I have a question for you all. I am writing a Philosophy paper and was wondering your thoughts on what I was writing. The question starts out with a story about parents whos daughter is in the hospital and needs a bone marrow transplant. The daughter is 19 years old and has been waiting in the hospital for a transplant for months and no sign of a donar. The parents then take it upon themselves to have a child to be the donar for her. Take note that the child has to be a year old in order for them to use the marrow for her. Do you find this ethical? I keep coming up with the same answer and Im telling you it does not make up enough pages for my paper.
2006-12-20 12:13:32 · 10 answers · asked by Marge F 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
No its not..the baby is being used and wanted for the wrong reasons
if u need more pages than refer to the book "My Sister's Keeper" by Jodi Picoult
its the same situation on the daughters are only 3 yrz apart..really interesting b'cuz the 13 yr old decides to sure her folks for the ownership of her own body
2006-12-20 12:18:35 · answer #1 · answered by Joze 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is it ethical to deliberately create and give birth to a child that you INTEND to put under the knife and cause untold pain and/or other possible infections or even possible maiming or even death? This is NOT ethical. It may or may not be helpful for the existing child, but NOT certainly to the new little innocent helpless baby. What an unbelievable machievellian concept.
Perhaps probe the horrors of what they are attempting to do to this little infant. The possible side-effects and after-effects. Plus their guilt if the transplant does NOT work to help the 19-year-old AND maims the new helpless little baby.
You would need to explore the motives, morals, ethics of those parents. It is something like "Sophie's Choice" where the mother has to choose which of her children to allow to live and therefore which will die.
2006-12-21 11:18:49 · answer #2 · answered by concernedjean 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, they aren't going to kill the child, so they aren't doing anything evil in that regard. As for the purpose of having the child, while it may not be the most preferable of reasons, i don't find anything evil about it. They are doing it to save their daughter. And, from what I've heard, it sounds like the parents are a good loving couple. While they may initially decide to have the child to save their current one, they aren't going to throw the child away once they've used it. They will develop a whole new relationship w/ it, just like their previous child. Thus, having the child leads to the saving of one life, the creation of a new one, and the formation of new loving relationships. Sounds good to me.
2006-12-20 12:29:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question seems to turn on the worth of human dignity or the debate between deontology and utilitarianism or consequentialism. Hence, the second formulation of Kant's categorical imperative might give you some food for thought, wherein Kant contends that one should treat humanity as an end and never as a means to an end only. Note that the second formulation does not necessarily say that one should never use humanity as a means to an end; just do not use humanity as a means to an end only.
2006-12-20 13:53:41 · answer #4 · answered by sokrates 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One child is equal in value to the other, even if that other is not yet born. The parents have the right to that reciprocal consent, and the mother has the right of dissent, until that child is born and living unsymbiotically, freely of the mothers body, then the time for the rights for the child start, but not all rights are extended simultaneously (not all at the same time).
2006-12-20 12:53:03 · answer #5 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since it is bone marrow and not organs, bone marrow being naturally replaced. As long as no harm comes to younger child, it would be an ethical thing to do as long as the child was still loved for who they were.
2006-12-20 12:29:36 · answer #6 · answered by Sophist 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry. I find conceiving a child for the sole purpose of saving another VERY unethical.
It's still another human being. How will he/she be treated growing up? How will the child feel?
Sacrificing one's own self for another is one thing. Forcing one to sacrifice for another is a completely different animal.
2006-12-20 14:12:12 · answer #7 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The child cannot give informed consent.
The parents should be required to appoint a nuetral to decide for the child.
2006-12-20 12:36:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
having a baby just to save another? what would be next? using it for organ donations? that is, if she is close enough of a match to donate, if she isnt, does she get aborted? and if she is a match, would it be ethical to use her as a incubator for spare parts?
2006-12-20 13:37:30 · answer #9 · answered by Harry W 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i had a nurse tell me that the baby in one place was a donor and that the eyes were taken for another and the donor lived on for three more months of donor receivables out of her before she died
2006-12-20 12:20:12 · answer #10 · answered by bev 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋