Ethical Issues In My Sister's Keeper

Ana even goes as far as telling her mother “Why is a women’s virginity the only thing that matters? I have thoughts, feelings, and opinions.” (Real) her mother looks at her weird. On the other hand there is Ana’s teacher Mr. Guzman, who sees the benefits from sending Ana to college and leaver her dirty old neighborhood. Mr. Guzman helps Ana out by pulling some strings at Colombia University. He also tells her to apply for scholarships, but when she doesn’t he shows up at her house. When she did get into Colombia University the first person to tell her was Mr. Guzman. Ana’s mother does not support Ana leaving for college and leaving the family. Even on the day does leave, her mom doesn’t even say goodbye to her own daughter.

In the article “Kidneys for Sale: A Reconsideration,” the author, Miriam Schulman raises the notoriously controversial issue regarding organ sale. He describes the main ideas from both the supporting and the opposing side to give readers a wider view about organ sales.

Are we all up to determine the value of one’s life, even if it comes down to a disability? Tracy’s parents believed so. In the second trial “Laura collaborated with the defense team to paint Tracy’s life in the worst possible light of unremitting pain and anguish” (Pickup). She also stated that Tracy had made her and Robert “better people” that Tracy showed them “how to love” (Pickup).

“Organs” Satel insists, “are the rare trafficked good that saves lives.” ‘Yuan a Kidney?’ and ‘Financial Incentives for Organ Donation’ discuss opposing views of organ donation and trafficking. The National Kidney Foundation finds financial incentives for organ donation to be a form of exploitation, demeaning to society and all around unethical. Satel, however, holds a different perspective in the sense that if a citizen is informed and consenting to donating an organ to save another life for a monetary gain it could improve not only their welfare but the patient’s welfare as well. “Financial Incentives..” focuses strictly on a logical appeal; while “Yuan a Kidney?” is much more emotional while being logical. Satel provides the attention to donors as well as patients. NFK is speaking from a standpoint of legalities and ethics with no regards to donors as people willing to save a life, and little to patients in need of transplants.

However, all of these benefits have come at an ethical price. Although she signed a form that gave the doctor full permission to operate on her, Lacks gave no consent to relinquish

Removing Meg's kidney is a process that I have done many times before. Each time and been very successful. Meg and Irene’s case should not be any different. I have carefully evaluated each possibility that could be made. I have decided to try to persuade Meg into donating her kidney to Irene and save her life. Otherwise, Meg would have to live with the guilt of killing her sister for the rest of her life. I know Meg is convinced that this has nothing to do with her and she says that she does not wish to continue. People may say that she may be injured in the future because her kidney is missing. Although it either a mental guilt of killing her sister which will haunt her for the rest of her life or a missing Kidney that will barely affect her.

Paying people for giving their kidneys would dramatically increase the number of donors and save many more lives as opposed to waiting for people to donate their organs out of the kindness of their heart and expect nothing in return. MacKay appeals to a person’s logical nature when she states that money rules people, in which it very much so does. The money that could be gained from legal organ transactions is immense; MacKay states that it is in the ballpark of $25,000. MacKay’s solution would not only legalize the selling of organs, but also make it regulated by the government, eliminating many people’s fears of the possible consequences of legalization.  She also argues how it would be easier to control the lawful sale of organs as opposed to the unlawful sale.

The book I have read is called “My sister’s keeper,” and is written by Jodi Picoult. It is about a family of five, with two daughters and a son. Their oldest daughter, Kate, got leukemia when she was two years old, and her parents decided to have another child to save her. The newborn baby, Anna, was used to donate blood to Kate. Eventually, when Anna is older she decides to sue her parents for the rights of her own body, when she is told to donate a kidney to her sister. Through the book we also meet the sister’s older brother, Jesse, as well as their parents, Brian and Sarah, Anna’s lawyer, Campbell, and her guardian ad litem, Julia. Fire is a central theme in the book, and is used as a metaphor in many different ways. First we can read different quotes about fire as we go trough the book. Secondly we hear their father’s description of fire on page 141, and lastly how we interpret fire ourselves.

In the case of Jani McMath, her parents, family, the court, as well as the medical staff, are all faced with the ethical dilemma of whether or not to pull the plug. Who has her best interest in mind? How do we know? We would assume her family because they are the closest ones to her, but the truth is that McMath is incapable of making the decision for herself; therefore, whether her life is preserved or not is left in the hands of others. She could have wanted the plugged pulled; then again, she could have wanted her family to be strong and continue to fight for her life.

This then begs the question of whether coercion exists when it is perceived by everyone or perceived solely by the individual who has to make a decision. If it is the former, then in Lisa’s case, she is still autonomous. If it is the ladder, the question then becomes, can a person with diminished autonomy make an autonomous choice by choosing treatment? In some cases, such as this one, yes (Beauchamp Childress 100). A person’s decisional capacity can be thought to exist on a continuum. While one may have capacity to decide one thing, that individual may not have capacity to decide for something else. While Lisa has depression, she made an autonomous choice to accept

Then, in a 5-to-4 decision the Court states that a person who is incapable of making such decision cannot exercise the rights. Since there was not enough “clear and convincing” evidence that Nancy Beth Cruzan wanted to refuse to such medical treatment, the Court stated that it is constitutional to preserve human life in the state of Missouri. Due to the fact that family members will not always make the correct decision in choosing to withdraw treatment, the court concluded that the evidence must be heightened in order to make the final

This case raises conflict between two principles one for respecting autonomy and beneficence. Due to Mildred being in a semicomatosed and paralyzed state, she does not have the ability to think autonomously. So, the following authority to help with decisions to be made during this time would be her three children. Her three children want to stop the tube feeding, but the physician objects that it’s unethical to “starve” a patient so that she will die sooner. The physician is not acting autonomously due to the fact of not listening to the patients children who know their mother and what she would want, but he is also not acting with beneficence because he's not helping to promote the well- being of Mildred who is now in this state not able to make her own decisions in addition to having a feeding tube which is the only thing keeping her alive.

Most people and including this writer, probably have never given a lot of thought about organ donation, aside from checking ‘yes’ box for DMV. A far amount of people believe that once a person is dead, that using what is left of the body so another can benefit from the donation or, perhaps, even save another human being’s life. However, what about selling a kidney not donating one? The essay “Organ Sales Will Save Lives” written by Joanna McKay, delves a lot deeper into the hot topic of human organ sales and the need to change the laws. She makes a compelling argument for the legality of organ sales as well as an ethical one.

In our culture, girls become women at the average age of 12. The right of passage is bloody underwear and feminine products that never seem to fit right. This means, as children, women are given a heavy responsibility: the ability to create a human life. While straddling childhood and adulthood, we are meant to learn how powerful that responsibility is and how to protect our bodies from experiencing it too early. Yet, in our culture, girls are sent so many different messages on how to accomplish this. The message sent loud and clear today is, “your body does not belong to you.” Through all the blood, tears, and sacrifice . . .my body belongs to my government and will be treated however middle-aged white men see fit.

From the time Anna was born, whenever Kate fell ill and needed a donor, Kate and Anna’s parents did not hesitate to use Anna’s body without asking her. Parents should not harm one child to save another. Anna decides to go to a lawyer and sue her parents for the rights of her own body. The lawyer makes an ethical decision to be a