imagine your self as a doctor! you have 2 babies, one with a bad heart and the other with a bad brain. the first baby will die if she doesnt get a new heart, the second baby will live in a vegitative state all her life. would you transfer the heart of the baby with bad brain to the one who needs the heart? or would you let the first baby die and let the other baby live in a vegitative state all her life?
note: this was a real question in one of my classes>>>
2006-10-20 06:09:06 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I would transfer the heart of the baby with the bad brain to the one who needs the heart.
2006-10-20 06:21:18 · answer #1 · answered by BoyBlu19 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Life has to be the most important thing, then if you have a bad quality of life you can work on improving it (or hope it improves). If you have no life then you are pretty much stuffed from the onset.
I don't think any doctor could, would or should ever make this decision. The baby in the vegetative state is alive, it is not going to die, it is therefore not up to the doctor to say that it should die to improve the life expectancy of someone else. Anyone working within the current medical industry would be all too aware of the advances that have been made over the last few years in terms of neurology. Whilst they could say that the baby with brain damage has no chance of a 'quality' life now, it may have in the not too distant future.
It would be totally unethical for the doctor to end one life to save another, irrespective of quality of life.
As sad as it is the baby with the heart defect would have to remain on the donor list.
2006-10-20 06:23:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To me there is not even a question. I would give the normal baby the heart. Then you have a whole, total person that has a chance in life. What life will the other child have without a brain? Let that child go back to heaven. Why allow him/her to live and not be aware of anything but a black hole? I can't imagine anyone, if they were given this choice to LIVE as a vegtable would even want to.....
2006-10-20 08:40:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the healthy brain would have some control over how the (good or bad) heart functions with all the other organs depending on bloodflow, I would transplant the good heart to the baby with the good brain. But, then what to the state guidelines say cuz I want to keep paying my mortgage and other bills from my doctor lifestyle (plus be able to help other babies tomorrow).
2006-10-20 06:27:30 · answer #4 · answered by clophad 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What a disturbing question! But if i had to choose I would say quality of life is more important. To me, existing in a vegetative state (braindeath) is not really life. "I think, therefore I am" -- If you can't think, then you are not. Give the first baby a heart so at least they have a chance at life. Hearts can be transplanted. Brains can not. Just my opinion! I would hate to be a doctor & have to make such a decision!
2006-10-20 06:24:00 · answer #5 · answered by amp 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The brain damaged baby lives in a vegetative state. It's not dead, or dying, so we can't take it's heart for a transplant.
The heart damaged baby dies unless a suitable heart becomes available.
If the brain damaged baby was brain dead and could not live without heroic measures, then transplanting it's healthy heart before it dies would be an option. Brain death with imminent death must exist in order to become a donor.
2006-10-20 06:34:46 · answer #6 · answered by OU812 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
society has made it abundantly clear that Human lives are precious and no one has any right to take it away. If you have heard of Euthenasia, this is opposed on that same ground.
A doctor cannot behave like a satan , killing a life and become God giving a life. He is bound by ethics.
And , may I add that the creator`s way of impressing upon the people the gift of a healthy life, is the creation of children with Down`s syndrome. We will mentally tell ourselves;" Thank God . I was not born that way. Thank God my children were not born that way"
Allow the child with the bad brain to live so that the child can transform heard hearted persons to empathise.
2006-10-20 06:20:33 · answer #7 · answered by YD 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
IF I COULDNT get one good baby out of the 2 iwouldnt want either one for sure ? i wouldnt want one in vegitative state all her life. its not fair for me or the baby if one could save the other then thats the routh i would take .Ihope i never come across such a situation.please forgive for this answer yet that is what i would do?
2006-10-20 06:17:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
and it is another stigmatizing guilt trip, know when to pull the plugs on both and move on,there as never been another time in history that the greatest country was brought to its knee by such foolishness,the soul of western societies has lost courage to stand where the truth is known and sciences are over paid to get incomes to support people who are born underachievers and have no stepping stones in life to sustain such practices, deaf since four years old I've been too much a stepping stone for ridicules and life doesn't come easy and you want to save worthlessness, the your of dignity is denied to the handicapped so walk in there shoes and see it sucks so bad, stupidities
2006-10-20 07:09:22 · answer #9 · answered by bev 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First I would ask for the best outcome for all involved, then I would proceed to speak to the parents and explain the situation. I would hope the child with the best chance for 'quality of life' would be given the chance to live.
2006-10-20 06:18:41 · answer #10 · answered by gypsyparadise123 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋