1) From the perspective of the Ethics of Care view, it would be disrespectful and immoral indeed for the organs of an anencephalic infant to be transplanted before the "brain death" of him/her. This being is human, and deserves the treatment of once being significant to other people. I can't help but think, however, that the Principles of Bioethics would hold itself contradictory, in that in causing harm to this particular infant, you benefit another receiving a transplant; but not allowing the transplant could potentially harm another infant?
2) What comes to my mind with this question is should we allow this policy with anybody that becomes "brain dead" at some point? Technically, if someone is brain dead, they are not capable of being autonomous or considerate of other influences, so therefore we should take their organs if they're in a coma. NO! From this perspective you must have respect and sympathy for the infant, and no one can sign off somebody else's organs to be transplanted without their consent. 'Tis unethical and immoral.
3) What if a normally functioning baby was stillborn? Would you resuscitate that infant to get the organs? I don't think with this point of view that doing so just to harvest the organs would be respectful of the being in question. Yes, the infant was incapable of thinking for itself, but it had the potential ability as a human, and thus my answer is still no.
4) As I stated previously, just start taking organs from coma patients? It is disrespectful to assume power over somebody else's anatomical properties without their consent.
1) To my understanding, the Ethics of Care perspective focuses on helping those who are unable to help themselves. This ethical viewpoint looks at empathy and emotion and how it pertains to morality. With this in mind, it would be considered immoral for the parents to allow their anencephalic newborn to be used as an organ donor. It would be seen as immoral to look past the relationship and bond between the brain-dead infant and the parents, and for the parents to “give-up” their child and discount their emotional bond with the newborn. Although the newborn could only live for a few hours, days, or weeks, it would be immoral to discount the emotions of the family, even though there are other newborns that may need those organs to live. 2) From the Ethics of Care perspective, the social policy should NOT be adopted. This perspective deals with helping the helpless – those who are unable to help themselves. We must have empathy for the baby, and no one should consent to the harvesting of the baby’s organs. Only the baby should really have say. I know a newborn can’t physically or mentally have any say, much less a newborn born brain dead, but that’s not the point here. The point is that it is unethical to sacrifice a body for the benefit of another, especially without a go-ahead from the donating party. 3) If an anencephalic infant is stillborn, then the baby should NOT be resuscitated for the purpose of keeping organs intact until they can be harvested. This would basically be keeping the baby alive, just for the purpose of killing him, or her. This is immoral and unethical because it takes away from the dignity of the newborn. At looking at the emotions of the parents, that would be like a slap in the face - It would be heart-breaking to know that the medical team couldn’t use another child’s organs to save your child, but that YOUR child was the one that could donate organs to save another. 4) According to the Ethics of Care standpoint, it would be unethical to harvest the organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state because it would be discounting the emotions of the patient in the vegetative state, and would also be discounting the emotions of the family affiliated with the patient.
*First off, I just wanted to comment and say that these questions made me think for a little over an hour before I could even answer them... They are such tough questions, and it really pulls on the heart strings.*
1. The Ethics of Care would call this unethical because it violates almost all of the points on which they've built their foundation: the individualized needs of the patient are not taken into account, they are not responding to the personalized manner of the patient, and they are not maintaining the best possible relationship between the parents of the children and the physician. The transplantation of the anencephalic infant's organs is only thinking about what is best for other infants, not what's best for the one who is being taken from. The Principles of Ethics have developed a framework of moral reasoning based on autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice -- many of which are also broken in this decision making. The difference is that The PoE would see the benefits of helping other sick infants, even at the loss of one, while the EoC would still see this from the point of view of the anencephalic infant.
2. I believe that both the PoE and EoC would both agree that a policy to permit these organ harvesting are completely unethical. Although these infants may not live a full life, it is not fair to cut them even shorter. The baby's rights are taken away when a parent makes that decision for them. Along with what Becca has said, the baby cannot mentally comprehend the situation, nor physically express what it wants, but nonetheless it's still a human being with a functioning body and that should be respected.
3. It is absolutely unjustifiable to resuscitate an infant to keep the organs for transplantation. The physical pain resuscitation would cause to an infant is indescribable, and to do so to save the lives of others, and not even the dying infant, is unethical. The death of the infant would be prolonged and likely cause emotional distress for the parents.
4. The EoC would consider this to be unjustified as well. Someone in a vegetative state does not have the capability of choosing organ donation, like the anencephalic infant. However, the person in the vegetative state may have formerly chosen the route he wanted for his organs, whereas the infant hasn't had the opportunity to do so. In either case, we would be viewing the patients as a body full of viable organs instead of human beings who have the choice to their own lives. Whichever they would chose, should never be our own decision to make.
1) Looking at this case through the perspective of the Ethics of Care it would be considered immoral for the organs of the newborn to be donated before he/she was completely brain dead. This baby is a human and should be treated like one and thought of as if they have a chance to live even if it is a very small chance. If they were to donate the organs it would be unethical because they wouldn't be taking into consideration the emotions of the parents and the family members of the baby.
2) If looking at this from the Ethics of Care perspective, the policy should not be adopted. This policy would be unethical and inconsiderate of the newborn who is helpless in this situation. The Ethics of Care is all about trying to help the helpless and provide them with a fighting chance to overcome their obstacles. Ethically the choice should be the newborns even though they can't mentally or physically make the choice for themselves. That doesn't mean the power should be given to the parents, the newborn, though brain dead, is still a human and still deserves a chance to live what little life it has and die naturally and peacefully.
3) If an anencephalic infant is born stillborn then the newborn should not be resuscitated. It would be unethical to bring the baby back to life and make it suffer simply to kill it again after you get what you want. This would also be unethical due to the fact that you are bringing the baby back to life but you aren't able to save it and keep it alive not only for the sake of the baby but also the parents. They have a stillborn baby that is brought back to life and then they are expected to give the newborn up in order for it to be killed again, divided up, and shipped off to save other babies.
4) If looking at this from the perspective of the Ethics of Care it would be unethical to donate the organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state. You would also be taking the choice away from the person in the vegetative state by deciding to donate their organs. This decision would be going against the family also because they would be giving up all hope of the patient healing.
Perhaps I am incorrect, but it seems that both Ethics of Care and Principles of Bioethics are concerned solely with the anencephalic newborns when it comes to answering the given questions. The way I understand these concepts is that they both look at the treatment of the individual not the situation as a whole.
1.) I feel that the answer to this question from both ethical fields would be yes it is immoral to transplant the organs of an anencephalic individual. The PoB stress the importance of non-maleficence, or more commonly, doing no harm. From this point of view it is better to do no harm than to do good. In this case, it is better to not end the life of the anencephalic infant rather than terminating its life to perform an organ transplant. Care ethics puts a strong emphasis on caring for the vulnerable and making decisions which lead to the best care for the vulnerable. So it is completely counter-intuitive to terminate the vulnerable anencephalic infant rather than care for it.
2.) As both ethical systems find terminating the infants in order to harvest their organs to be immoral, the answer to this question is also no. It would be completely counterproductive to adopt a social policy that allowed this to occur.
3.) Once again, the answer to this question is a hard no, especially when considering it from the viewpoints on PoB and Care ethics. This action would violate all of the major principles of Bioethics especially non-maleficense. This action would be doing additional work just to do more harm to the infant. This action would also go again the principles of Care ethics as it would cause something to become vulnerable when it previously wasn't. I am finding it hard to explain why this action would be considered immoral solely because its immoral is so evident. Seriously, bringing a stillborn baby back to life just to kill it and harvest its organs? The idea alone is a hard pill to swallow, especially from these points of view.
4.) As both ethical systems find the act of harvesting an anencephalic infant's organs completely unethical and immoral, both would feel the same way when it comes to harvesting the organs of a patient in a permanent vegetative state. In both cases the idea is the same, the difference lies in how the idea is presented. These actions violate the tenants and principles of both PoB and Care ethics to such an extent that both would deem these actions immoral and unethical.
1. The ethics of care viewpoint focuses on affective components of what is a moral life with special emphasis on concern for the needs of others (caring). It does not seek to apply an across-the-board principle or rule, but rather places importance on relationships and the responsibilities that they create. It is like virtue ethics in its call to never use persons as means to an end. From this perspective, it is immoral to perform the transplant as the newborn is being used as the means to assist another person. The relationship of the baby to the parents and the doctor, ethics of care argues, creates a responsibility to care for the child including its organs until the time of its death. The principles of bioethics agrees with the ethics of care in this case, because its emphasis is on the physician being virtuous, depending on the unique relationship he has with each patient, rather than on doing a set of moral acts. 2.For the reasons mentioned in answer 1, these viewpoints do not agree with adopting such a policy. 3.This would not be permissible. This would be reviving a life, only to take it again, which conflicts with the same problems in the doctor-patient and parent-child relationships. The parents are obligated to respect the body of their child because of the nature of their relationship to the child. The same for the physician. 4. Since harvesting the newborn's would not be justifiable, neither would harvesting a PVS patient.
1) From the perspective of the Ethics of Care view, it would be disrespectful and immoral indeed for the organs of an anencephalic infant to be transplanted before the "brain death" of him/her. This being is human, and deserves the treatment of once being significant to other people. I can't help but think, however, that the Principles of Bioethics would hold itself contradictory, in that in causing harm to this particular infant, you benefit another receiving a transplant; but not allowing the transplant could potentially harm another infant?
ReplyDelete2) What comes to my mind with this question is should we allow this policy with anybody that becomes "brain dead" at some point? Technically, if someone is brain dead, they are not capable of being autonomous or considerate of other influences, so therefore we should take their organs if they're in a coma. NO! From this perspective you must have respect and sympathy for the infant, and no one can sign off somebody else's organs to be transplanted without their consent. 'Tis unethical and immoral.
3) What if a normally functioning baby was stillborn? Would you resuscitate that infant to get the organs? I don't think with this point of view that doing so just to harvest the organs would be respectful of the being in question. Yes, the infant was incapable of thinking for itself, but it had the potential ability as a human, and thus my answer is still no.
4) As I stated previously, just start taking organs from coma patients? It is disrespectful to assume power over somebody else's anatomical properties without their consent.
1) To my understanding, the Ethics of Care perspective focuses on helping those who are unable to help themselves. This ethical viewpoint looks at empathy and emotion and how it pertains to morality. With this in mind, it would be considered immoral for the parents to allow their anencephalic newborn to be used as an organ donor. It would be seen as immoral to look past the relationship and bond between the brain-dead infant and the parents, and for the parents to “give-up” their child and discount their emotional bond with the newborn. Although the newborn could only live for a few hours, days, or weeks, it would be immoral to discount the emotions of the family, even though there are other newborns that may need those organs to live.
ReplyDelete2) From the Ethics of Care perspective, the social policy should NOT be adopted. This perspective deals with helping the helpless – those who are unable to help themselves. We must have empathy for the baby, and no one should consent to the harvesting of the baby’s organs. Only the baby should really have say. I know a newborn can’t physically or mentally have any say, much less a newborn born brain dead, but that’s not the point here. The point is that it is unethical to sacrifice a body for the benefit of another, especially without a go-ahead from the donating party.
3) If an anencephalic infant is stillborn, then the baby should NOT be resuscitated for the purpose of keeping organs intact until they can be harvested. This would basically be keeping the baby alive, just for the purpose of killing him, or her. This is immoral and unethical because it takes away from the dignity of the newborn. At looking at the emotions of the parents, that would be like a slap in the face - It would be heart-breaking to know that the medical team couldn’t use another child’s organs to save your child, but that YOUR child was the one that could donate organs to save another.
4) According to the Ethics of Care standpoint, it would be unethical to harvest the organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state because it would be discounting the emotions of the patient in the vegetative state, and would also be discounting the emotions of the family affiliated with the patient.
*First off, I just wanted to comment and say that these questions made me think for a little over an hour before I could even answer them... They are such tough questions, and it really pulls on the heart strings.*
ReplyDelete1. The Ethics of Care would call this unethical because it violates almost all of the points on which they've built their foundation: the individualized needs of the patient are not taken into account, they are not responding to the personalized manner of the patient, and they are not maintaining the best possible relationship between the parents of the children and the physician. The transplantation of the anencephalic infant's organs is only thinking about what is best for other infants, not what's best for the one who is being taken from. The Principles of Ethics have developed a framework of moral reasoning based on autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice -- many of which are also broken in this decision making. The difference is that The PoE would see the benefits of helping other sick infants, even at the loss of one, while the EoC would still see this from the point of view of the anencephalic infant.
2. I believe that both the PoE and EoC would both agree that a policy to permit these organ harvesting are completely unethical. Although these infants may not live a full life, it is not fair to cut them even shorter. The baby's rights are taken away when a parent makes that decision for them. Along with what Becca has said, the baby cannot mentally comprehend the situation, nor physically express what it wants, but nonetheless it's still a human being with a functioning body and that should be respected.
3. It is absolutely unjustifiable to resuscitate an infant to keep the organs for transplantation. The physical pain resuscitation would cause to an infant is indescribable, and to do so to save the lives of others, and not even the dying infant, is unethical. The death of the infant would be prolonged and likely cause emotional distress for the parents.
4. The EoC would consider this to be unjustified as well. Someone in a vegetative state does not have the capability of choosing organ donation, like the anencephalic infant. However, the person in the vegetative state may have formerly chosen the route he wanted for his organs, whereas the infant hasn't had the opportunity to do so. In either case, we would be viewing the patients as a body full of viable organs instead of human beings who have the choice to their own lives. Whichever they would chose, should never be our own decision to make.
1) Looking at this case through the perspective of the Ethics of Care it would be considered immoral for the organs of the newborn to be donated before he/she was completely brain dead. This baby is a human and should be treated like one and thought of as if they have a chance to live even if it is a very small chance. If they were to donate the organs it would be unethical because they wouldn't be taking into consideration the emotions of the parents and the family members of the baby.
ReplyDelete2) If looking at this from the Ethics of Care perspective, the policy should not be adopted. This policy would be unethical and inconsiderate of the newborn who is helpless in this situation. The Ethics of Care is all about trying to help the helpless and provide them with a fighting chance to overcome their obstacles. Ethically the choice should be the newborns even though they can't mentally or physically make the choice for themselves. That doesn't mean the power should be given to the parents, the newborn, though brain dead, is still a human and still deserves a chance to live what little life it has and die naturally and peacefully.
3) If an anencephalic infant is born stillborn then the newborn should not be resuscitated. It would be unethical to bring the baby back to life and make it suffer simply to kill it again after you get what you want. This would also be unethical due to the fact that you are bringing the baby back to life but you aren't able to save it and keep it alive not only for the sake of the baby but also the parents. They have a stillborn baby that is brought back to life and then they are expected to give the newborn up in order for it to be killed again, divided up, and shipped off to save other babies.
4) If looking at this from the perspective of the Ethics of Care it would be unethical to donate the organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state. You would also be taking the choice away from the person in the vegetative state by deciding to donate their organs. This decision would be going against the family also because they would be giving up all hope of the patient healing.
Perhaps I am incorrect, but it seems that both Ethics of Care and Principles of Bioethics are concerned solely with the anencephalic newborns when it comes to answering the given questions. The way I understand these concepts is that they both look at the treatment of the individual not the situation as a whole.
ReplyDelete1.) I feel that the answer to this question from both ethical fields would be yes it is immoral to transplant the organs of an anencephalic individual. The PoB stress the importance of non-maleficence, or more commonly, doing no harm. From this point of view it is better to do no harm than to do good. In this case, it is better to not end the life of the anencephalic infant rather than terminating its life to perform an organ transplant. Care ethics puts a strong emphasis on caring for the vulnerable and making decisions which lead to the best care for the vulnerable. So it is completely counter-intuitive to terminate the vulnerable anencephalic infant rather than care for it.
2.) As both ethical systems find terminating the infants in order to harvest their organs to be immoral, the answer to this question is also no. It would be completely counterproductive to adopt a social policy that allowed this to occur.
3.) Once again, the answer to this question is a hard no, especially when considering it from the viewpoints on PoB and Care ethics. This action would violate all of the major principles of Bioethics especially non-maleficense. This action would be doing additional work just to do more harm to the infant. This action would also go again the principles of Care ethics as it would cause something to become vulnerable when it previously wasn't. I am finding it hard to explain why this action would be considered immoral solely because its immoral is so evident. Seriously, bringing a stillborn baby back to life just to kill it and harvest its organs? The idea alone is a hard pill to swallow, especially from these points of view.
4.) As both ethical systems find the act of harvesting an anencephalic infant's organs completely unethical and immoral, both would feel the same way when it comes to harvesting the organs of a patient in a permanent vegetative state. In both cases the idea is the same, the difference lies in how the idea is presented. These actions violate the tenants and principles of both PoB and Care ethics to such an extent that both would deem these actions immoral and unethical.
1. The ethics of care viewpoint focuses on affective components of what is a moral life with special emphasis on concern for the needs of others (caring). It does not seek to apply an across-the-board principle or rule, but rather places importance on relationships and the responsibilities that they create. It is like virtue ethics in its call to never use persons as means to an end. From this perspective, it is immoral to perform the transplant as the newborn is being used as the means to assist another person. The relationship of the baby to the parents and the doctor, ethics of care argues, creates a responsibility to care for the child including its organs until the time of its death. The principles of bioethics agrees with the ethics of care in this case, because its emphasis is on the physician being virtuous, depending on the unique relationship he has with each patient, rather than on doing a set of moral acts.
ReplyDelete2.For the reasons mentioned in answer 1, these viewpoints do not agree with adopting such a policy.
3.This would not be permissible. This would be reviving a life, only to take it again, which conflicts with the same problems in the doctor-patient and parent-child relationships. The parents are obligated to respect the body of their child because of the nature of their relationship to the child. The same for the physician.
4. Since harvesting the newborn's would not be justifiable, neither would harvesting a PVS patient.