Many believe that it is unethical to take a life in order to save a life, however others believe that it is morally correct to save another life, knowing that your own can’t be saved. In the case of Baby Theresa in 1992, a newborn infant who suffered with anencephaly, parents, Laura Campo and Justin Pearson, decided that they wanted to donate their child 's organs upon hearing that their newborn wouldn’t survive for too long. Anencephaly is a serious birth defect in the formation of a baby’s neural tube development. There is an absence of a major part of the brain, skull, and scalp that, normally, occurs during the embryonic development. A baby born with anencephaly may be stillborn or survive only a few hours to a few days. Completely aware
…show more content…
With this situation put forth, the idea of using people as means and the idea of no harm being done is conflicting since anencephalic babies do not have autonomy and cannot feel anything due to a lack of sensation, but are still people. One side argues that killing the baby deliberately is unethical and illegal due to the fact that there is, technically, life in the baby. On the contrary, I would argue that the court 's decision to prohibit the transplant surgery was wrong, considering that the baby could not feel any pain and couldn’t live a life that we do, however the organs would have been of use to help save another life and allow something to live of Baby Theresa, if the court allowed the procedure to follow through The advocate of the position that say killing is wrong presents an argument in support of his/her position. This argument can be summarized as follows: Wrongness of Killing Argument
1. It is wrong to kill an innocent person. 2. Transplanting Baby Theresa’s organs before her death would be killing an innocent person.
____________________________________________________
3. Therefore, we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa’s …show more content…
This comes from the first premise of the advocate’s argument. Accordingly, to benefit another life with Theresa’s organs without causing her harm can be justified, which purports the advocate 's argument of wrongful killing. This is a valid argument because the premises are true, which, logically, makes the conclusion true based on the premises put forth. Therefore, the argument may also be considered sound since the premises are true and the argument is considered valid. Another argument to point out is that knowing that Theresa was going to die either way, the use of her organs would have been able to live on and help another life survive. Parents, Campo and Pearson, had been made aware of the deficiency of the brain their newborn would have weeks prior to the delivery date, however they decided to give birth to their child to use her organs to help save some of the thousands of children who wait for help with little hope of getting
With this situation put forth, the idea of using people as means and the idea of no harm being done is conflicting since anencephalic babies do not have autonomy and cannot feel anything due to a lack of sensation, but are still people. One side argues that killing the baby deliberately is unethical and illegal due to the fact that there is, technically, life in the baby. On the contrary, I would argue that the court 's decision to prohibit the transplant surgery was wrong, considering that the baby could not feel any pain and couldn’t live a life that we do, however the organs would have been of use to help save another life and allow something to live of Baby Theresa, if the court allowed the procedure to follow through The advocate of the position that say killing is wrong presents an argument in support of his/her position. This argument can be summarized as follows: Wrongness of Killing Argument
1. It is wrong to kill an innocent person. 2. Transplanting Baby Theresa’s organs before her death would be killing an innocent person.
____________________________________________________
3. Therefore, we ought not to transplant Baby Theresa’s …show more content…
This comes from the first premise of the advocate’s argument. Accordingly, to benefit another life with Theresa’s organs without causing her harm can be justified, which purports the advocate 's argument of wrongful killing. This is a valid argument because the premises are true, which, logically, makes the conclusion true based on the premises put forth. Therefore, the argument may also be considered sound since the premises are true and the argument is considered valid. Another argument to point out is that knowing that Theresa was going to die either way, the use of her organs would have been able to live on and help another life survive. Parents, Campo and Pearson, had been made aware of the deficiency of the brain their newborn would have weeks prior to the delivery date, however they decided to give birth to their child to use her organs to help save some of the thousands of children who wait for help with little hope of getting