Baby Terasa
Natural Law vs. Utilitarianism:
The Case of Baby Theresa
The case of Theresa Ann Campo Pearson, an anencephalic infant born in 1992 in the state of Florida, is one that will be discussed in the ethics community for many years to come. By nature, such a disorder does not typically yield any form of controversial disarray; the infants have no chance at a conscious life, such cases are typically aborted, and those that are not aborted usually die within several days. The case of “Baby Theresa” was no different, except for the fact that her parents, along with the involved physicians, saw their vile situation as an opportunity to bring forth good; they agreed that donating Theresa’s organs to other children in need would be an optimal course of action. This decision sparked an ethical battle between the parents, as well as the physicians involved, and the state of Florida; a state law did not permit organs to be removed from a donor until the donor is dead. Ultimately, the law prevailed and the organs were not utilized (Briggs). This case can be evaluated at the ethical level when approached from two disparate forms of ideology; natural law and utilitarianism. Natural law would allow the life of one infant to be saved as long as not intending to kill another, therefore, disagreeing with the option of prematurely ending the life of one infant for the benefit of another. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is simply concerned with the outcome which yields more benefit; agreeing that cutting the fruitless life of an infant destined for death only a few days short, for the sake of possibly saving the lives of several prolific infants, is a praiseworthy route. In such a case, the idea of Natural law seems more acceptable than the concept of utilitarianism.
In order to evaluate such a case in light of the natural law ideology, one must first have an understanding of the origin and basic elements of natural law. The theory of natural law took shape in the form...
View Full Essay