The case of the 14 year old Waterhouse twin girls and some faulty kidneys.
I am a highly skilled surgeon with a thriving and well respected practice. I do what is physically possible to help individuals. This has been my training and my life's goal. In the situation with the Waterhouse girls, I want to help them. I want to help the parents keep their daughter, and their family, but there are many ethical issues I must consider before making my decision regarding the operation. I must make my decision with sensitivity and reasoning, be willing to carry it out and to deal with the consequences.
In this situation, to refrain from action actually harms an individual. And although, it may injure another (Meg) temporarily (i.e., getting her to the hospital , any surgery wounds, etc.), it would save her sister's life. I am physically and legally able to do this procedure. Without it, Irene will die. The parents have given consent, but Meg has not. .
Does the issue of Irene's life and death outweigh Meg's ability to make her own choices? Perhaps this can be justified with the thought that two lives are better than one. By donating a small piece of tissue, Meg could save an entire life. The organ donation would not negatively affect Meg's physical functions. Meg could donate a kidney and continue to live life to the fullest with only one. This situation would be different if Irene was in need of a liver transplant, as Meg could not donate and continue living without hers. .
The problem here is that the donation is not voluntary. .
Getting Meg to the hospital would involve force and the operation would be invasive. But, when all is said and done, there would be two living people, both with physical scars -they heal, and Meg with mental wounds as well. Still, those too can heal. Had the operation not been done, Irene would be dead. And death, cannot be healed. .
This case is essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul and hoping Peter will eventually get over it.