Philosophy final paper baby teresa PDF

Preview

Summary

Baby theresa debate essay for final exam....

Description

Teresa Ann Campo Pearson was born without a brain due to a defect in her prenatal development. The brain is the center of our identity and experiences as human beings. Without a brain, we cannot feel pain or pleasure or interact with others. We also would not be able to do any of the things that we normally do as human beings on a daily basis such as walking, talking or feeling let alone expressing our individual emotions. In this situation, the quality of life is just not there at all. Eventually, baby Teresa would die due to her condition and even if she did stay alive on life support, she still wouldn’t have a brain. My position is that the organs should have been harvested, as this is what the parents wanted. The parents’ wants are not the only reason why the organs should have been harvested, but also the fact that these harvested organs could have gone to other babies who do have a brain and need the other organs to survive. Some of the organs in question could be her heart, kidneys, liver, or eyes. This could give other children a life without having to use a dialysis machine weekly or even daily, prevent a case of liver failure, heart failure or even give a child the chance to see. The theory that I support my position with is Consequentialism. Consequentialism focuses on the consequences of a decision in general. If the decision has negative consequences, it is morally wrong or negative. If the decision has positive consequences, it is morally right or justified. When Consequentialism is applied to the case of baby Teresa, we can weigh the positive outcomes versus negative outcomes. The positive outcomes would be the possibility of all her healthy organs besides her brain saving numerous other babies’ lives or increasing their quality of life, something that baby Teresa would never have had in the first case. Another positive outcome of transplanting the organs to consider is the fact that her parents would feel closure about their baby because of the heroic act of donating the organs. The only “negative” consequence would be “killing” baby Teresa before she inevitably dies of organ failure due to Anencephaly. This negative consequence could be nullified since baby Teresa would have no quality of life in the first place, even if she did survive on life support. A rival theory of Consequentialism is Deontology. The theory of Deontology doesn’t care about positive or negative consequences, it only cares about whether a decision violates moral code. If it violates moral code even with some positive outcomes, it is still the wrong thing to do. I am assuming that the judge in this case favored the Deontological position rather than the Consequentialist position that Teresa’s parents had, and came to the conclusion that her life shouldn’t be taken early because it would be morally wrong. One good thing about Deontology is that it wouldn’t allow someone’s life to be taken from them in any case and would condemn any act of killing as morally unjust. Doctors have made mistakes before and will continue to make mistakes in the future. For some reason, if baby Teresa wasn’t Anencephalic and was misdiagnosed, a Deontological view might have saved her life.

Although Deontology may have its positives, the Consequentialist position is the better route to take if all the medical tests were done correctly and the condition in question is without a doubt what baby Teresa had. When a person becomes a medical doctor, they also take an oath to protect human life. If baby Teresa is born with no quality of life and will die anyways, saving multiple other lives or improving the quality of life of other children is certainly the route that I’d agree to take....