Moral Standards:

1. The Parents' Decision: The parents' decision to forego surgery for their child can be seen as a
reflection of their moral standards. They believed that subjecting their child to surgery, which would
likely cause pain and paralysis, was not in her best interest and would lead to suffering.

2. Justice Tanenbaum's Ruling: Justice Tanenbaum's decision to order surgery despite the parents'
wishes reflects a moral standard that prioritizes the preservation of life. He believed that surgery was
necessary to provide the child with the best possible chance of survival, even if it meant potential
suffering.

3. The Consultation with Family and Clergy: The parents' act of consulting with family members and
members of the clergy before making their decision demonstrates their commitment to moral
standards. They sought advice and guidance from those they trusted in making a difficult moral
choice.

Non-Moral Standards:

1. Legal Battle: The legal battle between different parties, including right-to-life groups and the Justice
Department, can be considered non-moral because it is driven more by legal and ideological positions
rather than a focus on the well-being and best interests of the child.

2. Crowds' Clamor for Surgery: The crowds clamoring for surgery, despite the potential risks and
suffering it may cause, may be seen as non-moral standards. Their push for surgery is driven by a
belief in preserving life at any cost, without a deep consideration of the child's quality of life.

3. The Vatican's Involvement: The Vatican's involvement in the case, while motivated by strong
religious and moral beliefs, can be considered non-moral from a secular perspective. Their stance may
prioritize doctrinal adherence over the practical and ethical considerations of the child's situation.

Moral Dilemma Faced by Parents:

The parents are facing a profound moral dilemma. On one hand, they are committed to their Roman
Catholic faith, which may emphasize the sanctity of life. On the other hand, they are confronted with
the reality that surgery could potentially subject their child to severe suffering and limited quality of
life. Their dilemma lies in balancing their religious and moral beliefs with their parental duty to
protect their child's well-being.

The Case and Crowds' Clamor for Surgery:

The case filed by A. Lawrence Washburn and the crowds' clamor for surgery highlight a clash of moral
values. Washburn, representing certain right-to-life groups, believes that life should be preserved at
any cost, while the crowds advocate for the sanctity of life and a strong desire to give the child a
chance, even if it means enduring pain and suffering. The case represents a complex moral and legal
battle, where various parties are advocating for what they believe is the right course of action based
on their moral and ethical principles.

Personal Decision as Parents:

If I were the parents of the child, my decision would be deeply influenced by the advice of medical
experts and the ethical considerations surrounding the child's quality of life. It would be an incredibly
challenging decision, and my moral standards would prioritize minimizing the child's suffering and
ensuring her best interests. Ultimately, I would lean toward a course of action that prioritizes the
child's comfort and well-being, even if it means forgoing surgery. This decision would be made with
the utmost care, consultation with experts, and the child's best interests at heart.