CASE STUDY: 

#1 BABY THERESA

Argument against using people as means: Using people as means to other people's
objectives is wrong. People's autonomy, or their ability to make decisions based on their own
values and preferences, is violated when they are used. Force people to do things they don't
want to do. Theresa is not a self-sufficient individual; she has no desires and is unable to make
decisions for herself, thus others must do it on her behalf. She knows nothing; it is better to
provide her peace in her last moments together with her parents. Whatever happens, Baby
Theresa will die shortly, and her organs may be useful. Brain death occurs when the brain fails
to function, and there is no longer any prospect for conscious life. Anencephalic individuals do
not meet the technical criteria for brain death as currently established.

Immanuel Kant, a philosopher, believed that intelligent human beings should be viewed as ends
in themselves, rather than as a means to another end. The fact that we are human is worth
something in and of itself. If a person is an end-in-themselves, it suggests that their intrinsic
worth is unaffected by anything else, such as whether or not they are enjoying their lives or
improving the lives of others. We are valuable because we exist.

Most of us agree with that, even if we don't say it in such formal terms. Most of us agree with
that, even if we don't say it in such formal terms. We say that we don't believe we should use
other people, which is another way of expressing that we shouldn't use other people to achieve
our own goals. This concept also applies to us. We should recognize our inherent worth rather
than treating ourselves as a means to our own ends. This can be used to argue against
euthanasia, suicide, and other harmful behaviors.

The Benefits Argument: Theresa's parents thought that her organs were useless because
she was unconscious and would die soon eventually. The other children, on the other hand,
may benefit from them. As a result, the parents appear to have reasoned, "If we can assist
someone without harming anybody else, we should do it." Transplanting the organs would
assist other infants while causing no harm to Baby Theresa. As a result, we should transplant
the organs. Is this right? Not all arguments are valid. We want to know not just what
arguments may be made for a point of view, but also if those arguments are any good.
In general, a good argument is one in which the assumptions are valid and the conclusion flows
logically from them. In this scenario, we could question the claim that Theresa would not be
harmed. After all, she would die, and isn't living better than dying? But, in retrospect, it appears
that the parents were correct under these sad circumstances. Being alive is only useful if it
allows you to carry out activities and have ideas, feelings, and relationships with other people
—in other words, if it allows you to have a life. Without such things, biological existence is
meaningless. As a result, even if Theresa lived for a few more days, it would be in vain.
Therefore, the Benefits Argument makes a convincing justification for organ transplantation.

The Argument from the Immorality of Killing: The ethicists also invoked the concept that
killing one person to save another is wrong. They said that taking Theresa's organs would be
murdering her in order to save others; thus, stealing the organs would be wrong. The
prohibition of murder is unquestionably one of the most important moral precepts. Nonetheless,
few people believe that killing is always wrong—the majority feel that exceptions exist, such as
murdering in self-defense. The question then becomes whether harvesting Baby Theresa's
organs should be considered an exception. There are several reasons to believe this: Baby
Theresa is not conscious; she will never have a life; she will die soon; and removing her organs
will benefit the other infants. Anyone who believes this will see the argument as faulty. Usually,
it is wrong to kill one person in order to save another, although this is not always the case.

Another possibility exists. Perhaps we should consider Baby Theresa to be deceased. If this
sounds absurd, keep in mind that our understanding of death has evolved over time. Christiaan
Barnard, a South African specialist, conducted the first human heart transplant in 1967. This
was a significant breakthrough since heart transplants have the potential to save a lot of lives.
However, it remained unclear whether any lives in the United States could be spared. Death
was defined in American law at the time as when the heart stopped beating. However, once a
heart stop pumping, it rapidly deteriorates and is no longer eligible for transplant.

As a result, it was unclear if any hearts could be lawfully taken for transplantation under
American law. As a result, the law in the United States has altered. Death is now understood to
occur when the brain ceases working, rather than when the heart stops beating: “brain death”
is our new end-of-life criterion. Because a brain-dead patient can still have a healthy heart that
can be transplanted, this addressed the problem of transplants. Although anencephalic do not
fulfill the technical criteria for brain death as currently defined, the definition may be changed
to include them. They don't have a cerebrum or a cerebellum, therefore they have no chance of
living a conscious life. If the concept of brain death were changed to include anencephalic, we
would get acclimated to the notion that these unlucky children are born dead, and therefore
removing their organs would not require killing them. The Argument from the Immorality of
Killing would thus be rendered irrelevant.

Overall, the reasons in favor of transferring Baby Theresa's organs appear to be stronger than
the grounds against it.