Morality debate over brain dead baby

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Odell

Guest
There was a case in Florida about a baby that was born with parts of her brain missing. She still had the parts to make her other body organs function for a few days. The parents wanted to donate her organs to other babies that could use transplants. But Florida law states that the person must be dead before their organs can be harvested for donation. Basically the parents and Doctors wanted to kill the baby to use her organs.

What is the moral thing to do? That is the debate quetion in my philosophy class. I know that I do not believe that killing a person to save another person is the right thing to do, (which to my suprise is not the majority of the class) but how do I express my view in class in a way that might pursuade people to think the way I do?
 
This is the basic argument I am up against:

In the two arguments against taking Theresa’s organs, each contains at least one premise that makes a moral claim. They are, “it is wrong to use people as means to other people’s ends,” and “it is wrong to kill one person to save another.” These two premises are key to arguing that we should not take Theresa’s organs, because taking her organs will kill her, even though it will save other babies. If you believe that either or these two premises are true, then you probably think that we shouldn’t take her organs. Rachels casts doubt on the truth of these two moral claims. In the first case he explains that using people is usually thought bad because it doesn’t let us make a choice for our selves. But in the case of Theresa, she can’t make a choice for herself and will never be able to make a choice for herself, and so this moral principle does not apply to her. If it doesn’t really apply to her, then it can’t be used in her defense. As for the moral principle that it is wrong to kill one person to save another person, Rachels argues that few people really believe this. For example, many people think it’s ok to kill a person in self defense. So at least sometimes it’s ok to kill a person to save another person’s life. Of course, this isn’t a case of self defense, but maybe it is another exception to the rule like self defense is an exception to the rule. Rachels also points out that there is reason to believe that Theresa is already dead, since she is technically brain dead and that is the standard that the medical community follows. If she’s already technically dead, then we aren’t killing her when we take her organs.

Even though there are two arguments against taking Theresa’s organs, those two arguments have problems with their premises. This makes those two arguments weaker than they first appear, which means they may turn out to be too weak to overcome the very powerful benefits argument. Keep in mind that it doesn’t matter how many arguments support your side, it’s how good those arguments are that matters.
 
Odell said:
There was a case in Florida about a baby that was born with parts of her brain missing. She still had the parts to make her other body organs function for a few days. The parents wanted to donate her organs to other babies that could use transplants. But Florida law states that the person must be dead before their organs can be harvested for donation. Basically the parents and Doctors wanted to kill the baby to use her organs.

What is the moral thing to do? That is the debate quetion in my philosophy class. I know that I do not believe that killing a person to save another person is the right thing to do, (which to my suprise is not the majority of the class) but how do I express my view in class in a way that might pursuade people to think the way I do?
Click to expand...
Catholic moral law states that a person must be dead before any vital organs can be donated too.

As a general rule Catholics cannot morally put themselves on donor lists for a number of organs that are harvested while a person is still living, yet contribute to the person’s actual death thereby, or participate in this as doctors.

These two sermons should help you:

Brain Dead: Death means the soul has left the body

May we donate our organs?
 
Odell said:
This is the basic argument I am up against:

In the two arguments against taking Theresa’s organs, each contains at least one premise that makes a moral claim. They are, “it is wrong to use people as means to other people’s ends,” and “it is wrong to kill one person to save another.” These two premises are key to arguing that we should not take Theresa’s organs, because taking her organs will kill her, even though it will save other babies. If you believe that either or these two premises are true, then you probably think that we shouldn’t take her organs. Rachels casts doubt on the truth of these two moral claims. In the first case he explains that using people is usually thought bad because it doesn’t let us make a choice for our selves. But in the case of Theresa, she can’t make a choice for herself and will never be able to make a choice for herself, and so this moral principle does not apply to her. If it doesn’t really apply to her, then it can’t be used in her defense. As for the moral principle that it is wrong to kill one person to save another person, Rachels argues that few people really believe this. For example, many people think it’s ok to kill a person in self defense. So at least sometimes it’s ok to kill a person to save another person’s life. Of course, this isn’t a case of self defense, but maybe it is another exception to the rule like self defense is an exception to the rule. Rachels also points out that there is reason to believe that Theresa is already dead, since she is technically brain dead and that is the standard that the medical community follows. If she’s already technically dead, then we aren’t killing her when we take her organs.

Even though there are two arguments against taking Theresa’s organs, those two arguments have problems with their premises. This makes those two arguments weaker than they first appear, which means they may turn out to be too weak to overcome the very powerful benefits argument. Keep in mind that it doesn’t matter how many arguments support your side, it’s how good those arguments are that matters.
Click to expand...
  1. Human beings, because they naturally have the powers of reason and free-will, have a dignity that all non-rational animals do not have. Even if the person’s body leaves her unable to exercise the powers, they are still there. The opponent says that Theresa can not make a free choice, so she may be used. May we use a person in a coma? How about a sleeping person? A person who is asleep can not make a choice for herself, may she therefore be used for the good of another? You can see where this may lead… The argument that Theresa’s inability to express her free-will is a permanent condition is 1 irrelevant because she is still a human and 2 is arbitrary, because as much as doctors may claim that a condition is permanent, they are never sure. People wake up from comas, improve from “incurable” conditions, etc. all the time.
  2. It is NEVER acceptable to INTEND to kill a person. Someone who kills in self-defense has the INTENTION of defending oneself. His primary intention is not to kill, this is a negative effect that may come from his act of preserving life. His main action is to preserve his own life from violence. The death of the attacker is not the primary intention.
This case may not be compared to self-defense, do not let this argument slide. When a doctor decides to harvest organs from a living person, his intention IS to kill. In self-defense, a person may strike in a way that could possibly be deadly, but in the case of the doctor, he IS killing. There is no possibility of survival, he is not doing something good that MAY result in death. The intent is to kill. Evil means may never be used for a good, and the intentional killing of a person is evil, period.
  1. As to the idea that Theresa is already “technically dead”, absolute non-sense. First of all, Theresa is functioning, even if not at full capacity. Her body is keeping itself alive, even if her brain is not fully functioning. Also, it is becoming more and more clear that doctors DO NOT know the moment of death. How often are people proclaimed dead (no heart beat, breathing, brain waves, etc.) and end up coming back to life? The Church teaches that we do not know exactly when the soul leaves the body. And science seems to be coming to the same conclusion. We do not know when life is over, because when we think we do, life often surprises us 🙂
Hope this helps you a bit, God bless you

In Christ and Mary,
Frank
 
Hmm I think I poorly worded part of the above…

I want to say though please listen to the sermons. They are very good. En pointe. Entirely. Inspiring really. Should help any presentation on the subject. 😃
 
There’s a lot of corruption today you know, even from places with a Catholic title.
 
Seatuck said:
ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=436
Click to expand...
While this is a good site it does not directly address the issues raised.

The site speaks of those who are brain dead but appear to be alive due to being kept on mechanical ventilation which is not the case in question raised.

The baby in the question asked was breathing on her own, there by not meeting one of the four criteria listed, namely apnea.

Basically this baby would not meet the brain death as defined by the NCB as the baby has portions of her brain that are alive and working. The issue people have here is that she is missing parts of her brain that will make long term survival doubtful.

My argument would be that we can not commit an evil for a good outcome. Why not wait until the baby does die for any transplant opportunities?
 
It doesn’t matter if “parts” of her brain are missing, if there are other '“parts” that are functioning then she is NOT brain dead.

I think the situation could only be moral if this baby died naturally, or “extraordinary” means of life support were ceased, as it is in situations with an adult.

But to take the organs when baby has the existing parts of her brain functioning, that is murder, plain and simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top