John Stuart Mill's Argument
III. Argument Two conclusions emerge fairly decisively from the cursory analysis presented above: first, that the doctor should not even consider performing the sperm retrieval procedure before Mr. M is medically diagnosed as brain dead; and second, that even then he ought to consider it only if the mother were to provide specific proof not only of Mr. M's prior consent to undergo the procedure, but also of his intent to transfer the harvested sperm into his mother's possession for the purposes of selecting an inseminating a surrogate on his behalf in the event of his death.
Or, stated more succinctly: no, the doctor should not perform the posthumous sperm retrieval.
Simply looking from a deontology perspective and the excerpt stated above, …show more content…
The convoluted writings of John Stuart Mill can be translated into simple terms as follows: No moral act or rule is intrinsically right or wrong. Rather, the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is solely a matter of the overall nonmoral good (pleasure, happiness, health, knowledge, or satisfaction of individual desire) produced in the consequences of doing that act or following that rule. It might be possible to formulate an argument in favor of the operation under any circumstance (though perhaps not a very compelling one) provided that the argument was grounded in this extreme definition of utilitarianism. It would be justified by the fact that patient is most likely dead and although taking his sperm may be wrong it would yield an outcome with the “most good”, that being the mother’s happiness. To further examine this idea let us look at the obvious. Mr. M is almost certainly dead. Being dead, he has little use for his sperm; simply leaving it to degrade will not do anyone any good. Harvesting it, on the other hand, might be socially unsavory to a certain extent, but it seems as though it would make the mother happy, and potentially even allow her to realize what may be a lifelong dream. The argument presented above invokes the principle of autonomy—but what autonomy can reasonably be ascribed to a dead person? Is not a cadaver by definition an inanimate object, an entity even the level of autonomy of a cow? And speaking of cows, there happens to be an entire industry built up around the sale of bull semen—how often does one encounter a serious ethical objection to that grounded in the principle of autonomy? Then why should there be an objection carrying out the same procedure with a
Or, stated more succinctly: no, the doctor should not perform the posthumous sperm retrieval.
Simply looking from a deontology perspective and the excerpt stated above, …show more content…
The convoluted writings of John Stuart Mill can be translated into simple terms as follows: No moral act or rule is intrinsically right or wrong. Rather, the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is solely a matter of the overall nonmoral good (pleasure, happiness, health, knowledge, or satisfaction of individual desire) produced in the consequences of doing that act or following that rule. It might be possible to formulate an argument in favor of the operation under any circumstance (though perhaps not a very compelling one) provided that the argument was grounded in this extreme definition of utilitarianism. It would be justified by the fact that patient is most likely dead and although taking his sperm may be wrong it would yield an outcome with the “most good”, that being the mother’s happiness. To further examine this idea let us look at the obvious. Mr. M is almost certainly dead. Being dead, he has little use for his sperm; simply leaving it to degrade will not do anyone any good. Harvesting it, on the other hand, might be socially unsavory to a certain extent, but it seems as though it would make the mother happy, and potentially even allow her to realize what may be a lifelong dream. The argument presented above invokes the principle of autonomy—but what autonomy can reasonably be ascribed to a dead person? Is not a cadaver by definition an inanimate object, an entity even the level of autonomy of a cow? And speaking of cows, there happens to be an entire industry built up around the sale of bull semen—how often does one encounter a serious ethical objection to that grounded in the principle of autonomy? Then why should there be an objection carrying out the same procedure with a