Question

Consider the following scenario: Teresa Ann Campo Pearson was born anencephalic due to a congenital birth defect. That is, she was born without a brain. As a result of her condition, Teresa would only live for a few days or a few weeks. Further, even if she lived longer, she would never develop preferences, ideas, likes, dislikes, or a personality, because she lacked the parts of the brain that facilitate those things. In fact, Teresa would never be conscious at all. She would never feel pleasure or pain, and would never even know that she existed. Babies are born every day in the United States that, for one reason or another, need organ transplants. Teresa's parents knew this, and wanted to donate her organs to other children who did have brains and who might very well live long, healthy lives if they could receive Teresa's heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. However, if Teresa died naturally her organs would be unsuitable for transplant, and if her organs were harvested prior to her death then organ harvest itself would kill her. The physicians in charge of Teresa's care objected to the wish of her parents, and their decision to refrain from organ harvest was upheld in court. Use the concepts you have acquired and the skills you have developed in this course to argue for a course of action in this scenario. You should do this in a short essay. The central questions you should answer are: should the organs be harvested? If so, why? If not, why not? Your position should be supported with an ethical theory covered in this class. You should briefly explain the ethical theory and how it renders moral judgments in general. Then you should explain how the theory applies to this case. Next, explain how a rival theory might be used to render a different decision, and explain what is good about that rival position. However, also explain why you think your position is the better position to take on the issue. Lastly, include a concluding paragraph that summarizes your essay. Some additional questions you may find it useful to answer (or at least to consider) are: What are the central ethical dimensions of this case? Who can be harmed or helped in this scenario? Is this case a moral dilemma, and if so, why? What is the slippery slope, and how does it figure into this case, if at all? This test assesses your knowledge from the entire course, and you can use no more space to answer the question than is provided below. This means you must focus only on relevant information and avoid all extraneous material.

Answer 1

First of all organ transplantation is not unethical if it is donated to the proper needy patient,who really worth it.

Now the question arises is it correct to sacrifice the life of Teresa Ann Campo Pearson,we have to consider the facts related to  Teresa Ann Campo Pearson health or status,the fact is that yes she is alive but is her life worthy to her as she is just like a live doll without feelings,pain,ideas,even she does not have any personality.Now the most important question arise that how many days shee can live with this codition?

But if we consider the second fact if she donates the organs to the needy people by sacrificing her own life then she can save life of 5 people.

By evalutingg these facts I think it is not wrong to save 5 life by sacrificing one liffee.Yes we shoul not ignorre that one life it also worthy but how many days. Teresa Ann Campo Pearson can live for morree 3-4 years with huge complication and with peroper care and treatment but her sacrifice can save atleast 5 heathy life for life time.

Yes for transplantation we will also have to watch the organs are getting planted to thee proper needy patient and without any cost in proper way. And we should also observe that the heervesting should done in propoer way.

So I think Teresa Ann Campo Pearson should donate her major organs (eyes,liver,kidney,& heart) to thee needy ones.