When applying Kant 's deontologism in this question, it 's of utmost importance to recall "an act can be described as good as is what should be done because it expresses certain characteristic such as universality or conformity with the moral law" (Baillie, Garrett, Garrett, McGeehan, Health Care Ethics: Principles and Problems, 2009, p.5-6). If everybody performed the action with the same purpose in mind, by definition using Kant 's deontologism, giving birth to a child to medically care for another would be ethically permissible. If every child was conceived as a means to prolong the life of another person, the basis of universality would render the action independent of its consequences. This is hypothetically speaking, as our modern world,
…show more content…
Contrary to this perspective, many would consider this act as an abomination towards individuality for the child being born, as is would psychological damage both children in the process when they are old enough to recognize what had happened during their upbringing. Comparing these two perspectives allows one to keep in mind the morality underlying this process, and understanding from a deontological perspective what is ethically permissible in our society today. Despite the pros and cons of the situation, "both deontologism and natural law rely on an assumption that moral dilemmas can be made clear and, consequently, that we can reason ourselves out of problems" (Baillie, Garrett, Garrett, McGeehan, Health Care Ethics: Principles and Problems, 2009, p.7). The approach that views the life of a child, or any human for that matter as sacred, is the stronger approach as the consequences behind the action of bearing a child for the sake of prolonging another is not hidden, and would be viewed as morally reprehensible. The consequences do not outweigh the benefits in this …show more content…
Yet every living, natural organism dies. Thus, the hope that health care may forestall death indefinitely is not based on any scientific evidence. This hope is a social intention that overlays the scientific investigation of life and disease" (Baillie, Garrett, Garrett, McGeehan, Health Care Ethics: Principles and Problems, 2009, p.85-86). It seems as though the parents are crossing ethical and moral boundaries by prolonging their child 's life at all costs, and actually at the cost of risking another child 's life in which is only being beared for the sole purpose of healing another individual. When considering the risks and benefits to each family member from the parents decision, the benefit to Joshua would be a higher chance of remission from cancer, but risking death from the toxic therapy he will receive. The benefit to the mother and Matt will be the increased chance of survival for Joshua, yet at the expense of bearing a child with the sole purpose of reviving Joshua. Objectively, there is no benefit for the child-to-be, as her upbringing won 't be one with love, but rather through a hasty decision of being conceived to save her older
Contrary to this perspective, many would consider this act as an abomination towards individuality for the child being born, as is would psychological damage both children in the process when they are old enough to recognize what had happened during their upbringing. Comparing these two perspectives allows one to keep in mind the morality underlying this process, and understanding from a deontological perspective what is ethically permissible in our society today. Despite the pros and cons of the situation, "both deontologism and natural law rely on an assumption that moral dilemmas can be made clear and, consequently, that we can reason ourselves out of problems" (Baillie, Garrett, Garrett, McGeehan, Health Care Ethics: Principles and Problems, 2009, p.7). The approach that views the life of a child, or any human for that matter as sacred, is the stronger approach as the consequences behind the action of bearing a child for the sake of prolonging another is not hidden, and would be viewed as morally reprehensible. The consequences do not outweigh the benefits in this …show more content…
Yet every living, natural organism dies. Thus, the hope that health care may forestall death indefinitely is not based on any scientific evidence. This hope is a social intention that overlays the scientific investigation of life and disease" (Baillie, Garrett, Garrett, McGeehan, Health Care Ethics: Principles and Problems, 2009, p.85-86). It seems as though the parents are crossing ethical and moral boundaries by prolonging their child 's life at all costs, and actually at the cost of risking another child 's life in which is only being beared for the sole purpose of healing another individual. When considering the risks and benefits to each family member from the parents decision, the benefit to Joshua would be a higher chance of remission from cancer, but risking death from the toxic therapy he will receive. The benefit to the mother and Matt will be the increased chance of survival for Joshua, yet at the expense of bearing a child with the sole purpose of reviving Joshua. Objectively, there is no benefit for the child-to-be, as her upbringing won 't be one with love, but rather through a hasty decision of being conceived to save her older