But we can still ask: When added to the price that will be paid by those children who desperately needed those organs, how can the claim that life was respected be maintained? Baby Theresa is not capable of having conscious mental activity. What do you think of this argument?
If we can benefit someone, without harming anyone else, we ought to do so. It was a kind of picture that would cause anyone to hesitate to start the harvesting of organs.
This is also a valid argument. As always, we begin by asking whether the argument is valid. Medical ethicists, physicians and organ donor specialists continue to confront the moral dilemma of deciding who is alive and who is dead.
What is the difference, then, between discrimination in the general sense and wrongful discrimination against a group? She had no skull, no future and no chance for a real life.
If Theresa is not a person, then each argument has a false premise. Are there moral reasons as distinguished from other sorts of reasons? She was unaware at all times and was going to die no matter what happened.
We will discuss this is some detail in the section on assisted suicide and euthanasia. The argument is valid, but is it sound? The No Harm Done Argument 1. In fact, it is highly contentious.
Florida law prohibits this, and so she died nine days later and her organs could not be used. Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins sharing a single heart and a single pair of lung.
They could not keep this child. But are the premises actually true? It is the state that wants to avoid the slippery slope of redefining what constitutes a meaningful life, to avoid being set upon by those who maintain backward mindsets on matters moral.
Sanctity of Human Life Argument 1. What decision should the parents have made? The argument, as stated, is not valid. The debate about torture is polarised between two positions; the utilitarian view point and absolutism view point. There are obvious cases where some differences in treatment are warranted:greater good.
However it is arguable that a weak Rule Utilitarian may take account of consequences and break the rules accordingly thus supporting the view that rule Utilitarians do not ignore the consequences. This however comes under the debate again as to whether the Weak Rule Utilitarian is taking an Act Utilitarian approach.
However, admitting that evil may happen in order to bring about some greater good is in its core utilitarian insofar it focuses on the ends rather than the means. Thus, utilitarianism can never be inherently anti-Christ.
On the other hand, many of its variations can and do contradict Christian ethics, absolutely. Baby Theresa Utilitarian Point of View Essay donate her working organs to any struggling babies that could have their life saved by Theresa’s functioning crucial organs.
However, when this unusual case was taken to court. Act utilitarianism (AU) is the moral theory that holds that the morally right action, the act that we have a moral duty to do, is the one that will (probably) maximize “utility” (happiness, welfare, well-being). Baby Theresa is a very unique case.
Theresa Ann Campo Pearson was an infant born in Floridawith Anencephaly, which is where the two most important parts of the brain are missing, the cerebrum and cerebellum, as well as the top of the skull.
Ironically, the intense media attention paid to Baby Theresa worked against the infant's parents, who knew weeks before her birth that their child was malformed and decided then to offer her as an organ donor.Download