In my own personal opinion, I find no real issues with utilizing the organs of anencephalic newborns provided that those harvesting them have the parent's permission. And while I do have some moral issues with resuscitating a stillborn one in order to harvest, I still think that it should be permissible if the parents give prior consent.
With that said, from a Kantian perspective the entire enterprise is morally wrong. The babies are being used purely as a means to an end, namely harvesting their organs for donation, and their lives are being taken prematurely in order to perform this immoral act.
If I were to birth a child that would certainly have a maximum of a couple weeks to live, I would hope that I would be able to sacrifice the short time I have with my child to save the lives of other children. I do not think that it would be immoral to do so if the child was born living. I personally draw the line if the child is stillborn. Performing CPR and bringing a child back to "life" or to a state so that he/she can be farmed/harvested for their organs would be tragic. I understand that the child, even if born alive, will never really "live". That does not mean that we can treat other living organisms without respect, dignity, or autonomy. I think Kant would agree since he was based on theory and non consequences.
I agree with you Katrina. You do make a good point about the fact that a doctor would be saving the life. I think that saving a child that needs these organs is a great idea if the child is still born. On the other hand, the idea of bringing a child back to life for another I feel is wrong. The child is finally free or can be onto the next life that we may have, robbing them of their peace is wrong. I feel like from the Utilitarian point of view this would be considered as maximizing pain rather than pleasure since the child's peace is being stripped.
1) From the Utilitarian perspective, I do not believe it is unfair disrespectful or immoral to transplant the organs from the infant. This is because when we transplant the organs from the anencephalic infant because in a sense the pain of the transplant parents is being minimized. The infant was already born dead, so I feel it is okay to save the life of another by transporting the organs. 2) I think we should apply a policy that permits harvesting of the organs to save the life of a child that has promise for a normal life. 3) When it comes to reviving a stillborn child just to harvest the organs, I feel like this would be a step too far. The idea of bringing back the pain of a suffering infant just to help another may be a bit harsh. I think if the stillborn baby is revived, the pain is being maximized rather than minimized. Also from a Kantian point of view, "Playing God" would be considered wrong. Kant wants all to do what is right now matter what the circumstances my be. In this case, letting the child keep the end to their suffering is the best thing to do. 4) I do not this it is right to harm someones organs in a vegetative state because it does not justify maximizing pleasure or minimizing pain. When in a vegetative state, the person does not necessarily feel physical pain, instead dealing with mental pain. If they take the organs out of the person in this state, they are technically taking the life of a living being. This to me would be maximizing the pain that they are already mentally have, then add a physical portion to that as well. I just disagree with the idea of taking organs from a living being.
I'm agreeing with Josh on the Utilitarianism perspective. The donation of organs would help save other children's lives. Also like I mentioned in class, if a parent donated their child's organs, then a piece of the child doesn't completely die until the person who received the organ does. So if a parent donated the organs, they can remember that their child is still alive in the world, but they just happen to not be a whole person and that child was helpful in their short lifetime. There should be a policy in place so that there is a legal document in place of what is happening. Additional to this there should be a counseling group that can help parents make a decision and be there for support when everything is said and done. I'm agreeing with Josh again on the resuscitation for harvesting because that a bit too much. We are at the point in technology that we can keep a body alive on machines, so why not do that and let the organs stay alive long enough without risking the newborns autonomy. If someone was in a vegetative state, I would harvest their organs because the chance of them entering back into a fully independent and functional lifestyle is very minimal.
Just because the heart gets resuscitated doesn't mean the newborn gets brought back to life. It is just a way to keep the organs alive long enough to be viable for transplant. This method is no different than if a person was an organ donor and got in a crash and they had to get his viable donated organs. A vegetative state is completely different from already being deceased. You still have brain activity and the person is very much alive despite being able to interact with their environment and there is no way to tell if or when they will come out of it.
As stated by Josh and Megan, the Utilitarian would say that it is moral to transplant the organs of the anencephalic child to save another child's life. According to the principles of biomedical ethics, the newborn does not really have any autonomy, so decisions about the newborn's health should fall to the parents. It follows beneficence because it saves a child's life if they receive the organs. However, it also does harm to the anencephalic baby. The principle of justice would say that the surgery is moral, as the is no treatment for the anencephalic baby, and the resources, the organs, would be better off in the other child. I think that the autonomy is the deciding factor for this case. If the parents say no, then it is immoral to do the transplant. However, if the say yes then I think the principle of biomedical ethics say it is moral. Kant would go against the transplant since, as Keith stated, the anencephalic child is being used as a means, not an end.
I personally draw the line with reviving or resuscitating a stillborn child. From the parents point of view, I think they would struggle to let their child be brought back just to have their organs taken and for them to die again. I think that once they are gone they should be left gone. Also, the point of harvesting the child's organs before they die is to give the transplant the best chance of success. If the baby is stillborn, then that would already deeply hurt the chances of the transplant. I don't think it would be worth the extra pain and suffering for both the parents and the child for a transplant that already has a diminished chance of success.
I completely agree, Eli! I would also state the deciding factor in this case is autonomy, and because the infant cannot have their own autonomy if falls to the parents. If the parents agree to donate their child's organs many moral theories, such as Utilitarian and biomedical principles, would support this decision.
I would also agree that when it comes to a point that the child need to be resuscitated this can be seen as simply prolonging their suffering. This perfectly exemplifies what Kant is saying when he states we cannot use people simply as a means. In this extreme situation of keeping the infant alive purely to have an opportunity to harvest their organs than I would actually agree with Kant.
If I had a child that was given only a few hours, days, or weeks to live I would want to help other babies by donating the organs. I do not think it is immoral or unfair due to the fact that these organs are very valuable and could potentially save someone else's child. I am not sure how I feel about the baby being resuscitated and using its organs, I think that is wrong and I would not do it personally but I think it is okay to do it with parental consent.
I agree with you that these organs are very valuable and can save another life. Especially when knowing there is a guarantee that the baby will not survive.
I disagree with this. The child is alive and taking its life just for its organs is immoral (I support the Kantian standpoint in this situation). I do not support the idea that one baby's life, no matter how short, is any less important than another baby's life.
I would say that it is illegal to harvest organs from an Anencephalic infant, because they aren’t consenting to it. One could argue that they aren’t consenting, because they are too young to understand or can’t make the decision, since they are almost brain dead. The parents would be the ones to make the decision in this case. I personally think it depends on the parents. Some would take comfort in the fact that their baby would be saving lives. Other parents would be horrified even at the thought of harvesting their baby’s organs.
Personally, I think it is immoral to harvest organs from an Anencephalic infant, because they are still alive. Even though the intention is good, it would still be murder, since by harvesting the organs, you would be killing the infant.
I think someone with a Utilitarianism perspective would harvest organs from an Anencephalic infant, because they would be saving more lives, than just the one infant. I believe that all organs can be used again, as long as the patient isn’t brain dead.
I do not see it as unfair or disrespectful to transplant the organs of these infants. We most definitely should adopt a policy that allows for harvesting of these organs with parental consent. These infants are going to die regardless, and by taking their organs it is possible to get a benefit from an otherwise purely negative situation. I also think it is justifiable to resuscitate these infants in order to harvest their organs. This causes them no more harm than what is naturally going to occur to them. I support a utilitarian view because I believe harvesting the organs does the most good out of all the choices in this situation. Denying an infant that could survive if they had these organs the chance at life is the true moral wrong in this situation, not the harvesting of organs.
1. I do not believe that it immoral to transplant organs from an anencephalic newborn. This is for good, to help newborns who need organs. The child who will become brain dead in the near future will most likely not feel much pain, especially if they are born with absolutely no cerebrum. However, I believe that the child should be within of hours of death before the organs are taken.
2. I believe that we should attempt to make a social policy that would permit harvesting the organs. If the parents are okay with it and the children do not feel pain then I believe that harvesting the organs would be a good thing to do in this situation.
3. I absolutely do not believe that resuscitation should be used in bringing an anencephalic newborn back to life just for the organs. I believe that this is a step way too far. The natural course of death for an infant like this should not be tampered with just for harvesting organs for other children. This is against so many natural laws and would be very unethical in any sense.
4. I believe that if the doctor knows that they will not feel any pain, then someone in permanent vegetative state should be able to have their organs harvested. I believe that it is a little greater of a chance that someone in a vegetative state would make it out over an anencephalic newborn, but I am unsure about the statistics on this.
If my child was only given a couple weeks to live if that and I was old that my child can be the reason another baby lives. Then me personally, I would definitely give the doctors permission to harvest my childs organs because even though the baby can not consent to it, the parents should. After watching a video of a mother listening to her sons heart beat from another baby that needed a heart. Was one of the most inspirational things I seen. The mother knew that her baby could not survive and helped another baby survive and in the long run she still was able to hear then heart beat of her child. The most pain in this entire process was really pure joy in the end.
It is not immoral to transplant the organs of an anencephalic infant because it would maximize utility for the world. Other infants could be saved by this action. We should adopt a social policy that would permit harvesting the organs of an anencephalic infant with the consent of the parents to respect the family's autonomy according to the principles of bioethics. According to Ross's principles of bioethics gratitude would not be met by giving an infant resuscitation to preserve organs. Harvesting the organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state would be justifiable according to utilitarianism but keeping a person alive in a permanent vegetative state would not be acceptable according to empathy or virtue depending on the person.
I think it is okay to transplant the organs of a anencephalic infant because it can help others by potentially saving the life of other infants. It would be tough for the parents to give away their baby's organs but in this situation I think it would be the best thing to do. The end result of having another baby live because of you would be so rewarding.
I think it is okay to transplant the organs of anencephalic infant as long as their is consent from the parents. From Ross' principles the duty of fidelity the doctor will be following the wishes of the parents in this situation. Also with the duty of justice, by donating the organs to save another infants life it can distribute some happiness to the parents by knowing that their baby's organs were able to save another infants life. Finally through the duty of beneficence by using the infant's organs you will be able to make another infant's condition better.
In my own personal opinion, I find no real issues with utilizing the organs of anencephalic newborns provided that those harvesting them have the parent's permission. And while I do have some moral issues with resuscitating a stillborn one in order to harvest, I still think that it should be permissible if the parents give prior consent.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, from a Kantian perspective the entire enterprise is morally wrong. The babies are being used purely as a means to an end, namely harvesting their organs for donation, and their lives are being taken prematurely in order to perform this immoral act.
If I were to birth a child that would certainly have a maximum of a couple weeks to live, I would hope that I would be able to sacrifice the short time I have with my child to save the lives of other children. I do not think that it would be immoral to do so if the child was born living. I personally draw the line if the child is stillborn. Performing CPR and bringing a child back to "life" or to a state so that he/she can be farmed/harvested for their organs would be tragic. I understand that the child, even if born alive, will never really "live". That does not mean that we can treat other living organisms without respect, dignity, or autonomy. I think Kant would agree since he was based on theory and non consequences.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Katrina. You do make a good point about the fact that a doctor would be saving the life. I think that saving a child that needs these organs is a great idea if the child is still born. On the other hand, the idea of bringing a child back to life for another I feel is wrong. The child is finally free or can be onto the next life that we may have, robbing them of their peace is wrong. I feel like from the Utilitarian point of view this would be considered as maximizing pain rather than pleasure since the child's peace is being stripped.
Delete1) From the Utilitarian perspective, I do not believe it is unfair disrespectful or immoral to transplant the organs from the infant. This is because when we transplant the organs from the anencephalic infant because in a sense the pain of the transplant parents is being minimized. The infant was already born dead, so I feel it is okay to save the life of another by transporting the organs.
ReplyDelete2) I think we should apply a policy that permits harvesting of the organs to save the life of a child that has promise for a normal life.
3) When it comes to reviving a stillborn child just to harvest the organs, I feel like this would be a step too far. The idea of bringing back the pain of a suffering infant just to help another may be a bit harsh. I think if the stillborn baby is revived, the pain is being maximized rather than minimized. Also from a Kantian point of view, "Playing God" would be considered wrong. Kant wants all to do what is right now matter what the circumstances my be. In this case, letting the child keep the end to their suffering is the best thing to do.
4) I do not this it is right to harm someones organs in a vegetative state because it does not justify maximizing pleasure or minimizing pain. When in a vegetative state, the person does not necessarily feel physical pain, instead dealing with mental pain. If they take the organs out of the person in this state, they are technically taking the life of a living being. This to me would be maximizing the pain that they are already mentally have, then add a physical portion to that as well. I just disagree with the idea of taking organs from a living being.
I'm agreeing with Josh on the Utilitarianism perspective. The donation of organs would help save other children's lives. Also like I mentioned in class, if a parent donated their child's organs, then a piece of the child doesn't completely die until the person who received the organ does. So if a parent donated the organs, they can remember that their child is still alive in the world, but they just happen to not be a whole person and that child was helpful in their short lifetime. There should be a policy in place so that there is a legal document in place of what is happening. Additional to this there should be a counseling group that can help parents make a decision and be there for support when everything is said and done. I'm agreeing with Josh again on the resuscitation for harvesting because that a bit too much. We are at the point in technology that we can keep a body alive on machines, so why not do that and let the organs stay alive long enough without risking the newborns autonomy. If someone was in a vegetative state, I would harvest their organs because the chance of them entering back into a fully independent and functional lifestyle is very minimal.
ReplyDeleteJust because the heart gets resuscitated doesn't mean the newborn gets brought back to life. It is just a way to keep the organs alive long enough to be viable for transplant. This method is no different than if a person was an organ donor and got in a crash and they had to get his viable donated organs. A vegetative state is completely different from already being deceased. You still have brain activity and the person is very much alive despite being able to interact with their environment and there is no way to tell if or when they will come out of it.
DeleteAs stated by Josh and Megan, the Utilitarian would say that it is moral to transplant the organs of the anencephalic child to save another child's life. According to the principles of biomedical ethics, the newborn does not really have any autonomy, so decisions about the newborn's health should fall to the parents. It follows beneficence because it saves a child's life if they receive the organs. However, it also does harm to the anencephalic baby. The principle of justice would say that the surgery is moral, as the is no treatment for the anencephalic baby, and the resources, the organs, would be better off in the other child. I think that the autonomy is the deciding factor for this case. If the parents say no, then it is immoral to do the transplant. However, if the say yes then I think the principle of biomedical ethics say it is moral. Kant would go against the transplant since, as Keith stated, the anencephalic child is being used as a means, not an end.
ReplyDeleteI personally draw the line with reviving or resuscitating a stillborn child. From the parents point of view, I think they would struggle to let their child be brought back just to have their organs taken and for them to die again. I think that once they are gone they should be left gone. Also, the point of harvesting the child's organs before they die is to give the transplant the best chance of success. If the baby is stillborn, then that would already deeply hurt the chances of the transplant. I don't think it would be worth the extra pain and suffering for both the parents and the child for a transplant that already has a diminished chance of success.
I completely agree, Eli! I would also state the deciding factor in this case is autonomy, and because the infant cannot have their own autonomy if falls to the parents. If the parents agree to donate their child's organs many moral theories, such as Utilitarian and biomedical principles, would support this decision.
DeleteI would also agree that when it comes to a point that the child need to be resuscitated this can be seen as simply prolonging their suffering. This perfectly exemplifies what Kant is saying when he states we cannot use people simply as a means. In this extreme situation of keeping the infant alive purely to have an opportunity to harvest their organs than I would actually agree with Kant.
If I had a child that was given only a few hours, days, or weeks to live I would want to help other babies by donating the organs. I do not think it is immoral or unfair due to the fact that these organs are very valuable and could potentially save someone else's child. I am not sure how I feel about the baby being resuscitated and using its organs, I think that is wrong and I would not do it personally but I think it is okay to do it with parental consent.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that these organs are very valuable and can save another life. Especially when knowing there is a guarantee that the baby will not survive.
DeleteI disagree with this. The child is alive and taking its life just for its organs is immoral (I support the Kantian standpoint in this situation). I do not support the idea that one baby's life, no matter how short, is any less important than another baby's life.
DeleteI would say that it is illegal to harvest organs from an Anencephalic infant, because they aren’t consenting to it. One could argue that they aren’t consenting, because they are too young to understand or can’t make the decision, since they are almost brain dead. The parents would be the ones to make the decision in this case. I personally think it depends on the parents. Some would take comfort in the fact that their baby would be saving lives. Other parents would be horrified even at the thought of harvesting their baby’s organs.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think it is immoral to harvest organs from an Anencephalic infant, because they are still alive. Even though the intention is good, it would still be murder, since by harvesting the organs, you would be killing the infant.
I think someone with a Utilitarianism perspective would harvest organs from an Anencephalic infant, because they would be saving more lives, than just the one infant. I believe that all organs can be used again, as long as the patient isn’t brain dead.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWould they be considered alive when they do not have any higher brain function?
DeleteI do not see it as unfair or disrespectful to transplant the organs of these infants. We most definitely should adopt a policy that allows for harvesting of these organs with parental consent. These infants are going to die regardless, and by taking their organs it is possible to get a benefit from an otherwise purely negative situation. I also think it is justifiable to resuscitate these infants in order to harvest their organs. This causes them no more harm than what is naturally going to occur to them. I support a utilitarian view because I believe harvesting the organs does the most good out of all the choices in this situation. Denying an infant that could survive if they had these organs the chance at life is the true moral wrong in this situation, not the harvesting of organs.
ReplyDelete1. I do not believe that it immoral to transplant organs from an anencephalic newborn. This is for good, to help newborns who need organs. The child who will become brain dead in the near future will most likely not feel much pain, especially if they are born with absolutely no cerebrum. However, I believe that the child should be within of hours of death before the organs are taken.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that we should attempt to make a social policy that would permit harvesting the organs. If the parents are okay with it and the children do not feel pain then I believe that harvesting the organs would be a good thing to do in this situation.
3. I absolutely do not believe that resuscitation should be used in bringing an anencephalic newborn back to life just for the organs. I believe that this is a step way too far. The natural course of death for an infant like this should not be tampered with just for harvesting organs for other children. This is against so many natural laws and would be very unethical in any sense.
4. I believe that if the doctor knows that they will not feel any pain, then someone in permanent vegetative state should be able to have their organs harvested. I believe that it is a little greater of a chance that someone in a vegetative state would make it out over an anencephalic newborn, but I am unsure about the statistics on this.
If my child was only given a couple weeks to live if that and I was old that my child can be the reason another baby lives. Then me personally, I would definitely give the doctors permission to harvest my childs organs because even though the baby can not consent to it, the parents should. After watching a video of a mother listening to her sons heart beat from another baby that needed a heart. Was one of the most inspirational things I seen. The mother knew that her baby could not survive and helped another baby survive and in the long run she still was able to hear then heart beat of her child. The most pain in this entire process was really pure joy in the end.
ReplyDeleteIt is not immoral to transplant the organs of an anencephalic infant because it would maximize utility for the world. Other infants could be saved by this action. We should adopt a social policy that would permit harvesting the organs of an anencephalic infant with the consent of the parents to respect the family's autonomy according to the principles of bioethics. According to Ross's principles of bioethics gratitude would not be met by giving an infant resuscitation to preserve organs. Harvesting the organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state would be justifiable according to utilitarianism but keeping a person alive in a permanent vegetative state would not be acceptable according to empathy or virtue depending on the person.
ReplyDeleteI think it is okay to transplant the organs of a anencephalic infant because it can help others by potentially saving the life of other infants. It would be tough for the parents to give away their baby's organs but in this situation I think it would be the best thing to do. The end result of having another baby live because of you would be so rewarding.
ReplyDeleteI think it is okay to transplant the organs of anencephalic infant as long as their is consent from the parents. From Ross' principles the duty of fidelity the doctor will be following the wishes of the parents in this situation. Also with the duty of justice, by donating the organs to save another infants life it can distribute some happiness to the parents by knowing that their baby's organs were able to save another infants life. Finally through the duty of beneficence by using the infant's organs you will be able to make another infant's condition better.
ReplyDelete