Moral dilemmas and ethical decision-making frameworks

Moral and Medical Dilemma

As the progression of medical technology has expanded humanity's ability to heal one another directly -- through the process of organ transplants, blood transfusions, and bone marrow exchanges -- several ethical dilemmas have surfaced which impact physicians, patients, and politicians alike. An individual's voluntary decision to donate his or her organs in the event of an unexpected death, and the government's methods for devising an equitable system of distribution for blood and organ transplants are just a few of the increasingly rancorous debates to become associated with cutting-edge medical techniques. Today, with the concept of stem-cell research offering a vast array of seemingly miraculous medical advances, the moral discussion has shifted to cases like that experienced by the Whitaker family, which has been forced to confront an agonizing choice involving their seriously ill son Charlie. In the end, although the Whitakers were able to develop a viable process through which Charlie's life may be saved -- involving the in vitro fertilization and conception of embryos specifically for the sake of providing Charlie with blood-producing cells -- England's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority rejected the family's request to perform such a procedure. The following discussion will examine the moral considerations involved with the Whitaker case, in order to determine whether or not the Authority's final judgment was ultimately justified.

The mere concept of a "Savior Child," or a child whose life has been created exclusively to save the life of another person, is enough to incite intense debates involving moral, religious, and ethical concerns. Foremost among these concerns is the fact that a savior baby has no ability to choose their own fate, because the exercise of free will is a universally respected covenant that is inherent to one's sense of humanity. If a child is born with their fate predestined, both the Whitakers and the fertilization specialists responsible for the conception are effectively playing God, becoming the final arbiters in terms of determining life and death. Conversely, one must also recognize the nearly constant state of pain and suffering currently endured by Charlie, as his debilitating condition continues to ravage his young and vulnerable body. By creating an embryo specifically to relieve Charlie's extensive maladies, the Whitakers are making a bargain of sorts, sacrificing the life of one child to save another. Although medical technology has provided humanity with this awe inspiring ability, our own moral faculty must guide the application of this once unimaginable power. A final moral consideration which must be taken into account is premised on the Darwinian ideal of fitness, as for thousands of generations children afflicted with Charlie's rare blood disorder simply would not have been capable of surviving through adulthood. Recognizing nature's true intent is an exercise in futility for mankind, but the fact that Charlie may not be viable on from a purely genetic standpoint warrants further examination. Ultimately, I find myself in agreement with the Authority's ruling on the Whitaker's request, because in my mind creating a life expressly for the purpose of destroying it, albeit for a noble cause of saving a life, is a counterproductive pursuit. The diversity of life has always been designed to include rare cases of unviability, and tragically in Charlie's case, the fact that he was born with a blood disorder cannot -- and should not -- be altered.