Baby M. Case Evidence From

¶ … Baby M. Case

Evidence from the Baby M. case proves that both couples would be adequate if not ideal parents. Even though she has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, Mrs. Stern has no severe limitations on her ability to care for a child. Mr. Stern is also in good health and appears spiritually as well as mentally and financially devoted to the new child. Mrs. Whitehead might have had some emotional problems but none that seem out of the ordinary. Having taken care of two of her own children already, she is apparently a suitable mother. Even though Mr. Whitehead has had psychological and financial problems there is no reason to suspect them of being unfit parents.

However, the projected quality of parenting is not the issue in the Baby M. case. The issue is contractual law: the Sterns contracted the Whiteheads to carry their child via artificial insemination. Baby M. has Mr. Stern's genes. The motives of the two couples are understandable but have no bearing on the facts of the case. Both the Whiteheads and the Sterns care deeply for the child. The Sterns postponed pregnancy for personal reasons and opted for artificial insemination so that Mr. Stern could have a biological child. The Whiteheads and especially Mrs. Whitehead volunteered to carry the child both for financial reward but also because her sister had had trouble conceiving. The different motives are valid but still have no effect on how the case should be evaluated.

3. Both the states of New Jersey and Florida tried to protect the best interests of the child as well as the parents. Because the court proceedings are happening when the child is still an infant, the case is unlikely to cause any physical or psychological damage to the baby. Unfortunately, the best interests of the child will not be totally fulfilled until some kind of agreement is reached.

4. The interests of the society are to mediate between the couples and also to ensure a stable home environment for Baby M. If an agreement is reached that permits the Whiteheads to have visitation rights, then all parties may be served. If the Whiteheads lose the lawsuit and have no say, they might tie up the court system and use valuable taxpayer dollars to fund their legal appeal. To avoid that, the Sterns might have to allow sporadic visitation rights, however infrequent. If the Sterns and the Whiteheads could find common ground, then Baby M. would grow up in a stable environment and also fully aware of the unique circumstances surrounding her birth.

Case 2: Cornea Transplants

1. Using a first-come, first-serve procedure is the only way to administer medical care in a democratic society. No individual, no matter what his or her medical, ethnic, or financial background, can be considered any worthier of a human being than any other. To even consider offering preferential treatment would open a floodgate of bias: each transplant case would be judged by different medical staff with different ideas of who is more deserving than another. The idea that a healthy lawyer is a more worthy citizen than a sick alcoholic is inherently biased and unacceptable in our society.

Often, as in the keratoplasty case, there are legitimate reasons for wanting to give a rare, valuable transplant to a healthy individual rather than to a sick one. The alcoholic would appear a waste of time in the eyes of the medical system if he is denied the transplant because of his poor health. On the surface it seems that precious medical dollars should be devoted to patients who show the most promise for success after the transplant.

If money and resources are precious and limited, then those resources should be wisely invested. In the keratoplasty case it would appear that the lawyer is a wiser investment. However, patients are not investments. They are people: they have equal rights in the law and should also have equal access to medical care. That alcoholic might have been a prominent lawyer who fell on hard times; there is no clear reason why he is any less deserving of the care he needs. It is highly likely that the man can stop drinking and reform his life after receiving the transplant: which would make him just as much of a potential success case as the lawyer. The lawyer's operation might result in complications and lead to his death. Ultimately all citizens have an equal right to the same quality and kind of medical care no matter what their current state of health might be.