Ethical Theories

Alder Hey Children's Hospital, in Liverpool, England, is at the center of a controversy regarding what the hospital calls organ retention, and critics call "organ stripping." For more than a decade, it was Alder Hey's practice to remove various organs -- brains, hearts, lungs, and so on -- during post mortem examinations, and to retain them for purposes of research and medical education. The retention of hearts is a standard practice in English hospitals, provided that parents (or other responsible parties) sign a consent form. However, at least during the period from 1988 to 1995, doctors performing post mortem examinations on deceased children routinely removed a wide variety of organs and tissues. Parents who have recently learned of this practice are angry, complaining that (i) the organs were removed without their consent, and (ii) they had buried their children without realizing how much of their bodies had remained behind. The hospital, which has made arrangements to return many of the organs, has apologized to the families, and is conducting an internal inquiry. At the same time, many people point quietly to the benefits derived from the organs having been used for teaching purposes, and from the medical knowledge gained from use of the organs in tissue research. Which of the factors noted above would a deontological ethicist (nonconsequentialist) consider relevant to determining the morality of the practice of organ retention? Why? Which would a utilitarian (consequentialist) consider relevant? Why? How would Kant's theory help in this case? Which of the moral theories discussed in this course (if any) do you think gives the correct moral evaluation of this situation? Carefully explain how that theory gives the answer you say it does. (If you think no theory in this course gives the right answer, then say why, and propose some alternate evaluation.) Give an appropriate citation in either APA