Posted by Pamela
Okay, I think this the way to post to the Blog
Okay, I think this the way to post to the Blog
Here is my question for thought
By changing the scenario, does it change our view?
This was the example in chapter one
Jodi and Mary were conjoined twins, they need to be separated in order for one to live.
If nothing is done both twins will die.
When they are separated Jodi will live Mary will die.
At the time of separation Mary is still alive.
Let's change the original example to the following
Baby Thersea was born an identical twin, we will call her Betty and all she needs to survive is a liver and kidney transplant.
Baby Thersea is her only match
Baby Thersea will die anyways in a matter of days and her organs at that point will be no good for the transplant.
If nothing is done both twins will die.
Would it be ethical to end baby Thersea's life earlier in order to save her twin Betty?
Why is it presumed to alright to end Mary's life earlier in order to save Jodi's?
Pamela Finnerty
1 comment:
It is never right to choose one child over another. However loosing both children is almost 2 much for any parent 2 handle. I would try to save on sibling in order to save the other if there wasn't a chance that the other would survive.The choice would not be easy if realistically put in that situation, however I could not handle to bury both childeren.
GinaMarie
Post a Comment