Introduction
“My Sister’s Keeper” is a 2009 film that tells the heart-wrenching story of the Fitzgeralds, a family facing a complex medical situation and legal battle. The family’s youngest child, Kate, is diagnosed with leukemia at age five and has to undergo multiple blood transfusions, surgeries, and chemotherapy treatments in an attempt to prolong her life. However, these medical interventions have taken a severe toll on her body over the years. This is where the central ethical dilemma arises. Since neither Kate’s parents nor his brother are a perfect genetic match, Anna is conceived through in vitro fertilization specifically to donate her organs and other tissues to help save her older sister, Kate. For over a decade, Anna’s role has been to regularly undergo medical procedures to extract portions of her body to transplant into Kate in the hopes of keeping her older sister alive. As Kate’s health continues to deteriorate and she needs more transplants, Anna decides to sue her parents for medical emancipation to stop being used as her “donor child.” This film presents the compelling ethical dilemma of balancing one family member’s well-being against another. Utilitarianism, which aims to maximize overall well-being and happiness, will be used to analyze the moral values and choices presented in the story.
Ethical Analysis Using Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill most prominently developed in the 18th and 19th centuries. According to utilitarian philosophers, the morally right action is the one that maximizes utility by producing the greatest good for the most significant number of people (Byskov, 2020). Key to utilitarian thinking is the impartial consideration of all stakeholders impacted by a decision or course of action. Moral judgments are made based on the overall consequences rather than intentions alone. An act is deemed moral if it results in more favorable outcomes, in terms of pleasure, happiness, and satisfaction of preferences, for the community as a whole compared to any available alternatives (Byskov, 2020). The utilitarian ethical framework’s main components include hedonism, sum-ranking, and impartiality.
Hedonism is the notion that pleasure and the absence of pain are intrinsically good. Utilitarians view humans as seeking to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in their own lives and the lives of others. Bentham conceptualized a “hedonistic calculus” whereby the virtues/vices of actions could be quantified by considering various factors like intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, fecundity, and purity of pleasures/pains they produce. Given that hedonism establishes the moral significance of pleasure/pain, utilitarians evaluate available choices through a process of “sum-ranking,” where morally right is that which maximizes the aggregate or total amount of pleasure over pain calculated across all stakeholders impartially. Rather than focusing on any single individual, one must weigh the overall or “sum” consequences. Impartiality means that a choice’s overall utility can only be accurately calculated if the interests of each person affected are counted equally without bias or preferential ranking based on relationships, identities, or other personal attributes (Mihailov, 2022). Each individual contributes similarly to the sum-ranking, requiring impartial objectivity from the moral decision-maker.
This cost-benefit analysis, through a hedonistic approach, allows for the calculation of the most rational and empirical form of consequentialism that can be undertaken by any individual on earth using a utilitarian sum-ranking approach that looks at both short- and long-term consequences. Therefore, according to utilitarianism, a moral choice can be made when one predicts and compares all the potential consequences of alternatives concerning the net pleasure or pain they create for all those it affects. Consequently, the morally appropriate option should be chosen as that which best improves general happiness or well-being and minimizes overall suffering, even if there are downsides for some people.
Utilitarian reasoning in “My Sister’s Keeper” can help the Fitzgeralds decide what is moral about Kate’s healthcare and Anna’s donation of her kidney. A utilitarian approach implies contrasting different moral values. However, the primary underlying reason for this dilemma is moral obligations posed as opposed to each other by Kate’s parents, namely Brian and Sara. However, since their daughter has leukemia, it is paramount that they do everything possible to save Kate. The notion of living is perpetual, and it entails keeping her alive constantly through medical assistance from her sister, Anna, which is crucial for this family. However, this obsession with Kate also jeopardizes another critical value: Anna’s freedom and individuality regarding medical treatments that impact her health and existential well-being in totality. It took her some years to realize that all these extra functions performed on her to ensure that Kate stays alive hurt her rather than help her. Forced donations of organs and tissue always lead to physical pain, psychological traumas, and slow growth as compared to her peers. However, these gestures are designed to protect and preserve Kate in an attempt to fulfill parents’ duties just as they would for children facing similar situations but ignoring any implications the actions might have on Anna’s well-being and quality of life.
Utilitarianism would inspire the Fitzgeralds to select and determine who would be helped concerning their welfare or happiness in the future. While keeping Kate alive may give her short-term pleasure, forcing more donations from Anna during childhood would increase health risks, interventions, and side effects in the long run, ultimately restricting her lifetime happiness. In this regard, a summary of the total utility and disutility of prolonged treatment in the two different girls shows that the best utilitarian act would be Anna ceasing to be the sole way of extending treatments in favor of Kate despite knowing that she will live less. This may be the best approach to solving this as far as utilitarianism is concerned. It is accurate in that from an impartial point of view concerning long-term average good, it considers Anna’s happiness in exchange for Kate’s happiness. However, taking away Anna’s medical emancipation is also wrong for both girls’ interests, including autonomy, health, and normalcy, just like Kate’s right to life is denied by self-determination equally. At the same time, it hurts to admit that for Kate’s parents, it makes sense to give precedence to Anna’s need for gradually building up medical independence instead of saving Kate’s life, unfortunately, by sticking with the optimal policies for overall health improvement.
The Fitzgeralds used utilitarianism as part of their moral conscience to ensure they did the greatest amount of good allowed. For example, it demonstrated that an outsider can fairly judge by considering holistic health without favoritism. Sadly, the utilitarianism rationale would inevitably favor freeing Anna as the best decision, giving the highest utility to two sisters whose lives are equally valuable, without prejudice. It, therefore, serves as the basis for making compassionate and ethical moral judgments in complex situations involving conflicting interests between the family and patients in health matters.
Reflection
I contend that this consequentialist approach provides a context in which the Fitzgerald family can determine what is best for Kate and Anna concerning future medical treatment within the principles of hedonism, aggregation, and impartiality. The utilitarian logic always shows that Anna’s call for freedom is the best solution among all alternatives if we consider everyone as an equal party. Studying philosophically about real-world moral dilemmas has shown me how vital normative frameworks are when making an autonomy, relationship, and quality compromise situation with someone else’s individuality. The utilitarianism case study specifically shows how the partiality problem can be addressed by considering the welfare of the whole society.
In addition, it emphasized the need for impartial, consistent principles rather than strong emotion while deciding upon life or death regarding many interests. Indeed, my reasoning strictly on legal ethics as I confronted practical ethical questions under difficult medical circumstances will almost definitely improve my career practically. This is an organized procedure that considers the interests of all the parties as they evaluate various treatment plans, get consent from patients, and engage in informal negotiations among families. With the increase of conflicts over different stakeholder’s priorities, objective determination of advantages and disadvantages will be more relevant. On a personal level, this analysis is an introspective consideration of how one could strike such a balance when dealing with incidents requiring reconciliation between all persons involved’ rights, care, and overall welfare.
Conclusion
In summary, this essay has considered whether the actions taken by the Fitzgerald family are morally acceptable using the utilitarian ethical perspective. As outlined, the best choice would be for the girls to achieve happiness and maintain good relationships. Though it does not resolve the deep emotional layers of the problem, adopting this ethical framework offers a systematic way of determining right or wrong in such a case of conflicting medical needs and personal autonomy between people in one family. Study of actual moral cases via philosophical analysis develops abilities in handling compassionate situations demanding careful striking of a balance between competing interests in personal and professional capacities. Ultimately, normative ethics helps resolve predicaments that affect fundamental rights and welfare more compassionately and uniformly.
References
Byskov, M. F. (2020). Utilitarianism and risk. Journal of Risk Research, 23(2), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1501600
Cassavetes, N. (Director). (2009). My Sister’s Keeper [Film]. New Line Cinema.
Mihailov, E. (2022). Measuring impartial beneficence: A Kantian perspective on the Oxford utilitarianism scale. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14(3), 989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00600-2
write