At first glance, this concept appears to have some merit:
"Mothers of children with fatal defects will have the option to give birth. Once the infant has been declared stillborn, doctors will remove its organs. They will then be used to save the lives of other children who are currently being placed on 7,000-strong waiting list"
After all, if the baby isn't itself viable, and could save the lives of others who may be, that's potentially a good thing, no?
The problem is, the Much Vaunted National Health System© hasn't shown itself to be particularly concerned with ethics, which leads folks to (justifiably) call into question the rationale behind this effort, not to mention the motivations of those tasked with implementing it.
This in particular raises moral hackles:
"Amid a chronic shortage of donated organs, mums will be 'supported' to have the baby at nine months so that the child's vital organs can be taken for transplant"
Law of supply and demand seems particularly tempting here; so who makes the call as to whether this or that baby is the viable one, and which is to be sacrificed? After all, these are the folks responsible for the (notorious) Liverpool Pathway.
Thus far, this is only in the "proposal" stage.
Thus far.
[Hat Tip: Co-blogger Mike F]
"Mothers of children with fatal defects will have the option to give birth. Once the infant has been declared stillborn, doctors will remove its organs. They will then be used to save the lives of other children who are currently being placed on 7,000-strong waiting list"
After all, if the baby isn't itself viable, and could save the lives of others who may be, that's potentially a good thing, no?
The problem is, the Much Vaunted National Health System© hasn't shown itself to be particularly concerned with ethics, which leads folks to (justifiably) call into question the rationale behind this effort, not to mention the motivations of those tasked with implementing it.
This in particular raises moral hackles:
"Amid a chronic shortage of donated organs, mums will be 'supported' to have the baby at nine months so that the child's vital organs can be taken for transplant"
Law of supply and demand seems particularly tempting here; so who makes the call as to whether this or that baby is the viable one, and which is to be sacrificed? After all, these are the folks responsible for the (notorious) Liverpool Pathway.
Thus far, this is only in the "proposal" stage.
Thus far.
[Hat Tip: Co-blogger Mike F]
Posts
