Table of ContentsIntroductionPlotEthical Analysis of My Sister's KeeperConclusionWorks CitedIntroduction "My Sister's Keeper", directed by Nick Cassavetes, was released in June 2009. The film is an emotional journey. It's about Anna Fitzgerald, a teenager conceived for her gravely ill sister as a blood and bone marrow donor who has undergone countless surgeries and medical procedures. With eldest daughter Kate's life extended, Anna's decision to sue her parents for the rights to her own body triggers a lawsuit that shatters the family. While the film represents a series of morally complex issues, from the ethics of genetic engineering to the right of terminally ill patients to choose to die to the right of a minor to control her own body, a moral struggle takes place. rage within the family as Kate continues to suffer from cancer and Anna seeks medical emancipation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayPlotKate was diagnosed with leukemia at the age of two. She has difficulty assuming her responsibility as a “big sister” because it is Anna who gives to her on several occasions. Anna is known as the "baby savior", the one capable of keeping Kate alive, which explains the chosen title, "My Sister's Keeper". Anna begins by making the audience believe that she is suing her parents for the rights to her own body; she doesn't want to be Kate's donor, but in reality, it was Kate who wanted Anna to take legal action because she can't take the battle with cancer anymore. Their parents argue with Anna over saving Kate, not knowing the truth behind the cancer. trial. Sara is a determined mother, to the point where her single-minded desire to help Kate hurts others. Keeping Kate alive as long as possible is Sara's intention, which calls for unprecedented sacrifice and love. She neglects the rest of her family to protect Kate. Jesse, the eldest of the Fitzgerald children, often feels neglected, inadequate and ignored by his family; he goes to the city to feel noticed and observe life outside his family. Sara, as a mother, has the right to make decisions for the family. However, this is a conflict of interest because Sara makes decisions that save one girl at the expense of her other daughter's body. Ethical Analysis of My Sister's Keeper This film poses complex moral questions arising from the ethics of genetic engineering. The film does not promote "savior babies", but it does question the activity of genetic engineering aimed at generating new life. Anna's existence is ethically and morally questionable. Rescue babies are described as “infants born with HLA-matched body parts, usually umbilical cord blood intended to be used for bone marrow transplantation to preserve the existence of their older sibling.” Conception is a normal event that occurs during sexual intercourse. The idea of ​​engineering an embryo disrupts the natural order. Furthermore, those who are religious in a situation like this would contradict religious teachings regarding God's intention in procreation. Parental motivations play a role in deciding whether developing a savior baby is ethical. If the parents did not intend to have more children and have the savior baby for the sake of the other child, then there is the question of using the savior baby as a means to achieve to an end. If the parents intended to have more children, then the savior baby is desired and not designed tosave the other child. However, having a savior baby means using the child exclusively as a means to an end. Even if the savior sibling is loved, there is a fear that the child will feel like a means to some extent. This film also poses complex moral questions, ranging from ethics to the right of terminally ill patients to choose to die. The question asked is why Kate's doctor suggested a "designer baby" but not euthanasia. IfThe right of terminally ill patients to choose to die raises several moral dilemmas. Kate was not given the opportunity or support to end her pain and suffering. His parents, for most of the film, neglected his pain. Sara did not appreciate or respect Kate's wish to die peacefully. Sara believed it was important to do what was morally right despite Kate's opinion that she wanted to die. Kate had to go to extreme lengths to die with dignity. With the help of a doctor, patients have a better chance of experiencing a pain-free death. Naturally, the doctor did not suggest euthanasia because, universally, taking life is morally wrong. Doctors have a responsibility to save lives and keep others healthy. Euthanasia would be an apparent contradiction with the principles of medicine. However, it is ethical to allow an individual to choose death because it frees them from suffering. Other people will not understand what is best for the terminally ill patient than the patient themselves. Only Kate is aware of what it means to feel pain and see those around her suffer. Finally, the film poses complex moral questions, from the ethics of a minor's right to control their own body. The third question posed in the film is to what extent people have power over their lives. The right to life is a fundamental right. Anna's future is jeopardized by her duty to donate body parts to her sister. She wants to live a healthy life and achieve what every other average kid her age is doing. Sara placed no value or respect on Anna's life. Forcing Anna to donate her body parts is putting her health at risk. This threatens his survival and therefore violates his right to life. In the film, there was a change in moral principles. At first, the characters followed Rawl's veil of ignorance. Rawl's Veil of Ignorance is all about empowerment and powerlessness. In this situation, Kate and Anna were powerless, while Sara is empowered. Sara asks for a part of Anna's body and ignores Kate's request, which reinforces inequality. Sara believed it was important to keep Kate alive, even if it meant continuing to take parts of Anna to provide the most benefit to Kate. Furthermore, Sara and the doctor acted on the basis of virtue ethics. They did their best to keep Kate alive despite her desire to die, because it would be morally right. Additionally, a person with good character would do anything they can to keep someone alive. Keeping Kate alive would be considered the universal moral thing to do. In the end, the family accepted Kate's wish and did what was best for Anna and Kate. The Fitzgerald family followed the Kantian moral principle. A follower of the Kantian principle would do what Kate wants, regardless of the consequences, because doing what is morally right would mean letting her die peacefully as she wishes rather than letting her suffer from ineffective treatment. The family found a moral balance between the extremes of the situation, Kate died peacefully and Anna was medically emancipated and fulfilled her sister's wish. Of, 46(3), 72-75.