Baby Theresa The case of Baby Theresa became a worldwide controversy that made several minds scramble on making the right decision. Baby Theresa was an anencephalic infant with no chance of survival. Her parents volunteered her organs for transplant to save other children, yet by the time she died, her organs were too deteriorated to be transplanted. Several question arose when this scenario came into questions for the Florida Law officials. South Florida ruled that Theresa's vital organs could not be transplanted until all brain activity - including any function of her brain stem, which controls respiratory and heartbeat - had ceased. Vital questions/concerns were raised on if the right decision was made and if the law was upheld. In one way I believe doctors should have allowed the transplant of Baby Theresa's organs because they could have benefited other children and this would not have harmed Baby Theresa, who had no conscious life anyway. On the other hand, it is always wrong to use one person as a means to somebody's else's ends, that it would have been wrong to violate Baby Theresa's autonomy. But Baby Theresa had no capability of autonomy and her parents were her decision maker. Yet the law makes rules in order to abide certain circumstances like these. Therefore if the law were to bend the rule for this situation then the law would not be upholding their status and would have to give everyone an exemption. Several statements can be made and inferred with assumption and analysis. For example you can have "The Benefit Argument", "The argument of not treating people as means" and "The argument about the wrongness of killing." (Textbook). If we can benefit someone, without harming anyone else, we ought to do so according to the Biomedical Ethics textbook. Transplanting the organs would benefit other children without harming Baby Theresa, therefore we