Would you donate your infant's organs if it was not technically "dead" yet, even if it were certain death was imminent?

They can’t wait until death though. The organs are too damaged at that point. Its a really tough decision!

I would not, just because that baby boy or girl needs a chance to live. What if it happens that she/or he does not die at the end, I know it might not happen, but why not give him or her a chance. It’s just like giving up, even if the organs where no good after the baby dies, I would give him or her a chance to live till what she or he can.

No, even if they were on lifesupport I wouldn’t donate any part of their body until they did die. After they passed I would. They could live because you never know what will happen :)

I would donate them if I could. This condition basically means there is no real brain. Waiting can cause damage to the organs and make them unusable. Those stating they might live do not understand the condition. They never ever live. There is no brain activity.

Definately. A child cannot survive a condition like that, and I would be happy to know that my child could help another survive (well, as happy as you can be when your child is dying anyway). There is a shortage of childrens organs for transplantation, and a child with anencephaly isnt going to be needing theirs.

I am same way too….

I would have terminated pregnancy. However, if it were legal, yes I would. I don’t know if an ethical doctor would, mostly because it is a slippery slope…

Thank you guys for your answers. I was actually doing a presentation on the ethics of this practice and I sort of wanted to get a feel of what some thoughts on the subject were.

Interesting question; sorry I missed it earlier. I’m chiming in now because I see no one expressed a few similar to my own. I agree it’s a tough decision from the standpoint of a rational calculation of moral values vs. utilitarian interests. And I accept the fact that there is no chance for the infant to live beyond a few weeks, and no sign of consciousness during that brief time. Nevertheless, I would not consider “harvesting” any of its organs at the cost of its life (at least I hope I would not), even - to pick the hard test case - if those organs were the only way to sustain the life of its twin. It’s not my place to determine whose life shall be taken to preserve another, nor to second-guess G!d about the meaning or value of such a brief life.

But while saying this, I can barely imagine the agony of the parents of those twins. If someone chose to sacrifice one for the other, I think they (parents and doctors) should be held accountable for the life they take, but I would hope to see the parents judged with great compassion.

*few = view, lol. Btw, I forgot to say (though I implied) that I reject utilitarianism as a basis for moral reasoning. Moral utilitarianism = “the greatest good for the greatest number,” thus justifying any kind of atrocity against the lesser number.

To me, if there is no brain activity, then there is no longer any life there. Certainly no sustainable life. And if you can save another life, I think it would be morally wrong to not try to save that life. I would never consider what I am suggesting as “justifying any kind of atrocity”. That language is a bit extreme for this example. Let me ask you this. You have two groups of people in imminent danger, and you can only save one. One group has 100 people, and the other has 10. Which one would you choose to save? Sometimes tough choices must be made, and neither is a good choice. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make the best choice possible. And I find it kind of disturbing that you would hold doctors and parents responsible for having to make such a terrible decision. Is that really what you think your god would want of us? To allow people to die when they can be saved?

Sorry I didn’t see this until now, Jimahl. You write, “if there is no brain activity, then there is no longer any life there.” Agreed. But in her question, Chartreusechick says, “these babies are born with a functioning brainstem.” Hence, there is life, and taking that life is mvrder, which I do indeed consider an atrocity. I’m sure there are times when mvrdering one person could spare the lives of one or more others, and I am confident that that is not generally what “my” G!d (and yours) would have us do in such situations - your irrelevant triage example not withstanding.

A brain-stem is not a brain. There is no consciousness, there is no pain felt, there is nothing. The brain stem will merely control biological functions. It is life that is not much different than an amoeba. Why would your god (btw, I don’t have one) want us to choose to prolong the inevitable, rather than possible save another life, or more? To me that is just logic and compassion. An atrocity is something that is cruel and and that is done with absolutely no good in mind. This is something that would be done to save lives. Far from an atrocity, even if you think it is wrong.

“An atrocity is something that is cruel and and that is done with absolutely no good in mind. This is something that would be done to save lives.” Right, that’s exactly what I meant when I said that utilitarianism - “the greatest good for the greatest number” - can justify any kind of atrocity against the lesser number.