Primero, Justine Mae A.

BPA 2-A

1. THE CASE OF BABY THERESA(RACHELS)

*Discuss ethical issues

The case of baby Theresa implied the battle between morals, science, and the
church.
Anencephaly is a congenital anomaly characterized by failure of development of
the cerebral hemispheres and overlying skull and scalp, exposing the brain stem, which
only allows babies to breathe and their hearts to beat, but they are missing the rest of the
brain. This condition exists in varying degrees of severity. Most infants who have
anencephaly do not survive for more than a few days after birth. And in the case of baby
Theresa, she also lived for nine days. Modern medical techniques usually can determine
this condition with a high degree of certainty before birth. When anencephaly is detected
some physicians recommend that the pregnancy be terminated in order to free the mother
from the psychological anxiety and possible physical complications throughout the
remainder of the pregnancy.
With religion as a foundation, the rights of a mother and her unborn child deserve
equal protection because they are founded on the dignity of the human person, regardless
of that person's condition, according to the well-established teaching of the Catholic
Church. As a result, it is never morally justifiable to directly cause the death of an
innocent person, regardless of their age or condition. Thus, from a religious standpoint,
the case of baby Theresa is completely unethical and contradicts the church's beliefs on
taking the life of the baby – to kill baby Theresa in order to save other children in need of
organ transplantation, despite the fact that baby Theresa was alive and the church truly
values life. The church, on the other hand, agrees to the donation of an anencephalic
baby's organs after its death. During his or her likely brief life after birth, the
anencephalic child should be given the comfort and palliative care that all dying people
receive. This failing life does not need to be made any more difficult by using
extraordinary means to extend it. It is admirable for parents to want to donate an
anencephalic child's organs for transplants that will benefit other children, but this may
never be permitted until the donor child has died.
Nonetheless, in the case of baby Theresa, they waited until she was dead before
extracting her organs, but it is too late for organs to be used by other babies because the
organs have deteriorated too much and are no longer useful. That is why having baby
Theresa killed is done so that the organs can be used.
A dead donor rule is a safeguard designed to prevent abuse of vulnerable patients
and forms an ethical cornerstone of most, if not all, vital organ transplant programs in
science or medicine. Before any transplant procedures can begin, the potential donor
must be confirmed to be deceased, according to the rule. They waited for baby Theresa to
die, so the dead body rule applies. However, there are multiple definitions of death, and
death from the perspective of modern medicine is a process, and the criteria used to
establish time of death, while rooted in current anatomy and pathophysiology, are
arbitrary, changeable, and dependent on medical technological advances. The case of
Baby Theresa highlights the moral ambiguity surrounding diagnosis and definitions of
death, particularly in the context of organ transplantation.
When it comes to moral responsibility, looking at the parents' shoes, I believe that
they must choose between helping other children in exchange for their child's death,
knowing that she is unable to live a longer life due to her condition, and continuing to
wait for their child to take her last breath because, as parents, it is a thorn in the heart to
see your own child die when she can still live for days. Of course, no one wants to see
their own child lose his or her life before his/her actual death. But, from a medical
standpoint, if the doctors wait for their child to die, the organs will deteriorate, so there is
a real need for the doctors to kill the child intentionally if the parents requested organ
donation.
With all of this stated, the moral dilemma in baby Theresa's case was this: wait
for her death but her organs will be totally worthless due to over deterioration, or
terminate her life before her expected death in order to successfully preserve her organs
for donation, which also contradicts religious beliefs. Above all, a legal and ethical
justification is required.
*If you face the same situations, what would you do?

As the parent of baby Theresa, I will consider to donate her organs in exchange of
her earlier death.
Since I want my decision to be legally and ethically justified, I firmly believe that
my decision will be practical and best for the situation I have. As a legal basis, here in the
Philippines, we have the Organ Donation Act of 1991 which is an Act Authorizing The
Legacy Or Donation Of All Or Part Of A Human Body After Death For Specified
Purposes. Under the Section 2 of this Act, a person shall be medically and legally dead if
“…further attempts at resuscitation or continued supportive maintenance would not be
successful in resorting such natural functions. In this case, death shall be deemed to have
occurred at the time when these conditions first appeared.” With this, my decision is
supported by the law and is not illegal to execute intentional or mercy killing. Baby
Theresa, as an anencephalic baby, it is impossible for her to develop some parts of her
brain that will support her body to function and given that her death is already expected.
Yes, my decision is legally sound, but how about in terms of ethics? I am aware
that my decision will contradict the church's belief and values regarding the importance
of life, and I am not completely abandoning that belief. My intentions are pure, and I
truly want my baby to live and be with me forever, but it is her fate to die at such a young
age. Instead of waiting for her death, I intend to save other people's lives. If I am unable
to save my own child, I will most likely save another child through organ donation. As
 stated in the case, after 9 days, baby Theresa's organs are no longer available for
transplantation, and I do not want to go that far. What I want is for my baby's organs to
be available for transplantation in order to save the life of another.
Yes, it will be painful. It will be difficult for me to let my child die young, but I
will be far more resentful of myself if I allow others to suffer as a result of losing a child.
Hence, I will not hesitate to do anything for the sake of someone else.
Donating baby Theresa's organs is a practical decision; it is also legal, and it is
ethical for me because my intentions are pure. Furthermore, I argue that my action is for
the greater good and that it is not murder to prolong the painless dying of a hopeless case,
and that I did not intervene to save life, but rather opened a door for others to enjoy and
save a life. Additionally, I agree with the idea of having social acceptance of organ
removal from ‘dying’ patients rather than from a ‘dead’ patients.

2. THE CASE OF JODIE AND MARY

*Discuss ethical issues

“Sacrifice the life of another to save the life of the other” – this is the major
dilemma in the case of the conjoined twins, Jodie and Mary.
Despite the fact that each infant had its own brain, heart, and lungs, Mary's
existence was dependent on Jodie's heart and lungs. That double task would strain Jodie's
heart so much that if they were not separated, both infants were expected to die within 3–
6 months, if not sooner. The doctors at St Mary's were confident they could successfully
separate the twins and give Jodie a meaningful existence. The intended surgery was
refused by the parents, who are devout Catholics from the remote Maltese island of Gozo.
They accepted their girls' status as God's will and desired to leave the fate of their
daughters in God's hands. They requested that no medical interventions be used to
prolong their children's tragic fate. This case of conjoined twins raised complex and
perplexing medical, moral, and legal issues. Conjoined twins are the result of a single
fertilized egg. They share the same chromosomal make-up and gender and can be joined
at the head, chest, abdomen, or hip. The most common are those that are joined at the
chest and share a heart. No twins with conjoined hearts survived for more than nine
months if they were left attached at the time. No twin with a shared heart condition has
survived more than a few months after being separated. In this case, one twin had to be
sacrificed in order to save the other. Because the twins' parents are devout Catholics,
they will undoubtedly be reluctant to subject their children to separation. We can use this
theory from St. Thomas Aquinas to convince people to accept the separation. That theory,
developed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas as a justification for self-defense,
holds that while one may never directly intend an evil act (such as killing an innocent
person), the evil effect (death) may be permitted if the effect is not intended in itself but
is indirect and justified by a commensurate reason. The most prevalent application of that
principle in bioethics is the justification of using analgesics to ease pain in the terminally
ill patient notwithstanding the possibility that such use could unintentionally shorten the
patient's life.
When it comes to the legal reason of this case, the court allows the twins to be
separated because they share the same organs. With the organs they have, there should be
only one life. Aside from that, Mary experienced more issues than Jodie, which is why
Jodie has a better chance of living a normal life. On the basis of the welfare concept, both
medically and legally, it is agreed to continue the separation even if the parents refuse to
have one. The separation was necessary because there is still a life that may be preserved,
and it is for the greater good. Furthermore, in the medical sector, doctors have the duty to
save a life as long as there is an opportunity to do so, thus it is not surprising that the
twins are still separated.
Another issue in the twins' case was disregarding the parents' decision in favor of
the doctors' and court's judgment for separation. Clearly, as mentioned in the case, the
parents refused to separate their twins and feel it is God's will to take their lives, that if
the twins were not separated, it would only take them 6 months to live and they would
live a parasitic life, carrying the load of their illness. The parents are still anticipated to
lose their twins as a result of this.
The question now is, "Whose decision is it to separate?" “It is the doctors' and the
court's decision." With this, I argue that if the parents did not want the separation to be
finalized, so be it. It would have been entirely fine for the hospital to give in to the weight
of the parental requests, but the medical staff strongly disagreed because they could still
save a life. And I feel that the choice to intervene in the parents' decision was motivated
by their desire to save a valuable life, which is absolutely admirable in my opinion.
However, we cannot dispute that the parents' decision was overlooked in exchange for the
medical team saving Jodie.
Subsequently, both utilitarian and Kantians would agree that separating the twins
is ethically correct. The Utilitarian would argue that it was always the appropriate thing
to do because it would have resulted in the greatest overall good. However, until Kantians
accept that "Mary" is not a living human being, they will argue that separating them is
morally wrong. However, if we regard Jodie as a single entity with a life-threatening
disability, the Kantian cannot argue that the disability should be removed.
Finally, Singer's principle states that if we have the ability to prevent something
awful from happening without sacrificing anything of similar moral worth, we should do
so. In this situation, the doctors have the ability to save Jodie's life without sacrificing
something of comparable moral significance. As a result, the parents have a moral
obligation to separate the "twins." This act of rescuing Jodie is definitely morally justified
in my opinion.
*If you face the same situations, what would you do?

The case of Jodie and Mary was an issue between the parents, the medical team,
and the court.
When I were in the parents’ shoes, I would consider having any of the two to
survive. If the doctors gave me the options of saving the life of one of my child instead of
losing them both, I would take the risk as long as I can be with one of my child. I cannot
afford losing them both for it will be really painful for me as a mother. And as long as the
operation will be medically legal and ethical, I would allow it. Also, when Jodie lives a
normal life, I would make sure that our family will always remember Mary.
In religious aspect, I would apply the theory made by St. Thomas Aquinas
wherein he stated that the act of separation would be considered as a self-defence –
saving the life of Jodie in exchange of Mary’s death. Since the condition of the twins was
a nearly hopeless case, there would an unintentionally shortening of life for Mary to save
her sister. And I firmly believes that it would be seen as a sacrificial act because among
the twins, Mary is impossible to survive, if Mary was the one to be saved, she will be
supported only by machines and eventually die. While Jodie would live a normal life and
would survive. The priority here lies between “greater good” and “quality life.”
Now in the medical team’s perspective, if I were one of the team, I would respect
the request of the parents to cease from the separation. It is their twins and they carry the
responsibility for them. Yet, I would make sure that I will encourage them to do the
operation as long as I can. But if they come up with the final decision to let the twins die
within 6 months, then let it be. Who knows, within those months, a change of heart
appears.
When it comes to the court’s decision of allowing the petition of the medical team
to continue the separation, if I were the judge, it is the court’s responsibility to give
justification of the acts. Hence, I would also grant the petition of the medical team. I
would choose the lesser evil of the two evils. It is the child’s welfare that is important and
if it is required for the parental right to be ignored, it will surely be done. The dilemma
for me as a judge is to decide/choose the lesser of the inevitable loss. In the case, death
will be inevitable but numbers of death can be controlled. The case was not all about the
parent’s decision, I believe, it was about the welfare of the twins. The grounds of the
decision would be: (1) Jodie and Mary would live a parasitic life, causing both of them
burden because of their condition (2) both of them would only live for 6 months (3)
compared to Jodie, Mary is impossible to live a normal life and impossible to survive in
medical perspective. With these grounds, as a judge, the separation is justified.
Above all, the wisest and practical choice is to prevent both of the twins from
dying, if the only hope to preserve life is separation. Nevertheless, as a parent, doctor, or
judge, I would always choose to prevent deaths of many especially. The decision to
authorise the operation that would kill Mary was lawful in the best interests of Jodie
 under the principles of family law, and was justified under the criminal law through the
defence of necessity. Save one life instead of none – a Kantian principle.

3. THE CASE OF TRACY LATIMER

*Discuss ethical issues

It is a murder and it is morally wrong.
Tracy Latimer was killed by her own father because of his emotions. Because
Tracy's parents did not want her to be in any more pain, especially as her surgery
progressed, killing her became their last option. Tracy's father faces a moral issue in
deciding whether to let her daughter suffer from her condition or to end her pain by
murdering her.
Tracy's father clearly committed a crime, and it is not considered mercy killing.
Cerebral palsy is incurable, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, however there are
treatments to improve the patient's life. "After a CP diagnosis is made, a team of health
specialists works with the child and family to develop a plan to assist the kid attain his or
her full potential," they continue. Medication, surgery, braces, and physical, occupational,
and speech therapy are all common treatments. There is no single treatment that is best
for all children with CP. Before settling on a treatment plan, it is critical to consult with
the child's doctor to understand all of the risks and advantages." This simply means that
Tracy can still enjoy her life. Regardless, Tracy's parents believe that rather than
suffering endlessly, it is appropriate to end her valuable life.
Consequently, some ethicists feel that if a terminally sick patient dies as a result
of obtaining pain-relieving drugs on purpose, it makes a difference whether the death was
purposeful or merely anticipated. It is wrong if the death was planned, but it may be
morally permissible if the death was foreseeable. This logic is based on a moral principle
known as the principle of twofold effect. In Tracy's instance, she can still live and her
death was unexpected given her condition. The father's reasoning is morally flawed, as
his motive for killing her daughter out of mercy appears shallow. If the doctors told them
that Tracy had no chance of survival, they must accept it; but, as long as the doctors did
not give them the option of willfully killing Tracy, they have no right to kill Tracy
themselves. Killing her must be medically and legally justified. As a result, killing Tracy
out of mercy was ethically wrong and a murder case.
Furthermore, this is a personal tragedy for the Latimer family, just as any
domestic crime resulting in the loss of life would be. Tracy Latimer was a tragic victim of
her own erroneous views. Aside from the individuals involved, the case stands as one
with serious ramifications for Canadian residents, particularly those with impairments. In
fact, it will assess the values of our society. On the surface, we could question why we
feel the need to be here today. As previously stated, a crime was committed by Tracy’s
father. A man was accused and convicted, and his appeal is now scheduled to be heard.
That is his legal right. So far, it appears that then justice system is working. It must be
stated unequivocally that a human life should not be taken just because another person,
whether a parent, caregiver, or companion, believes that life is no longer worth living. It
is not their choice. In his appeal, Mr. Latimer argues that because his daughter was utterly
handicapped both physically and mentally, he was entitled to "commit suicide for her." If
such a ground of appeal were granted, it would jeopardize the rights of anyone with
physical or mental disability who is unable to convey his or her desires. Rather, the most
vulnerable members of our society require the strictest precautions. In Canada, there is a
lot of case law where social services authorities step in and take custody of the child.
When a child is considered at risk because his or her parents refuse treatment for a
potentially fatal medical issue.
The court should have been entitled to overlook Canadian rules, such as the
Criminal Code, and reach a decision based on their conscience about what a just
judgement would be, according to the other ground of the appeal. If this line of thinking
is followed, we may simply disregard the rules that govern us in such instances and
enable judges and jurors to decide whether a crime has been committed on a case-by-case
basis. Mercy or murder? It is easy to understand how vulnerable many people in our
communities would be under a system that enabled able-bodied, able-minded persons to
determine the value of another person's life and condition.

However, murder is murder. Every human life ought to be cherished. Each

individual must be entitled to equal legal protection. We must not allow a hierarchy of
rights to be developed in which the act of killing one person is condemned while the act
of killing another is regarded as "merciful" or "compassionate." Many of us in our
communities are willing to admit that an unlawful deed occurred in the killing of Tracy
Latimer, but that a mandatory sentence of 10 years is excessive. According to the
Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Robert Latimer should not be imprisoned for
another day. Mr. Latimer claims that this issue is solely about suffering and has nothing
to do with disability.

Murder is Murder, and the people must be educated on this. Every human life
must be valued equally, and every citizen must be fully protected on their human rights.

*If you face the same situations, what would you do?

Who knows how Tracy would have turned out if she hadn't been killed by her
own father?
It is heart-breaking to know of Tracy Latimer's tragedy at the hands of her father.
Now, as a parent with a child with cerebral palsy, I would not give up on my child.
I've read a lot of stories about people who have cerebral palsy. The majority of
them are still living their lives. Some, like Brian Stewart, even had his own family. Brian
Stewart's story is an encouragement to everyone who has cerebral palsy. According to his
tale, his parents were advised not to take him home forty years ago. Those worried for his
parents' well-being, the medical profession, did not believe his life was worthwhile. Brian
was born with cerebral palsy, and his parents expected him to have no future. He has now
become a parent. This data plainly shows that people with cerebral palsy still have hope
for the future. Yes, it will be a battle for both parents and child, but as a parent, as long as
there is hope, I will go to any length to ensure that my child lives. Losing hope as a
parent of a child with cerebral palsy is never an option. I would seek medical guidance
instead of doing what Tracy's father did to her own child. Now, if the doctors state that
therapies for Tracy's condition are still accessible and feasible, I will gladly embrace
them.
Tracy's operation would be a mutilation and torture based on her condition. As a
parent, it is discouraging to see my child go through such suffering, but I understand that
it is for the best, for my child's progress. Above all, it is a matter of hope that my child
will get better eventually, thus I will never consider ending the life of my child with
cerebral palsy since it is against my morals and is unethical because it will be regarded
murder in the eyes of court.