Anencephalic neonates as sources for pediatric organs: An inquiry into the theologies of Paul Ramsey and Richard A. McCormick

It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention: indeed, technological advances attest to this creative determination of the human spirit. Nowhere is this as evident as in the field of medicine. Advances in the transplantation of organs make possible what was previously unimaginable. Transplantations offer the opportunity for life to those who would otherwise die. Even the fragile life of some newborns with congenital organ defects can be extended through the transplantation of organs. Nevertheless, thousands die because of the scarcity of pediatric organs. Some believe that if organs were available, lives could be saved: the solution rests on identifying legally and morally justifiable organ sources. They believe the anencephalic to be one such source. The proposed use of anencephalic neonates, however, poses serious moral questions. Central to this issue are the concepts of death and human personhood. Since anencephaly does not technically meet the present legal requirements for brain death some suggest a redefinition that would include the anencephalic among the dead. This study examines the question: What constitutes human personal life? Since anencephaly consists in the absence of most of the brain, they are considered by some to lack a vital element necessary for personhood. This dissertation explores the nuances and implications of such a position based on the work of Richard A. McCormick and Paul Ramsey.

Chapter one situates the study by presenting the physiological and clinical facts of anencephaly. Pertinent ethical questions concerning the identification of anencephalics as viable sources are also introduced. Chapter two investigates the theology and ethical methodology of Richard McCormick with particular emphasis on personhood, death, consent, donation and transplantation. Chapter three focuses on Paul Ramsey and follows the pattern of the previous chapter. Chapter four provides a contrast and critique of the positions of these two ethicists. Chapter five brings this study to conclusion by responding to the main ethical and theological concerns.