Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Copy of Case Presentation by Jessica Malek
Transcript of Copy of Case Presentation by Jessica Malek
Position 2: The court (Against)
This case gives rise to a number of ethical issues. Although the main one presented here is:
Whether the young girl wanted to have children, and furthermore whether she wanted to have children following her decease?
My position on the case
Following analysis of both sides of the case, i believe that the courts decision is ultimately the right choice. Although the distraught parents of the young girl simply wanted to behold their daughters memory, i believe that in my opinion they went about this in the wrong by in someway wanting to create a 'stand in child' for their deceased daughter. This is undoubtedly unhealthy, not only for the parents but for the new life which was to be created.I also believe that if court had granted permission for fertilization that the child created would suffer severe emotional and mental distress knowing that they were conceived after their mothers death. An ethical question could be raised like:Who really is the mother of the child?
Note: That the parents changed their mind to seek fertilization following various debates around the case, and so the case was dropped by the family and the court.
Case Presentation by Jessica Malek
The parents identify their hardship with the loss of their young girl, they wish to behold her memory in their family in anyway possible.
Their request to fertilize their daughters eggs was denied by the court. The question is raised why the young girls organs (i.e. her heart) are permitted to be used to save a life following her death, whereas her eggs are not permitted to be used to create a new life. The parents are given freedom with their daughters body, but their freedom is ultimately restricted.
It is also arguable that the court is holding an unequal stance on the case, given that in Israel it is permitted that the sperm of deceased men can be used to inseminate a woman. An example of this, is in 2007, where the mother of a solider was granted authorization to use the sperm of her deceased son in order to inseminate a woman that her son never even knew. However the court declined authorization to the parents of a young girl to use their daughters eggs for fertilisatiion.Is the courts decision really adhering to the UNESCO declaration of bioethics, mainly focusing on article 10 which declares that all human beings are to be treated with respect, and to be treated justly and equally. One can debate if this article is actually being manifested in the courts appeal to the case of Chen Aida Ayash and her family.
For and Against
In accordance to this case: the parents position is
fertilization of their daughters eggs,
and the court position is
the fertilization of Chen Aida Ayash's eggs.
In 2011, a 17 year old girl, Chen Aida Ayash was announced dead following a car collision. The young girl was already serving as an organ donor, when her parents were granted authorization to extract and freeze her eggs by the court. This was the first time a procedure like this was granted in Israel, if not possibly in the world. Her parents also wished to fertilize their deceased daughters eggs with donated sperm, although the court declined this proposition, on the grounds that there was no proof Chen Aida Ayash wanted children, let alone if she wanted her parents to raise her biological child after her death.
Summary of case
Thank you for your time, and feel free to ask any questions :)
The court believe that they have the young girls best interest at heart. Their decision to decline fertilization of Chen Aida Ayash's eggs to her family is based on the fact that no evidence or proof was presented by the family that this is what their daughter would of wanted.
The court also propose that apart from respecting Chen Aida Ayash's memory,it is also vital that they include the concerns of the new life that might have be created, if fertilization was granted.
Here the courts decision to decline fertilization is in adherence to Article 16 of the UNESCO declarations of bioethics, where it is said that the protection of future generations with the inclusion of genetic constitution is to be regarded.
What if the court had granted the parents their proposed opposition, what implications would this have had on the new life created? Would this child be affected by knowing they were conceived biologically from their dead mother?
Given that the young girl cannot give her consent, and that the family failed to give evidence that this adheres to what she would of wanted, it is only ethical that the court declines permission of fertilization of her eggs.
If the court was to grant the family permission, this would create a whole new morally challenging case while also not adhering to the UNESCO declarations of bioethics. In which article 6 declares that any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is to be carried out only after the informed consent is given by whom it may concern.