Ethics Governance
Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles |
| Articles indexes: a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | other | |
|
|
| Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title. | |
CBHD: Shall We Do Evil… - Thomas D. Kennedy The British Court of Appeals has now ruled that, despite their parents' wishes to the contrary, physicians may surgically separate Mary from her twin, Jodie. Some Christian ethicists, like Dennis Hollinger, consider this a wise but tragic choice concluding, apparently, that we have a moral duty to save Jodie, even at Mary's expense. Hollinger's sensitive discussion of the case is praiseworthy, but his conclusions are mistaken. On the contrary, I shall argue that the separation of Mary is morally impermissible, a morally prohibited means to Jodie's survival. Hollinger's Argument Professor Hollinger argues that here we have a tragic case in which both twins will die unless we intervene to save one of the two twins. The parents' opposition to the surgery, Hollinger maintains, violates the fundamental moral obligation to preserve human life when possible (proposition four). Saving Jodie by separating Mary from her is not, Hollinger assures us, a capitulation to utilitarian reasoning (proposition five). It is, rather, to achieve the better consequences of saving one rather than none (propositions two and three). To do so violates no duty not to kill (proposition one). Thus, we might reconstruct his argument as follows: Whenever one can preserve human life without violating a duty not to kill, one has a duty to do so. Separating Mary from Jodie would preserve Jodie's life without violating the duty not to kill (Mary). Full Article: http://www.cbhd.org/resources/healthcare/kennedy_2000-10-06.htm |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||