Therefore, I personally don't know what i would do if i were in the situation. I don't really think that there is a black or white answer, and that it comes down to what you believe ethically.
If the parents consent to the transplant of organs from these terminally diagnosed infants then i think it is wonderful. The parents are taking a tragic situation and changing the course of another infant that could die by giving them a life saying organ. I have heard with organ donation stories that knowing that part of your loved one lives on in someone else and saved them is very comforting. I think in these tragic situations that it can be comforting to the parents as they morn the loss of their child. I think we should develop a social policy that allows education to parents in these situations if organ donation can be an option. If more families know about it in these tragic circumstances then it is easier too make a decision when the families are dealing with grief. I think resuscitation of a still born so organs can be harvested is completely immoral. The child is gone when it still born resuscitation would cause pain to the infant can cause the family pain to witness their child that was dead be alive just to take the organs it would be like watching your child die twice. The infant is dead and should stay dead it causes less pain for the infant and family the resuscitation would be unnecessary because just because of resuscitation does not mean that the organs will be viable to harvest so why go through the physically and emotionally stressful time if it will cause more harm then good. A patient in permanent vegetative state organs harvest is justifiable as long as the patient spoke to family about wanting to be an organ donor and the patient had instructions of wanting to be taken off life-support and donate organs. If the family were to decide on their own that they wanted to donate their family members organs without known what he or she wanted i think that is wrong because what if they did not want that and yes i know they are in a vegetative state but their wishes should still be respected. The harvest of the vegetative state is different because with the infant the parents are the guardian and have to give consent so it is up to them where with the patient in the vegetative state they could be eighteen years or older and be able to decide what they would want if faced with death. Overall, organ harvesting is great and it saves lives from the people who do not have another choice.
ReplyDeleteEmily, great elaboration. I definitely see both side of this argument. Very fine line between was it moral here and what is not. I guess it comes down to the beliefs of different people and how these people affected handle the situation at hand. There are morally acceptable ways to do so, and obviously immorally acceptable ways to proceed with such decisions. A life should never be taken, or broughy back just for the "good" of someone else.
DeleteI love the part where you talked about how being able to give an organ and save someone elses life can be comforting to some people. I choose to donate my organs when I pass away. This was a big part in why I choose to make the choice. If God decided that it is my time to go, i would want to help someone else who's time it is not. Organs are how we function and we need them to survive. Being able to harvest them is a great technology that I think we should use.
DeleteFor the first question I can see both sides of the question. It is not moral to kill anyone so it would not be moral to kill the baby. However, I do think that it would be a moral act to give up what short life the baby has to save another babies life who can grow up to make an impact on the world. Therefor the newborn with the anencephaly would be making an impact on the world by impacting/saving another newborns life. I do not think that it would be disrespectful or unfair to go either way. If the parents of the newborn choose to go with the transplant then that decision should be respected in that they are choosing to sacrifice their own baby to save someone else baby. If the parents choose not to do the transplant then that decision should be respected in that the parents do not want to sacrifice their baby and they want to spend what little time they have with their baby. To continue to the second question I think that there should be a social policy imported that would allow for this act to happen. It is ultimately up to the parents but I feel that the parents should at least have this option to help some parents deal with their grief by saving another babies life knowing their baby was dying too soon. For question three, once again, parent willing, I think that it is justifiable either way. Some parents believe in just letting their baby go on its own. However, other parents may want to keep their babies organs intact until they can be used to save another babies life. Either way can be looked at justifiably and morally depending on the reason behind the decision. So would this same situation work for someone above the age of 18 in a permanent vegetable state? At that point it becomes the wishes of the patient. If the patient wanted their organs passed out then I believe that there is no question that the wishes of A person should be granted and the organs should be preserved and given to someone who needs them. If the patient did not want to donate their organs then their organs should not be donated. Now, when the patient has never specified what exactly they wanted to do with their organs then I believe it should be up to the patients supportive people to discuss and decide what they wanted to do with the organs. Once again, I think that either way is moral and justifiable depending on the reason behind the action. Yes, it would be a great act to give the organs to save someone else life. Is it disrespectful to the patient in the vegetable state? I personally don't think so because they are being kept in a vegetable state to save another life. I can also see where it would be immoral to keep the person in a vegetable state simply for the organs because is the patient truly living? No, and that can be taken as disrespect by either not letting the patient go or dragging on a life that is going to die once its organs are donated. At the end of the day harvesting organs is saving lives but we also have to respect the wishes of the patients and their families. An act is moral or immoral based upon the reason behind the act.
ReplyDeleteDanny, i agree with your points on the infant with anencephaly it should be the parents choice. Many parents feel great that they are saving other babies since their own baby will not be able to live. Many parent would be unable to make that decision and maybe the parents want some time with the baby before they die. I also agree that patient in a vegetable state to be kept alive to give organs yes this can be immortal but because the patient in the vegetable state will die and their organs could save someone that is not alive.
DeleteI love your argument that the parents should be able to decide. I also love the very last point you make on the difference between and immoral and moral act. If the parents are harvesting the organs to save another child it is moral in my opinion. The parents should be fully informed that the child still must be alive, and if they feel comfortable with it, then it should be allowed. Great elaboration!
DeleteDanny, I agree with your view on this whole subject. I think that it is ultimately the parents decision as well. It would be a difficult decision to make but justifiable either way it is looked at. I also don't see this as being a disrespectful act, done correctly, in any way, and love the last sentence you posted about it being life saving however, the parents ultimately should make the decision.
DeleteI couldn't agree more. I think that without a doubt the parents should have the final say on what the final decision is. I agree that they need to fully educate the parents, and if they are still okay with the situation then i don't see the problem with going through with the transplant.
DeleteIf we look at this case from a virtue ethics perspective, we must focus more upon being rather than doing. We are not just looking at the action of harvesting or donating organs, but instead looking the character of the person performing them. The case of anenchephalic newborn would clearly be a sad and overwhleming time for a parent; thus, according to virtue ethics, the decision to harvest the organs of the newborn would rely on the parents that they have built through habit.
ReplyDeleteI believe the compassionate person would care deeply about the plight of the deprived and marginalized. So, the compassionate person would also care deeply about those who need medical care and wait for suitable transplant opportunities. Furthermore, they would practice discernment by separating the tragic loss of a baby and the potential life they could save. This is not an immoral or disrespectful act, it provides a glimpse of positivity in an otherwise tragic situation. However, resuscitating a stillborn infant for the sole purpose of organ harvesting does seem somewhat morbid. Yet, I still believe the same principles apply above if it looked at in a virtue ethic point of view.
Also, if the person has made it known that they want to be on organ donor and have made it clear that this is there wish in a vegetative state, then this ought to be permissible. However, if this was not their wish or it is unknown what their desires were, then it should not be justifiable because it takes away patient self-determination. I believe the ethics of care would also concur with this because pays attention to moral life with an emphasis on the empathy and concern of needs of others.
Correct. Resuscitating an infant or ultimately taking away their life based on wanting to donate their organs does seem morbid. I mean I understand the want to help others if this infant is going to pass on eventually but it seems like in some cases the infant effected by anencephaly is being "used" as a means for someone else's life, not their own.
DeleteI completely agree with your thoughts on the virtue ethics. I think that it is more about the intention of the act and the character of the person performing the act rather than the act itself.
DeleteFurthermore, i agree that in regards to patients in a vegetative state if they have advanced directives that dictae they want to be an organ donor, then i s not see why it couldn't be done. However, if it is not written or it is not wanted, or there in uncertainlty about what is being said, then under no circumstances should this be done. It takes away from the patient's self-determiation and autonomy, so should not be done.
Austin, I completely agree with what you have said. I think it is a brave decision for any parent to want to have their dying or vegetative child's organ s harvested. The parent's are may find meaning in donating organs to other ill children and save their life(s). I think it is a tough and challenging decision to make and I applaud parents who made these excruciating decisions.
DeleteAfter reading this case and looking at it from a virtue ethics perspective, no, one should not be able to take the organs from an infant who has anencephaly due for the fact that they would have to take those organs before the infant is declared legally dead. It is not morally acceptable for someone to take a life, no matter the age or condition of a patient, including an infant. Just because someone has 3 hours or 3 days to live, it doesn't mean that amount of life should be deemed any less important.
ReplyDeleteAmanda I see your point in that the organs would have to be taken before the baby is considered dead as part of the virtue ethics perspective however, from a medical professional stand point i disagree with this. If the child is going to die and it is okay with the parents to donate the organs from the infant then this should be allowed in saving other multiple infants lives. However, this does conflict with the moral principle, but i think in health care sometimes the virtue ethics perspective must be violated to save lives.
DeleteThere was a good point in saying that there is a clear difference between what is morally correct and what is medically correct. It is not morally correct to kill someone, however if the child is going to die anyways the medical field would want to use the organs to help save the lives of others If the parents give the approval I don't see a problem with doing so.
DeleteImagine being in a room next door with your child who needs a new heart but the family next door who has a child who unfortunately has this condition cannot donate due to a law that inhibited them to do so..... I mention this because our professor stated a very similar real life example in class last year. I understand a life is a life but in my opinion to justify reasons to not donate is an act of selfishness.
DeleteKeep in mind that tiny organs to transplant into babies are extremely rare. Some might argue that the scarcity makes it more important for a baby's organs to be "salvaged."
ReplyDeleteI think that it should be the parent's decision on whether or not the organs should be harvested or not from their child. I think from a virtue ethics perspective it is more about the person and the intention of the person rather than the actual act iself. I think that for some people, knowing their child's organs saving another child's life gives meanign to their child's life. I think that it helps to know that your child did not just die in vain and that thri child lives on in another child. I think that in this type of situation it is the parents' virtues and habits that is the factor i virtue ethics.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I think it's hard to be able to see good out of a bad situation. It is very hard to understand each side of the situation unless you've actually been in their spot. People can talk about death until they have to make a decision in a time of someone's last breath of life. We've talked about baby deaths before and for some reason this always seems harder to make a decision.As stated in some people's comments you can see from a virtue ethics perspective that they should not take the life of the infant in order to save someone elses life. If you think about a person that is of legal consent does this change your answer? This is where the situation gets a little bit muddy. It's hard to think of two different situation with people of two different ages. As well as a parent making a decision for their newborn child. We have to respect what the parent's want. There are decisions that are made everyday that aren't necessarily the best decisions. Some may think that a certain decision is moral while others do not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement that the decisions should be completely left up to the parents. No matter what we want or what the doctors may want, the ultimate decision must be left up to the parents. At the end of the day it is their situation and their hardship and their decisions that they must live with.
DeleteIn this situation, if the parents are okay with donating the organs from their anencephalic newborn, then I think it is fine to do. This little baby who is going to die in just a few short hours, days, or weeks, could provide a healthy and viable organ for another newborn who can grow up perfectly healthy and normal. The tricky part is that the donation of the organs will be the cause of death for the anencephalic newborn. From that point of view, I do not think that the donation of the organs should be allowed. The newborn is still a human life, and it should not be treated any differently just because it is deformed and will die very soon after birth. If an anencephalic newborn were a stillborn, I do not think that it is right to try and resuscitate it simply to harvest its organs. It is still someones child, and I think it would be traumatic for the parents who have just lost a child.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that we shouldn't treat the baby different just because it may be deformed and given a very short time to live. I also agree that if the parents are okay with the donation, it should be allowed. It sounds very contradicting, but ultimately I think it should be the parents decision. The donation of such small organs is so rare and could give another child the chance to live a long, healthy life that it otherwise wouldn't be able to live.
DeleteI completely agree with you believing that the decision should be left up to the parents and they can decide what they want to do with the babies organs. Not resuscitating a newborn just for the harvesting of their organs is another thing I agree with. I do not think doctors should be allowed to resuscitate a newborn just to take their organs to help another baby. An infant should never have to go through that.
DeleteThis is a very difficult case to think about. However, if the parents believe in saving another baby's life and they have been informed on how the transplant works (i.e the baby must still be alive and not pronounced brain dead) then I believe it is okay. It's ultimately up to the parents on whether or not to harvest to organs for another child.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I can also see how it would be frowned upon. The baby is still a human life and shouldn't be treated differently just because it doesn't have much time left. We wouldn't harvest organs from a living adult if they weren't yet dead.
I agree with you, Emily. It is easy for us to say that the answer is simple and very black and white when we aren't the ones with the decision to make. I also agree that it could be frowned upon to "harvest" organs from a living child, in order to save another child. And it does seem like it could be viewed as unfair to the parents with the child who has anencephaly.
DeleteI agree, i wrote about how its a lot different from actually being in the situation rather than analyzing the situation from an outside perspective. I agree that the parents need to take into account that the baby is still a human and is still alive, and should definitely take that into account when they make their final decision.
DeleteIn this case the first thing that comes to my mind is virtue ethics. Evaluating this case using virtue ethics, I believe that it is completely moral and acceptable to leave the decision up to the parents of the infant. This is a terrible situation, however, one decision that the parents should be allowed to make is whether or not they want to help another baby. This is a horrible situation and it is hard to look at any good that could come out of it. By donating the organs of the baby you could be saving the life of at least one other baby.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the other side of the situation I could see where someone has a hard time accepting the thought of harvesting the organs of a baby that hasn't died yet. If we thought of this as an adult there are a lot of people that would be completely against it. We cannot think of the baby being any different of a situation just because they haven't lived as long and cannot make decisions on their own yet. I still support this side of the argument by saying that I believe the final decision should be up to the parents of the baby.
ReplyDeleteUnlike other ethical systems, virtue ethics focuses on the actor rather than the action. It also serves as a general guide rather than as a set of universal rules. As a result, different virtues may nudge towards different choices. If compassion is emphasized, the donation of a dying baby's organs would help save another baby. If dignity is emphasized, this could be seen as problematic, as a violation of the sanctity of a human life. Ethics of care is similar to virtue ethics in that it focuses on the actor rather than the action. However, it is more specific in its parameters in that it focuses on the interdependence in relationships and calls for extra concern to be given to the vulnerable. A person who follows the ethics of care would see both the dying baby and the potential organ recipient as vulnerable; however, as the would-be organ recipient can be helped, there is probably more weight in favor of donation. Most importantly, the ethics of care would recognize how the donation could both help the baby in need of organs and help the different families come together. Ethics of care strongly focuses on empathy and compassion. The parents of the anencephalic baby should not be forced to remove its life as pure utilitarianism would demand, but the ethics of care would strongly recommend this choice as a way to make the best out of a tragic situation. Ethics of care would ask for the parents of the anencephalic baby to recognize that their baby is not going to make it, and would ask them to empathize with other people and prevent another family from experiencing their pain.
All of this lies within the hands of the child's parents. Is it immoral? I don't believe so, I think that if the parents are willing to consent for it and understand the criteria as well as be adequately educated about the pros and cons that it can be looked at as saving a child life. The parents of the child with anencephaly, will only have a short time with their child and in no way can I ever say that is it fair. It is not fair, and it will never be fair to those parents and I have a hard time acting like it's perfectly okay to take the organs from a living infant. If I was the parent of this child with anencephaly, I dont know that I could agree to harvesting or saving my child's organs and I dont know many parents that would not have a hard time agreeing to it. However, looking at this purely as a chance to save a child's life, I understand the push to harvest the organs from the child who may not be alive much longer to save the child who can grow up to have a full life ahead. It is just difficult for me to say that I would make that decision if it was my child, I would hope that someone would make that decision if my child needed an organ to survive and that's really my only way to look at it. So I understand how people can look at this as saving a child's life as well as ending a child's life. It is too difficult of a question for me to simply say that it can be black and white.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is very difficult, and there really is no right or wrong answer. It honestly all comes down to virtue ethics and what your personal beliefs are. I believe that the parents have every right to make the final decision on what happens to the child's organs. Parent's always have the best interest of the child in mind and will do what they feel is the right thing to do. I also think that it is a lot different to be in the situation rather than analyzing the situation from an outside point of view. Therefore, I personally don't know what i would do if i were in the situation. I don't really think that there is a black or white answer, and that it comes down to what you believe ethically.
ReplyDelete