Theresa Pearson suffered from a condition known as anencephaly. Babies born with this condition are sometimes referred to as “babies without brains,” but this isn’t exactly the case. They do have a brain-stem, allowing for autonomic functions like breathing and a heartbeat. What they are missing is the cerebrum, cerebellum, and top of the skull, meaning the have no possibility for conscious thought. Most cases of these are detected during pregnancy and aborted; half of those not aborted are stillborn, and the rest die within a few days.
Theresa’s story is unique because her parents made the unusual request to volunteer her organs. The physicians agreed that this was a good idea, especially considering that there are at least 2,000 babies that need transplants each year, and there are never enough organs to provide for this. This was not done, however, because Florida law does not allow for the removal of organs until the donor is dead, and by the time Theresa died, her organs had deteriorated too much to have any further use.
A number of professional ethicists were called on by the press to comment, and a surprisingly small number of them agreed with the physicians and parents, saying things such as “It is unethical to kill in order to save” and “the parents are asking to kill a dying baby so the organs can be used by someone else. Well, that is a really horrendous proposition.”
So who’s right? The parents and physicians or “ethicists?”
Edited by jmrozi1, : Fixed grammar mistake
™ Version 4.2