In-depth study of a moral issue

Example (4VE)
For this study my source is the American soap opera Greys Anatomy. To be more
precise it is about episode 13 from season 9 called Bad blood. The title gives
away already quite a lot about the actual issue, which I will discuss below. In this
specific episode of Greys Anatomy an issue arose around a boy who suffered
from cardiac trauma and needed blood to survive, but turned out to be a
Jehovahs Witness which means you do not accept blood that is not yours.
In this issue there are two sides: The blood deniers versus the blood accepters,
or: the Jehovahs Witnesses against those who do not support this way of living.
In this episode this is the case for the doctors and the friend of the patient. The
fact that there are two sides makes this a moral issue as it means just one thing:
accept blood, or do not and risk death.
The issue on Jehovahs Witnesses who need blood has got quite some effect on
society as for the doctors, blood transfusion seems such a little solution that has
such large effects and it is though for them to watch their patients die if they
easily could have saved him/her.
The characters involved in this issue are doctor Christina Yang (who is an
experienced professional on heart surgery), her intern Leah and of course, the
patient himself. Christina Yang can be described as a flat character, she is from
Chinese origin and can be very bitchy to other people around her. Furthermore
she is a pretty silent person but very good, and confident about what she does.
Her intern on the other hand, is still learning and insecure. She has joined the
soap opera recently so we do not know a lot about her yet. The patient, whos
friend does not believe he is actually a Jehovahs Witness but only his parents
are, does not speak in this episode as he is unconscious and eventually dies.
Underneath is a short summary about what happened around the issue in the
episode, including the main events:
As Christina and Leah found out that their patient is not allowed to have a blood
transfusion, they decide to do a bloodless repair of the aortic transaction,
followed by an endovascular repair, trying to save their patients life. After
surgery, they inform the family that without a blood transfusion their sons
chance of survival is very slim, but the family refuses to go against their beliefs.
Christina assures Leah that they have to respect the familys wishes, which she
in turn, cannot accept as she has heard from the patients friend that he thinks
that his friend is not religious at all. Leah sneaks into the patients room and tries
to switch the bag with blood, but the cameras catch her. Christina finds out and
is ranting about Leahs actions and throws her off service. In the CCU Christina is
doing everything to save her patient but the odds were not in his favour and the
patient passes away.
The issue could have been proposed in different manners, all depending on the
different point of views of all characters. What would have happened if Christina

had followed Leahs thoughts, or if the patient had been able to speak up for
himself? The issue was dealt without acceptance from Leah, doubt from the
patients friend and obedience from Christina to the parents. In this episode the
operating doctor obeyed the religion of the parents, but the case could have been
proposed very differently if all factors involved where against withholding the
blood transfusion.
The producer possibly chose this issue as it is a real deal, namely the decision
between life or death. In reality the issue occurs too, and the fact that doctors
have to deal with this makes it a difficult social problem. It makes the theme
important as well. What is the right thing to do? People who follow another
religion would probably think that it is weird to die if you could be saved, but
would be likely to respect their religion and let them do/think what they want as
they have their own thoughts, too. Atheists on the other hand, would probably
think that that Jehovahs Witnesses are crazy and that they should not risk their
lives for such an unreasonable thought about life. They would not understand
why people let themselves or their children die.
Personally I think that parents should be allowed to decide on blood transfusions
on their children, as long as they are under the age of twelve because after that
they are able, in my opinion, to decide for themselves what they believe and
what not. Parents should not be able to decide for their 16-year-old child that he
or she has to risk death because they think it is their destiny. People are allowed
to have their personal views on anything, though they cannot decide on life or
death for their children who are aged above twelve. To prevent unwanted cases
to happen if a patient above twelve is not able to talk for himself, children from
twelve year on should have a record in their medical chart on their thought about
blood transfusions. In conclusion, I would say the boy was treated the way he
was supposed to, as he was under the age of twelve and had parents who were
to decide for him, which was obeyed by the operating doctor.