A compendium detailing the second case study by Kelley Sheets, Michael Hoff, Peter Tirella, Ryan Divers, and Theo Diamandis.
Storified by tdiamandis · Thu, Sep 05 2013 05:12:41
The case: What is the situation and what is the moral dilemma?
The situation: After finding out that she expecting conjoined twins (named Jodie and Mary), a Catholic mother and father consulted British doctors who believed that the family’s best bet was an operation. Jodie was, at the time, supplying blood for her sister, Mary; they shared a heart and set of lungs. This operation would most likely result in the death of one baby (Mary), but would save the life of Jodie. Without the operation, both children would die. However, when the parents refused, the doctors took it to court and got permission to proceed with the surgery and Jodie was saved at the expense of Mary's life.
The moral dilemma: In order to save one baby and give it a happy, healthy life, another baby must be sacrificed. If both are allowed to live naturally, they will both die.
Explanations of Highlighted Arguments:
The Argument that We Should Save as Many as We Can
-The textbook form of this argument is that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This idea is commonly referred to as utilitarianism.
-This is an example of applied ethics. It takes the general theory of utilitarianism and, given the evidence, applies that theory to this particular situation.
-This argument is also an example of normative ethics. Skipping the meta-ethical step and assuming that human life is valuable, the argument immediately jumps to asking how we can save the most human lives in this context. Because the children will almost certainly both die without the operation, the parents should have performed the operation in order to maximize the chances that one of their children survived.
-The Pros:
o Maximizes the chances that at least one child lives
-The Cons:
o Takes the decision away from the parents
o Kills the other sister faster – why is her life less valuable than the other’s?
The Argument from the Sanctity of Human Life
-The textbook form of this argument is that we should not voluntarily end a human life, no matter what the consequences.
-This is a meta-ethical argument that doesn’t suppose a utilitarian argument. The ethical question becomes: “is it right to prematurely end someone’s life?” Ultimately, the parents decided that doing so was not ethical and they wanted not to perform the surgery. The only relevant question is an absolute statement, not taking into account the current situation and making a normative decision about what should be done given the circumstances.
- The Pros:
o The parents chose this – you should respect their decision.
o It is unethical to prematurely end a human life – no matter what the benefits or consequences may be.
o All human life is valuable – should not sacrifice one to protect another
- The Cons:
o Ensures that both children die, when one would survive if the operation is performed
Arguments for the case:
Use of logical fallacies:
Appeal to nature claim: Separating the twins would be a violation of what nature has intended, so therefore it is “bad” and the twins should not be operated upon. Conversely, leaving the twins be as they are is natural and therefore “good,” so the operation should not be pursued.
Strawman claim: By saving only one of the children, you basically want to murder the other. Murdering is something extremely reprehensible, and you should feel that the decision is “bad” because you are stealing another’s right to live.
Group Resolution (or lack thereof)
Instant Poll!
