Baby Theresa had one of the worst genetic disorders called Anencephaly. Babies born with this disorder are most of the time referred to as, “baby’s without brains”. In the United States, most cases of this disorder are detected during pregnancy and the fetuses usually are aborted. Baby Theresa’s story is remarkable because her parents made a unique request. They knew that their baby wouldn’t survive, so they wanted to put their baby’s organs up for donation, to save other infants lives. The question is, do you think it is wrong for them to put baby Theresa’s organs up for donation?
Her parents chose to donate her organs, and the doctors had agreed upon it. Baby Theresa’s organs were not taken though, because Florida law prohibits the removal of organs until the donor is dead. By the time baby Theresa passed away, her organs had detierated and could not be transplated.The parents believed that the organs were doing her no good because she would die soon anyway. Rachel believes that it is wrong to kill one person to save another, but is their exceptions? They consider having anencephaly as being brain death. When in reality, it does not meet the technical requirements, they lack any hope for a conscious life because they have no cerebellum or cerebrum. Many ethicists who opposed this asked if it was wrong to use people as means to meet other people’s ends. When referring to using people that involves autonomy, in which baby Theresa didn’t have because she could not decide for herself. Even though they would be using her organs against her wishes, she has no wishes.
I believe killing another person to save another has its rights and wrongs. Everyone has their own opinion for the real moral correct answer. In this case, if I was babying Theresa’s parents I would probably do the same thing. Putting her organs up for donation could save another infants life that really did have a chance of living life. Baby Theresa wasn’t going to have that, she didn’t have the ability and the parents knew that before making the decision.

Jodie and Mary were two infants who were born and joined together at the lower abdomen. There spine was fused and they had one heart and one pair of lungs to share. Jodie was the stronger one, who provided for her sister Mary. Most combined twins die shortly after birth, but some do well and live a full life. The doctor said that without intervention the girls would die within six months that the only hope was to have an operation done to save Jodie who was the stronger one, which left Mary to die. The parents were Catholics, and they believed in letting nature take its course. They didn’t want to see one of their daughters die just because the doctor predicted it would happen. It got brought to court and the judges over ruled it and the surgery was done. Do you think that is right for them to be able to go against the parents’ wishes? Who should be able to make that decision?
The argument that we should save as many as we can stated that separating the twins means we would have a choice between having one infant live or letting them both die. Many people thought that it was better to save one of the infants, Jodie because she was the stronger one. However, Jody and Mary’s parents believed in the human life. They believed it was wrong to kill one of their children to keep another. Being Catholics, it is especially emphasized. Killing innocent humans is absolute and would not be done. The hospital wanted to do everything they could, so it got brought to the court. Judge Justice Robert Walker said that in the course of the operation Mary would not be killed, she would be getting separated from her sister and then would die. Not intentially but because her own body couldn’t provide her with life. As more of a moral answer, it is not always wrong to kill innocent human beings.
If I was Jody and Mary’s parents I would want to do whatever I could to save my daughters. The doctors said that they wouldn’t live