Answer the questions at the end of the case, but try to argue for a point of view you don't actually support. Connect your answer to something else we've read (a case, an article, a theory).
1) harvesting organs from an infant that is still alive is immortal. A child is still alive and the parents deserve all of the time the can get as they have already been robbed of the time they deserve. 2) I believe that we should adopt a policy to harvest organs of a terminal patient at the end of their life in order to save so many others. The grey area is when to do so and what is considered terminal. This can be skewed to fit an agenda when the power is given to the wrong person. The consent of the parents is a must and it would need to be handled with the most tender touch. 3) It would not be justifiable to try to resuscitate a still born for the sake of harvesting their organs. This would be a disgusting practice and traumatic for a parent. 4)In my opinion if the patient in a permanent vegetative state is an organ donor and the consent is given by the next of kin than the organ donation should be acceptable. The patient made the decision when in their right mind to donate. Harvesting organs of a vegetative patient or a terminally ill newborn at the end of their life is the opposite of ethical egoism, looking out for yourself in medical decisions.
You state that we should adopt a policy to harvest organs of a terminal patient at the end of their life. Do you think a severe anencephalic newborn would be considered terminal?
I feel like if an adult has made that decision in their right mind then it should be upheld and taken before it is too late. Because a child cannot make that decision it is hard. As a third party I would say it would be lifesaving to so may other babies if we did, however as a medical professional I would have to be the one to initiate that conversation. you are much closer to this situation than me, how do you feel about it?
I believe that the parents are the advocate for the newborn. If they have been fully informed of all the details surrounding the newborns case, then they do have the right to decide to donate and allow their child to live on.
I agree with 3 that it would be wrong and disrespectful to put a parent through that loss a second time. We are not farming humans for their organs. We are trying to save lives. That is done by allowing the wishes of a parent or in the case of a terminally ill patient, their last request. NO tbringing them back to life to kill them.
I am with you all the way on patients being able to choose ahead of time to donate organs and they can even setup this plan with an advanced directive. I really feel like we should try to turn a negative into a positive for other patients and the greater good of the population.
Anencephalic newborns is actually a topic I’ve been following closely this past year. It started with a shared post on social media about an unborn baby named Shane. His parents had found out early on in their pregnancy that Shane had anencephaly. They had been offered the option to terminate their pregnancy, knowing Shane would only live briefly and would not have the opportunity for a real life experience. They chose to carry Shane to term, hoping and praying for a miracle along the way. Throughout the pregnancy, they decided to celebrate every holiday and event, with the knowledge he would not have the opportunity to do so after birth. They watched every ultrasound, hopeful he would have enough brain develop to live some type of life. When he was born, he lived only briefly. Any stimulation caused whatever small amount of neurologic system he had to seize. They held him, took photos and cherished what few moments they had, then Shane was gone; ten months of growing this baby, with a normal heart, normal liver, normal lungs, and he was gone forever in a few minutes because he did not have the brain function to serve as the computer control center for his body and tell everything to function as it should.
To evaluate this case, we have to use the Coherence Theory: a statement is true if it is consistent with a system of other statements known to be true. Every statement describes its subject in the totality of its relationship with all other things.
1). Is it immoral, unfair or disrespectful to donate organs from a baby like Shane? Cogito, ergo sum... I think, therefore I am. Does that mean if we can’t think, as in the case of brain death, or in this case anencephaly, we aren’t? It is known these infants have no chance of survival. If they are permitted to carry them to term, simply to meet them, why would it be immortal to harvest their organs to donate, save numerous lives, and allow these infants to live on? Some people with brain death still have brain function, and they can be deemed donors. How is the case of anencephaly any different that the infant in Lexington this past week who suffered from a prolapsed cord during delivery, was resuscitated at birth, and after a week on life support deemed with no viable brain function? Those parents saw the value in allowing their child to live on (keep in mind this was a completely developed, normal baby until the cord prolapse starved him of oxygen during delivery), and actually fought to donate, as it was not typical, and there was no protocol, for an infant so young to donate. In doing so, their child did not cease to exist there, but now lives on in several other children. I am certain the parents of those five other children saved do not think organ donation by a non-viable infant is immoral. If it were your child laying there, aware, thinking, crying, in pain, barely able to breathe, desperate for a heart, and there was an infant without a brain who was certain to die any moment and they could give your child a heart that would save their life, would you think it was immoral?
2). Should we adopt a social policy that would permit harvesting the organs of an anencephalic infant? Yes, we should. As stated above, it makes a positive of a negative situation. To further complicate this matter, let’s bring in the financial side of healthcare. Everyone is always talking about wasted healthcare dollars with overdoses and chronic pain patients, etc. If parents are allowed to incur medical costs by carrying a baby to term that isn’t viable, and delivering that infant at a cost of $20,000, why should that all be wasted by then letting him die, letting healthy organs who do not have a brain to support them, die, completely wasted. If they are allowed to carry to term, they should be permitted to donate and there should be a policy. (Out of characters, continued below)
(Continued) 3). Would it be justifiable to resuscitate a stillborn anencephalic baby simply to keep the organs intact to harvest for donation? No, this is immoral. If the infant is stillborn and not a viable fetus, no brain adequate for sustaining life, you cannot resuscitate simply to harvest organs. We do not resuscitate adult that are non-viable simply to harvest their organs.
4). If it is justifiable to harvest the organs of an anencephalic infant, is it justifiable to harvest organs of a person in a permanent vegetative state? This would depend completely on if there was brain function on all the tests performed or not. This person has a complete brain (unlike anencephalic infants), if there is brain function at all, we cannot assume there will be no regeneration and we cannot assume just what is or is not going on inside that brain, and it is unethical to harvest those organs. However, if there isn’t brain function, it’s no different than patients who have care withdrawn in the hospital and donate organs.
Very excellent points! You put up a great argument for your answers. Out of curiosity thought, are these your personal opinions on the subject or were you arguing for a different viewpoint?
Very excellent points! You put up a great argument for your answers. Out of curiosity thought, are these your personal opinions on the subject or were you arguing for a different viewpoint?
1. Is it disrespectful, unfair, or otherwise immoral to transplant the organs of an anencephalic infant? If parents have had normal prenatal care, then at the 20-week ultrasound they will have been informed of their child’s prognosis. The paleontologist will have sat down with them to discuss options and let them know what to expect. In most cases the infant can be carried to term and either dies before delivery and is stillborn, or only lives a short time. Per John Stuart Mills the parents possess “individuality” and are autonomous, reflectively choosing their own plans of life, making their own decisions without coercion or manipulation by others, and exercising firmness and self-control in acting on their decisions (Degrazia et. al., 2011). If they have been fully informed and give consent, then they have the right to decide to transplant the organs of their anencephalic infant to allow that child to live on by giving another a chance at life. In the UK, an anencephalic newborn, Teddy, lived for 100 minutes before passing and immediately taken to surgery and donating his kidneys to save an adult (BBC News, 2015). 2. Should we adopt a social policy that would permit (with parental consent) harvesting the organs of an anencephalic infant? In my opinion we should adopt a policy. In victims of traumatic car crashes or accidents and are deemed brain dead, if consent has been given then we harvest their organs. In the case of Kinsley Kinner, a 2-year-old Ohio toddler that was beaten to death, her father decided to donate her organs and changed the lives of 6 other children. There was an outpouring of support for this man and his decision, so why should we not support the donation of anencephalic organs to infants, where organ donation is scarce? 3.If an anencephalic infant is stillborn, would it be justifiable to attempt resuscitation purely for the purpose of keeping organs intact until they can be harvested? NO. It cannot always be known how long they infant has been gone for. I believe at that point the infant should be handed to the parents for them to begin their grief process and not have to endure watching us attempt a resuscitation that may be traumatic for them. In cases of anencephalic infants or any that are stillborn, we are required to contact the organ procurement agency and if the infant is born without a heartbeat, they typically do not pursue anything further. There is a small window of how long the organs are “good for” once the heart stops beating. 4. If it is justifiable to harvest the organs of an anencephalic infant, would it be justifiable to harvest the organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state? I do believe it would be justifiable if we have received consent from either the patient with prior consent or from the family. This may be a time when casuistry is looked at, and any case laws are observed to see if there are previous cases that organs have been harvested from permanent vegetative state patients. In order the donate organs the donor must be declared dead. PVS is fairly new and only considered an end of life condition. If further study is done and the PVS definition is decided to be an adequate definition of death, then there may be many lives saved from these organ donations. From a money standpoint, healthcare cost may be reduced from not only the cost of 24-hour care for a PVS patient, but the health care cost of the person needing the organ. (I am not only arguing this point to save money, just making an observation)
BBC News. April 23 2015. Newborn baby Teddy was UK’s youngest ever organ donor. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32425666 Degrazia, D., et. al., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. pg 45. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
P.S., I know you asked us to try to argue for a point that we don't actually support, but this is something that hits close to home, and I could not bring myself to try to write against it. Sorry.
I agree with you completely. I have followed these cases closely. I also have followed the cases of Angela Morales and Baby Jaxon (whose official diagnosis is actually Microhydranencephaly), who both recently celebrated their first birthdays. Jaxon's parents are convinced he communicates with them and makes purposeful movement, although other's are skeptical. I can imagine many against it would argue that if you gave them a chance, instead of whisking them off to harvest organs when they appear to be at their last breath, they might survive to exist for their first birthday like Angela and Jaxon. As a parent, I might want to hold on as long as I could, go through the motions and hope those were signs of communication or an actual brain process and wish that my child would suddenly grow brain tissue and thrive. These cases are so tough and truly break my heart.
Jocelyn I understand this is a difficult topic to speak about and I too couldn't even speak against what I really feel when it came to the topic of resuscitating stillborn it is sick and in my opinion very inhumane and I can't think of many ethical topics that it is in my opinion very immoral as this one. I don't even believe there should be another side to this argument.
I am left questioning cases on anencephaly like Angela Morales who is now alive at 1 year old, Is it ethical and moral to consider harvesting organs from these babies if they might live like she and Jaxon, to be one, maybe two, maybe three?
Shelley, There are different levels of severity with anencephaly. Some babies like Angela, or Jaxon have the less severe where they have more brain tissue allowing for spontaneous respiration etc. Others are more severe and will not live on their own. This can be seen on ultrasound, so perhaps donation should be discussed with those parents who have an infant that is known will not survive.
I also had trouble arguing different view points on this subject. The question regarding resuscitation of a still born only to harvest organs was disturbing to me. While I attempted to argue a reason to justify it, I found my self appalled. However, I realize the assignment was geared to challenge us to think about the views of others.
Jocelyn, You make excellent points! Your experience in the L&D have obviously given you much insight about this. I understand and agree that there are different degrees of severity with anencephaly. This of course makes a difference when a parent is faced with such decisions. I believe, given the option, a parents choice to donate organs after their infant has not survived, may help them in their grieving process through giving back life to another
The majority of us seem to agree that harvesting from a terminally ill patient should have prior consent from that individual. Some of us do disagree on if the babies should be harvested. As long as the parents consent and the baby is not resuscitated, I would allow the harvesting of organs.
1. It is moral to harvest the organs of these infants because they can help so many other children and give them the chance at a healthy life that they won't have. Although this is sad it is for the greater good that these infants have their organs harvested. 2. I believe we should adopt a policy which parents can consent so they can make the choice for their child and then the decision rests on their shoulders and not a board of medical professionals that have no attachment to this patient. 3. I don't believe we should try to resuscitate infants if they are still born because you put the child through a lot of undo stress and probably don't have a very good rate in which the organs are viable. This in my opinion would be going too far and some parents might have a sense of false hope that the child my comeback to life and maybe have a normal life which is cruel to put the parents through. 4. I do think there is case to be made for harvesting organs in someone who is in a permanent vegetative state if there is a advanced directive or a POA giving consent. It could help a lot of other patients waiting on transplants of vital organs and help them continue their life instead of that patient maybe laying there for years and then eventually passing away and nothing to show for it. One area I can relate this to is the case of passive and active euthanasia. If we were harvesting organs on any of these patients would be in my opinion a form of active euthanasia which I believe is a positive instead of letting the patient lay there and die. This way their is a positive come out of an unfortunate situation.
Excellent points, Alex. A question I've had about the patient in a vegetative state.... Let's relate it to Case 27; Artificial Nutrition, except flip it to be opposite. Say the patient in the vegetative state had been a full code and had always emphasized they wanted to be saved at all costs, they wanted a chance to watch their young child grow up (they have adult children, but also had a child later in life, who is now 8, their husband has passed before them.) Now, their next of kin, an adult child is insisting to not drag life on for the parent in a vegetative state and wants to donate organs. Do we?
To argue a point of view I would not normally support, then the answer to question one would be yes. It is disrespectful, unfair, and immoral to transplant the organs of an anencephalic infant. These infant’s would not be permitted to naturally die due to their organs being needed immediately in order to allow for donation. Someone’s life should not be taken in order to save another’s. Therefore since it is considered to be disrespectful, unfair, and immoral, in response to question two, a social policy to permit organ harvesting should not be put in place.
In response to the third question and arguing an opposing view point, the answer would be yes. A stillborn should be resuscitated purely for the purpose of keeping the organs intact. The infant’s organs can be used to save another infant which would give the infant a purpose. The family of the infant may find joy and benefit from possibly seeing their baby “alive” even though artificially.
Again, to argue a different view point, the answer to question four is no. It is not justifiable to harvest organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state. It is unclear of that patient’s wishes unless specified. I’d just like to point out that this was a difficult assignment for me. I’d much rather argue a point in which I support especially with a topic as sensitive as this. It was very enlightening though to challenge myself to understand why others may have opposing views.
Good job Erin! I kept trying to argue against what I believe but everything I typed just seemed wrong. I never really thought how strongly I felt about this subject until doing this assignment. I do respect everyone's opinions on subjects and this does show a different viewpoint that may be had.
Nice job arguing a viewpoint not necessarily your, Erin. I think that does take a bit to move out of the comfort zone and try to see it as someone else arguing against you might.
I think that if the parents are okay with this and want their child to help another child then it is not an issue. I mean our parents are our decision makers until we become legal adults. Whether it is a newborn or a 7 year old, our parents have the right to make those choices for us. If people with what I am reading is saying they need a living will, I mean are we saying that children should have the right to make decisions on their own and not have their parents. I don't have any kids so I am sure everyone has a different point of view but I feel strongly that if I was in this position and my child was born and not going to survive I would feel so much better and be able to grieve better knowing that my child could help another.
In the case of harvesting organs from anencephalic newborns, A consequentialist theory states that actions are morally permissible as long as they maximize consequences. This is based on the Principle of Utility. Utilitarianism defines right action as that which maximizes pleasure or minimizes pain for the greatest number. That being said then under this theory, the harvesting of organs from an anencephalic newborn would be most beneficial; for it would save the life of another. Whereas, not doing anything, saves no one. The infant dies either way. The same scenario can be argued from Kant's Theory based on the Categorical Imperative, which states 'treat humanity as ends, never as means only'. A Kantian viewpoint argues to not use people, and always respect them. This theory, as well, argues that moral actions should be consistent. Along this line of thinking, the newborn baby that has been born to die, should be allowed to do so as the natural course would take it. It would not be respectful or fair to use the infant as a means for another's life. A social policy of this sort would not be a moral policy. It would place the power of life and death squarely on the shoulders of the physician and the parents. It would open up avenues of other life-quality issues, such as a person who is in a vegetative state and killing him to harvest his organs. Where would the moral line be drawn? I believe that the Kantian Theory to respect life and persons is the best right action in this case.
1. My belief leads me to say it is immoral to to kill an infant to harvest organs. Life begins at conception to natural death. However, if you look at this scenario based on the principle of utility, the greater good would be saving the life of another infant. 2. Adopting a social policy to harvest the organs of an anencephalic newborn would be a gross injustice to the dignity of life. Where would we draw the line after this?? 3. Resuscitating a stillborn in order to harvest organs is also morally wrong. What good would come of using the stillborn infant as a means of life for someone else? Would that be using a person as a mean according to Kant? 4. If it is okay to harvest the organs of an anecephalic infant, can we harvest the organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state? NO, the answer is loud and clear. The person in the vegetative state cannot consent to organ donation, just as the infant can. We need to respect life, all life. 4.
I agree, the greater good for the greatest number. It makes me wonder how the success rate measures up when they have harvested these organs. Some literature I was looking at was grey in that area due to not enough organs are harvested fast enough.
Case 25 1) In the case of anencephalic newborns and organ donation, I believe it is morally wrong to harvest organs from these infants who are born with anencephaly. These infants are not brain dead there for it seems unethical to take their organs. It is not respecting autonomy or non-maleficence. Not only is it disrespectful, but also there risk of taking organs that are not even fully developed out of a child who may have brain stem functions fully intact does not seem to outweigh the immoral of choice. In arguing a point of view opposite to what I believe, I would say that harvesting organs from infants born with anencephaly could potentially do the most good for the most amounts of people and maximize utility. These infants have a poor prognosis and survival rate. Transplanting their organs in to other infants in need could potentially save multiple infants with one single infant, doing the most good for the most amounts of people. 2) We should adopt a social policy that would permit this if the parents choose to. Often times in the grieving process when a love one dies, family can find good in giving life to others. There is satisfaction in knowing you can help others through devastating circumstances. 3) It is no way justifiable to resuscitate this anencephalic infant just for the solely purpose. That is very wrong. 4) Harvesting the anencephalic infant and one who is in a vegetative state is almost the same. Neither of these patients can be declared brain dead. It is just not ethical.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics. Seventh edition. Mcgraw Hill Companies.
I have a sad, buy unique prospective to this argument. We had a baby born that had too many problems to survive. We knew this when we had him and he died after ten minutes.
1. I would of gladly given the organs to another baby if it had the chance to survive. Our grieving period would of been less and something good would of came from his life. I would of not found it disrespectful if the parents give consent. A baby that small, and even to survive a few days, would of had no memory or experiences to take from it. The value of life to me, would be to save the ones you can save. No matter how long he survived he was going to die. I would of given up the ten minutes he lived to help others and spare them the tragedy. 2. I believe we should permit parents who want to allow their babies organs to be used so others can live. If the parents denies then the case is closed and they are permitted their wishes. 3. If the baby is dead at birth I don't believe you should bring it back to life so that you can harvest it. I would of not want that done to my son. The parents would have to go through the grieving period twice. 4. I believe that if the person is a donor and has permitted society to use their organs, they should be allowed. I would want that done if I was brain dead. I would like to know that I was generous at the end of my life. If there is no prior consent you cannot harvest the organs. I think that creates a environment of human farming for organs.
1) harvesting organs from an infant that is still alive is immortal. A child is still alive and the parents deserve all of the time the can get as they have already been robbed of the time they deserve.
ReplyDelete2) I believe that we should adopt a policy to harvest organs of a terminal patient at the end of their life in order to save so many others. The grey area is when to do so and what is considered terminal. This can be skewed to fit an agenda when the power is given to the wrong person. The consent of the parents is a must and it would need to be handled with the most tender touch.
3) It would not be justifiable to try to resuscitate a still born for the sake of harvesting their organs. This would be a disgusting practice and traumatic for a parent.
4)In my opinion if the patient in a permanent vegetative state is an organ donor and the consent is given by the next of kin than the organ donation should be acceptable. The patient made the decision when in their right mind to donate.
Harvesting organs of a vegetative patient or a terminally ill newborn at the end of their life is the opposite of ethical egoism, looking out for yourself in medical decisions.
You state that we should adopt a policy to harvest organs of a terminal patient at the end of their life. Do you think a severe anencephalic newborn would be considered terminal?
DeleteI feel like if an adult has made that decision in their right mind then it should be upheld and taken before it is too late. Because a child cannot make that decision it is hard. As a third party I would say it would be lifesaving to so may other babies if we did, however as a medical professional I would have to be the one to initiate that conversation. you are much closer to this situation than me, how do you feel about it?
DeleteI agree with you Jessica. An adult can make the decision to have an advanced directive or living will. The infant doesn't get to make a decision.
DeleteI believe that the parents are the advocate for the newborn. If they have been fully informed of all the details surrounding the newborns case, then they do have the right to decide to donate and allow their child to live on.
DeleteI agree with 3 that it would be wrong and disrespectful to put a parent through that loss a second time. We are not farming humans for their organs. We are trying to save lives. That is done by allowing the wishes of a parent or in the case of a terminally ill patient, their last request. NO tbringing them back to life to kill them.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am with you all the way on patients being able to choose ahead of time to donate organs and they can even setup this plan with an advanced directive. I really feel like we should try to turn a negative into a positive for other patients and the greater good of the population.
DeleteAnencephalic newborns is actually a topic I’ve been following closely this past year. It started with a shared post on social media about an unborn baby named Shane. His parents had found out early on in their pregnancy that Shane had anencephaly. They had been offered the option to terminate their pregnancy, knowing Shane would only live briefly and would not have the opportunity for a real life experience. They chose to carry Shane to term, hoping and praying for a miracle along the way. Throughout the pregnancy, they decided to celebrate every holiday and event, with the knowledge he would not have the opportunity to do so after birth. They watched every ultrasound, hopeful he would have enough brain develop to live some type of life. When he was born, he lived only briefly. Any stimulation caused whatever small amount of neurologic system he had to seize. They held him, took photos and cherished what few moments they had, then Shane was gone; ten months of growing this baby, with a normal heart, normal liver, normal lungs, and he was gone forever in a few minutes because he did not have the brain function to serve as the computer control center for his body and tell everything to function as it should.
ReplyDeleteTo evaluate this case, we have to use the Coherence Theory: a statement is true if it is consistent with a system of other statements known to be true. Every statement describes its subject in the totality of its relationship with all other things.
1). Is it immoral, unfair or disrespectful to donate organs from a baby like Shane?
Cogito, ergo sum... I think, therefore I am. Does that mean if we can’t think, as in the case of brain death, or in this case anencephaly, we aren’t? It is known these infants have no chance of survival. If they are permitted to carry them to term, simply to meet them, why would it be immortal to harvest their organs to donate, save numerous lives, and allow these infants to live on? Some people with brain death still have brain function, and they can be deemed donors. How is the case of anencephaly any different that the infant in Lexington this past week who suffered from a prolapsed cord during delivery, was resuscitated at birth, and after a week on life support deemed with no viable brain function? Those parents saw the value in allowing their child to live on (keep in mind this was a completely developed, normal baby until the cord prolapse starved him of oxygen during delivery), and actually fought to donate, as it was not typical, and there was no protocol, for an infant so young to donate. In doing so, their child did not cease to exist there, but now lives on in several other children. I am certain the parents of those five other children saved do not think organ donation by a non-viable infant is immoral. If it were your child laying there, aware, thinking, crying, in pain, barely able to breathe, desperate for a heart, and there was an infant without a brain who was certain to die any moment and they could give your child a heart that would save their life, would you think it was immoral?
2). Should we adopt a social policy that would permit harvesting the organs of an anencephalic infant?
Yes, we should. As stated above, it makes a positive of a negative situation. To further complicate this matter, let’s bring in the financial side of healthcare. Everyone is always talking about wasted healthcare dollars with overdoses and chronic pain patients, etc. If parents are allowed to incur medical costs by carrying a baby to term that isn’t viable, and delivering that infant at a cost of $20,000, why should that all be wasted by then letting him die, letting healthy organs who do not have a brain to support them, die, completely wasted. If they are allowed to carry to term, they should be permitted to donate and there should be a policy.
(Out of characters, continued below)
(Continued)
Delete3). Would it be justifiable to resuscitate a stillborn anencephalic baby simply to keep the organs intact to harvest for donation?
No, this is immoral. If the infant is stillborn and not a viable fetus, no brain adequate for sustaining life, you cannot resuscitate simply to harvest organs. We do not resuscitate adult that are non-viable simply to harvest their organs.
4). If it is justifiable to harvest the organs of an anencephalic infant, is it justifiable to harvest organs of a person in a permanent vegetative state?
This would depend completely on if there was brain function on all the tests performed or not. This person has a complete brain (unlike anencephalic infants), if there is brain function at all, we cannot assume there will be no regeneration and we cannot assume just what is or is not going on inside that brain, and it is unethical to harvest those organs. However, if there isn’t brain function, it’s no different than patients who have care withdrawn in the hospital and donate organs.
Very excellent points! You put up a great argument for your answers. Out of curiosity thought, are these your personal opinions on the subject or were you arguing for a different viewpoint?
DeleteVery excellent points! You put up a great argument for your answers. Out of curiosity thought, are these your personal opinions on the subject or were you arguing for a different viewpoint?
DeleteThank you, Erin! Some I agree with, but not all. I'm arguing my points based on the Coherence theory. While some aligns with my beliefs, not all does.
Delete1. Is it disrespectful, unfair, or otherwise immoral to transplant the organs of an anencephalic infant? If parents have had normal prenatal care, then at the 20-week ultrasound they will have been informed of their child’s prognosis. The paleontologist will have sat down with them to discuss options and let them know what to expect. In most cases the infant can be carried to term and either dies before delivery and is stillborn, or only lives a short time. Per John Stuart Mills the parents possess “individuality” and are autonomous, reflectively choosing their own plans of life, making their own decisions without coercion or manipulation by others, and exercising firmness and self-control in acting on their decisions (Degrazia et. al., 2011). If they have been fully informed and give consent, then they have the right to decide to transplant the organs of their anencephalic infant to allow that child to live on by giving another a chance at life. In the UK, an anencephalic newborn, Teddy, lived for 100 minutes before passing and immediately taken to surgery and donating his kidneys to save an adult (BBC News, 2015).
ReplyDelete2. Should we adopt a social policy that would permit (with parental consent) harvesting the organs of an anencephalic infant? In my opinion we should adopt a policy. In victims of traumatic car crashes or accidents and are deemed brain dead, if consent has been given then we harvest their organs. In the case of Kinsley Kinner, a 2-year-old Ohio toddler that was beaten to death, her father decided to donate her organs and changed the lives of 6 other children. There was an outpouring of support for this man and his decision, so why should we not support the donation of anencephalic organs to infants, where organ donation is scarce?
3.If an anencephalic infant is stillborn, would it be justifiable to attempt resuscitation purely for the purpose of keeping organs intact until they can be harvested? NO. It cannot always be known how long they infant has been gone for. I believe at that point the infant should be handed to the parents for them to begin their grief process and not have to endure watching us attempt a resuscitation that may be traumatic for them. In cases of anencephalic infants or any that are stillborn, we are required to contact the organ procurement agency and if the infant is born without a heartbeat, they typically do not pursue anything further. There is a small window of how long the organs are “good for” once the heart stops beating.
4. If it is justifiable to harvest the organs of an anencephalic infant, would it be justifiable to harvest the organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state? I do believe it would be justifiable if we have received consent from either the patient with prior consent or from the family. This may be a time when casuistry is looked at, and any case laws are observed to see if there are previous cases that organs have been harvested from permanent vegetative state patients. In order the donate organs the donor must be declared dead. PVS is fairly new and only considered an end of life condition. If further study is done and the PVS definition is decided to be an adequate definition of death, then there may be many lives saved from these organ donations. From a money standpoint, healthcare cost may be reduced from not only the cost of 24-hour care for a PVS patient, but the health care cost of the person needing the organ. (I am not only arguing this point to save money, just making an observation)
BBC News. April 23 2015. Newborn baby Teddy was UK’s youngest ever organ donor. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32425666
Degrazia, D., et. al., (2011). Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. pg 45. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill.
P.S., I know you asked us to try to argue for a point that we don't actually support, but this is something that hits close to home, and I could not bring myself to try to write against it. Sorry.
Delete
DeleteShelley SimpsonFebruary 15, 2016 at 10:48 AM
I agree with you completely. I have followed these cases closely. I also have followed the cases of Angela Morales and Baby Jaxon (whose official diagnosis is actually Microhydranencephaly), who both recently celebrated their first birthdays. Jaxon's parents are convinced he communicates with them and makes purposeful movement, although other's are skeptical. I can imagine many against it would argue that if you gave them a chance, instead of whisking them off to harvest organs when they appear to be at their last breath, they might survive to exist for their first birthday like Angela and Jaxon. As a parent, I might want to hold on as long as I could, go through the motions and hope those were signs of communication or an actual brain process and wish that my child would suddenly grow brain tissue and thrive. These cases are so tough and truly break my heart.
Jocelyn I understand this is a difficult topic to speak about and I too couldn't even speak against what I really feel when it came to the topic of resuscitating stillborn it is sick and in my opinion very inhumane and I can't think of many ethical topics that it is in my opinion very immoral as this one. I don't even believe there should be another side to this argument.
DeleteI am left questioning cases on anencephaly like Angela Morales who is now alive at 1 year old, Is it ethical and moral to consider harvesting organs from these babies if they might live like she and Jaxon, to be one, maybe two, maybe three?
DeleteShelley, There are different levels of severity with anencephaly. Some babies like Angela, or Jaxon have the less severe where they have more brain tissue allowing for spontaneous respiration etc. Others are more severe and will not live on their own. This can be seen on ultrasound, so perhaps donation should be discussed with those parents who have an infant that is known will not survive.
DeleteI also had trouble arguing different view points on this subject. The question regarding resuscitation of a still born only to harvest organs was disturbing to me. While I attempted to argue a reason to justify it, I found my self appalled. However, I realize the assignment was geared to challenge us to think about the views of others.
DeleteJocelyn, You make excellent points! Your experience in the L&D have obviously given you much insight about this. I understand and agree that there are different degrees of severity with anencephaly. This of course makes a difference when a parent is faced with such decisions. I believe, given the option, a parents choice to donate organs after their infant has not survived, may help them in their grieving process through giving back life to another
DeleteThanks for the insight as an L&D RN, great points and I can see you passion.
DeleteVery good arguments. I agree with Jessica, it is great to see that view point as a L&D nurse.
DeleteVery good arguments. I agree with Jessica, it is great to see that view point as a L&D nurse.
DeleteThe majority of us seem to agree that harvesting from a terminally ill patient should have prior consent from that individual. Some of us do disagree on if the babies should be harvested. As long as the parents consent and the baby is not resuscitated, I would allow the harvesting of organs.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. It is moral to harvest the organs of these infants because they can help so many other children and give them the chance at a healthy life that they won't have. Although this is sad it is for the greater good that these infants have their organs harvested.
ReplyDelete2. I believe we should adopt a policy which parents can consent so they can make the choice for their child and then the decision rests on their shoulders and not a board of medical professionals that have no attachment to this patient.
3. I don't believe we should try to resuscitate infants if they are still born because you put the child through a lot of undo stress and probably don't have a very good rate in which the organs are viable. This in my opinion would be going too far and some parents might have a sense of false hope that the child my comeback to life and maybe have a normal life which is cruel to put the parents through.
4. I do think there is case to be made for harvesting organs in someone who is in a permanent vegetative state if there is a advanced directive or a POA giving consent. It could help a lot of other patients waiting on transplants of vital organs and help them continue their life instead of that patient maybe laying there for years and then eventually passing away and nothing to show for it.
One area I can relate this to is the case of passive and active euthanasia. If we were harvesting organs on any of these patients would be in my opinion a form of active euthanasia which I believe is a positive instead of letting the patient lay there and die. This way their is a positive come out of an unfortunate situation.
Excellent points, Alex. A question I've had about the patient in a vegetative state.... Let's relate it to Case 27; Artificial Nutrition, except flip it to be opposite. Say the patient in the vegetative state had been a full code and had always emphasized they wanted to be saved at all costs, they wanted a chance to watch their young child grow up (they have adult children, but also had a child later in life, who is now 8, their husband has passed before them.) Now, their next of kin, an adult child is insisting to not drag life on for the parent in a vegetative state and wants to donate organs. Do we?
DeleteI agree with you Alex. There needs to be and advanced directive allowing for organ donation.
DeleteTo argue a point of view I would not normally support, then the answer to question one would be yes. It is disrespectful, unfair, and immoral to transplant the organs of an anencephalic infant. These infant’s would not be permitted to naturally die due to their organs being needed immediately in order to allow for donation. Someone’s life should not be taken in order to save another’s. Therefore since it is considered to be disrespectful, unfair, and immoral, in response to question two, a social policy to permit organ harvesting should not be put in place.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the third question and arguing an opposing view point, the answer would be yes. A stillborn should be resuscitated purely for the purpose of keeping the organs intact. The infant’s organs can be used to save another infant which would give the infant a purpose. The family of the infant may find joy and benefit from possibly seeing their baby “alive” even though artificially.
Again, to argue a different view point, the answer to question four is no. It is not justifiable to harvest organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state. It is unclear of that patient’s wishes unless specified. I’d just like to point out that this was a difficult assignment for me. I’d much rather argue a point in which I support especially with a topic as sensitive as this. It was very enlightening though to challenge myself to understand why others may have opposing views.
Good job Erin! I kept trying to argue against what I believe but everything I typed just seemed wrong. I never really thought how strongly I felt about this subject until doing this assignment. I do respect everyone's opinions on subjects and this does show a different viewpoint that may be had.
DeleteNice job arguing a viewpoint not necessarily your, Erin. I think that does take a bit to move out of the comfort zone and try to see it as someone else arguing against you might.
DeleteI think that if the parents are okay with this and want their child to help another child then it is not an issue. I mean our parents are our decision makers until we become legal adults. Whether it is a newborn or a 7 year old, our parents have the right to make those choices for us. If people with what I am reading is saying they need a living will, I mean are we saying that children should have the right to make decisions on their own and not have their parents. I don't have any kids so I am sure everyone has a different point of view but I feel strongly that if I was in this position and my child was born and not going to survive I would feel so much better and be able to grieve better knowing that my child could help another.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of harvesting organs from anencephalic newborns, A consequentialist theory states that actions are morally permissible as long as they maximize consequences. This is based on the Principle of Utility. Utilitarianism defines right action as that which maximizes pleasure or minimizes pain for the greatest number. That being said then under this theory, the harvesting of organs from an anencephalic newborn would be most beneficial; for it would save the life of another. Whereas, not doing anything, saves no one. The infant dies either way.
ReplyDeleteThe same scenario can be argued from Kant's Theory based on the Categorical Imperative, which states 'treat humanity as ends, never as means only'. A Kantian viewpoint argues to not use people, and always respect them. This theory, as well, argues that moral actions should be consistent. Along this line of thinking, the newborn baby that has been born to die, should be allowed to do so as the natural course would take it. It would not be respectful or fair to use the infant as a means for another's life. A social policy of this sort would not be a moral policy. It would place the power of life and death squarely on the shoulders of the physician and the parents. It would open up avenues of other life-quality issues, such as a person who is in a vegetative state and killing him to harvest his organs. Where would the moral line be drawn? I believe that the Kantian Theory to respect life and persons is the best right action in this case.
Good argument on the Kantain view. We should not use people, and always respect. The infant should always have respect no matter the expected outcome.
Delete1. My belief leads me to say it is immoral to to kill an infant to harvest organs. Life begins at conception to natural death. However, if you look at this scenario based on the principle of utility, the greater good would be saving the life of another infant.
ReplyDelete2. Adopting a social policy to harvest the organs of an anencephalic newborn would be a gross injustice to the dignity of life. Where would we draw the line after this??
3. Resuscitating a stillborn in order to harvest organs is also morally wrong. What good would come of using the stillborn infant as a means of life for someone else? Would that be using a person as a mean according to Kant?
4. If it is okay to harvest the organs of an anecephalic infant, can we harvest the organs of someone in a permanent vegetative state? NO, the answer is loud and clear. The person in the vegetative state cannot consent to organ donation, just as the infant can. We need to respect life, all life.
4.
I agree, the greater good for the greatest number. It makes me wonder how the success rate measures up when they have harvested these organs. Some literature I was looking at was grey in that area due to not enough organs are harvested fast enough.
DeleteCase 25
ReplyDelete1) In the case of anencephalic newborns and organ donation, I believe it is morally wrong to harvest organs from these infants who are born with anencephaly. These infants are not brain dead there for it seems unethical to take their organs. It is not respecting autonomy or non-maleficence. Not only is it disrespectful, but also there risk of taking organs that are not even fully developed out of a child who may have brain stem functions fully intact does not seem to outweigh the immoral of choice. In arguing a point of view opposite to what I believe, I would say that harvesting organs from infants born with anencephaly could potentially do the most good for the most amounts of people and maximize utility. These infants have a poor prognosis and survival rate. Transplanting their organs in to other infants in need could potentially save multiple infants with one single infant, doing the most good for the most amounts of people.
2) We should adopt a social policy that would permit this if the parents choose to. Often times in the grieving process when a love one dies, family can find good in giving life to others. There is satisfaction in knowing you can help others through devastating circumstances.
3) It is no way justifiable to resuscitate this anencephalic infant just for the solely purpose. That is very wrong.
4) Harvesting the anencephalic infant and one who is in a vegetative state is almost the same. Neither of these patients can be declared brain dead. It is just not ethical.
Brand-Ballard, J., Degrazia, D., Mappes, T. (2011). Biomedical Ethics. Seventh edition. Mcgraw Hill Companies.
I have a sad, buy unique prospective to this argument. We had a baby born that had too many problems to survive. We knew this when we had him and he died after ten minutes.
ReplyDelete1. I would of gladly given the organs to another baby if it had the chance to survive. Our grieving period would of been less and something good would of came from his life. I would of not found it disrespectful if the parents give consent. A baby that small, and even to survive a few days, would of had no memory or experiences to take from it. The value of life to me, would be to save the ones you can save. No matter how long he survived he was going to die. I would of given up the ten minutes he lived to help others and spare them the tragedy.
2. I believe we should permit parents who want to allow their babies organs to be used so others can live. If the parents denies then the case is closed and they are permitted their wishes.
3. If the baby is dead at birth I don't believe you should bring it back to life so that you can harvest it. I would of not want that done to my son. The parents would have to go through the grieving period twice.
4. I believe that if the person is a donor and has permitted society to use their organs, they should be allowed. I would want that done if I was brain dead. I would like to know that I was generous at the end of my life. If there is no prior consent you cannot harvest the organs. I think that creates a environment of human farming for organs.