Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues about organ donation
Ethical issues about organ donation
Ethical issues about organ donation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues about organ donation
The study of what morality is and what it requires of us is moral philosophy, there are many theories. Throughout this chapter “What Is Morality?” it talks about handicapped children, including Baby Theresa, Jody and Mary, and Tracy Latimer. Baby Theresa had anencephaly, where the cerebrum and cerebellum are missing, but the brain stem is still there, she can still breathe and has a heartbeat. Then there were Jodie and Mary, twins that join together at the lower abdomen, their spines joined, and they only had one heart and one pair of lungs between the two of them. Lastly, there was Tracy Latimer, she suffered from cerebral palsy, a condition that has to do with muscle coordination. Baby Theresa 's story is different from other babies that suffer from anencephaly because her parents knew that she did not have long to live and would not become …show more content…
They did not follow through with what the parents ask because a Florida law states you can’t remove organs until the donor is dead. Although it would be sad to kill Baby Theresa to give her organs away, I would agree with her parents and physicians because she does not have long to live and will never be conscious so why not take the good organs and give them to another baby that could live. Ethicist disagreed with the parents and the physician because they said “it’s wrong to use people as means to other people’s ends”, they are saying by taking her organs you would be using her to help other people 's children. When you’re using somebody it means to violate their autonomy, Baby Theresa has no autonomy so there’s no way to violate it. People can’t always decide for themselves, when she could not decide for herself you need to think “what would be in her best interest?” either way Baby Theresa would die so there’s really not a best interest for her. Ethicists also said “it 's wrong to kill one person to save another”, if you killed Baby Theresa to
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,
Gregory exposes and informs the audience that there are thousands of people that are dying and suffering as a result of not being able to receive transplants. Persuasively, Gregory is pushing and convincing readers to open their eyes and agree that there should be a legal market in organ selling and that people should be compensated for their donation. The author approaches counterarguments such as the market will not be fair and the differences between a liberalist’s and conservative’s views on organ selling. Liberal claims like “my body, my choice” and the Conservative view of favoring free markets are what is causing controversy to occur. Gregory suggests that these studies “show that this has become a matter of life and death” (p 452, para 12). Overall, Anthony Gregory makes great claims and is successful in defending them. He concludes with “Once again, humanitarianism is best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both… just to maintain the pretense of state-enforced propriety” (p 453, para 15). In summary, people are deprived of both humanitarianism and civil liberty all because of the false claim of state-enforced behaviors considered to be appropriate or correct. As a result, lives are lost and human welfare is at
According to the BBC, Charlotte Wyatt was an infant born three months premature in October 2003. This premature birth has caused complications including severe brain damage. The medical professionals caring for Charlotte acknowledged this, predicting that she would live no more than a few months, regardless of medical care. Charlotte remained living under hospital care as she received medical treatment, including things like constant oxygen supply, and at this point, she did not respond to stimulation but appeared to be suffering significant pain. She continued to outlive doctor’s predictions as these conditions continued for months.
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?
The accepted premise for Thomson’s arguments is that a fetus is a person, and even without accepting the premise, there are still valid reasons to abortions being morally permissible. In the violinist case, a person who has perfectly functioning kidneys is kidnapped and hooked up to a machine to save a violinist who is dying
“I argue that it is personhood, and not genetic humanity, which is the fundamental basis for membership in the moral community” (Warren 166). Warren’s primary argument for abortion’s permissibility is structured around her stance that fetuses are not persons. This argument relies heavily upon her six criteria for personhood: A being’s sentience, emotionality, reason, capacity for communication, self-awareness, and having moral agencies (Warren 171-172). While this list seems sound in considering an average, healthy adult’s personhood, it neither accounts for nor addresses the personhood of infants, mentally ill individuals, or the developmentally challenged. Sentience is one’s ability to consciously feel and perceive things around them. While it is true that all animals and humans born can feel and perceive things within their environment, consider a coma patient, an individual suspended in unconsciousness and unable to move their own body for indeterminate amounts of time. While controversial, this person, whom could be in the middle of an average life, does not suddenly become less of a person
Organ sales and donation are a controversial topic that many individuals cannot seem to agree upon. However, if someone close; a family member, friend, or someone important in life needed a transplant, would that mindset change? There are over one hundred and nineteen thousand men, women, and children currently waiting on the transplant list, and twenty-two of them die each day waiting for a transplant (Organ, 2015). The numbers do not lie. Something needs to be done to ensure a second chance at life for these individuals. Unfortunately, organ sales are illegal per federal law and deemed immoral. Why is it the government’s choice what individuals do with their own body? Organ sales can be considered an ethical practice when all sides of the story are examined. There are a few meanings to the word ethical in this situation; first, it would boost the supply for the
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
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
The scene at issue in my mind right now is one where a fourteen-year-old girl comes to the orphanage which is the setting for part of the movie. This girl came to the orphanage because it was known in the region as a place that performed abortions. She had had a crude abortion performed in such a way that she had been severely injured (her uterus was punctured by a crochet hook, and, not being a sterile instrument, this caused an infection of the uterine lining, eventually killing her). The resident doctor is disgusted by this, and uses the girl's injury as an example explaining why he performs abortions. The doctor's argument is fairly simple. If the girl had come to him, rather than the ignorant abortionist she chose, she would likely have survived. In addition, he claims that potential parents have a right to choose to be parents or to not be parents. The doctor, a seeming proponent of utilitarianism, says that this demonstrates a duty to perform abortions.
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...
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.
Whether put simply or scrutinized, morality cannot be defined simply by looking at it from one or two perspectives. One must acknowledge the fact that there are several different factors that affect judgment between “right” and “wrong”. Only after taking into account everything that could possibly change the definition of righteousness can one begin to define morality. Harriet Baber, a professor at San Diego State University, defines morality as “the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct”. Baber refers to morality as a process or method when she calls it a “system”. In saying “we” she then means to say that this concept does not only apply to her but also to everyone else. Through morality, according to her, one can look at an action, idea, or situation and determine its righteousness and its consequences.
The main reason for terminating the life of a newborn with severe disabilities appears to be the prognosis that "the baby almost cert...
Morality is the concern with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Morality is present in everything that people go through in life. Morality is present in everyday decisions and activities that people participate in. Morality is what makes people decide whether they should do something or not because it is going to be right or wrong. Morality is defined by the rights and wrongs that people have been taught growing up, the rules that define what is right and wrong, and by a person’s own view of right and wrong.