Reference no: EM133577049

Problem

In the spring of 1982, an infant known as Baby Doe was born with an esophageal-tracheal fistula and trisomy 21, a form of mental retardation known commonly as Down syndrome. The esophageal-tracheal fistula needed immediate surgery if the infant was to be fed. The decision of whether to do the surgery would not have been questioned for a normal infant. The physicians split in their recommendations as to whether to provide the surgery in this case, the parents with court concurrence elected to not do surgery and the infant died.

Assuming that Baby Doe would have grown up to know himself, know those around him, walk, talk and play, and perhaps even go to school, was the decision not to provide the surgery ethical? Regardless of how you answer, justify your decision using ethical criteria. Also note that legal decisions are ethics neutral, and vice versa: Something truly can be legally correct, medically correct, socially correct, and morally reprehensible. Ask Dr. Mengele (Nazi war criminal who performed ghoulish experiments in the death camps), for he surely felt that relative to his society, what he was doing was socially, medically, and legally correct.