Identification of the Issue

In the viewpoint of deontological ethics, we see duty as a primary point for our reason
when it comes to our actions. But as we go on further, some actions tend to overlook ethical
reasoning. We find reason as our drive for our decisions when it comes to deontological
ethics but, is it morally right? In a demonstration for educational discussion of Deontological
ethics from University of London, Traer (2009) emphasized the deontological argument of
Immanuel Kant on “treating every person as an end, and not as a means of our ends” since
every person is autonomous and rational and naturally has worth which challenges the plot of
the movie “My Sister’s Keeper” wherein the younger sister was born for the purpose of
saving Kate the older sister who is sick. Additionally, the existence of genetic engineering
Their mother put them in a pedestal which was not lawfully right on the younger sister’s side
since she has rights for her body and the fact that her body went procedures ever since she
was a baby with no regards of her vulnerability.

Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy focuses on relying with our own reason rather
than our own religion. That as human beings as we are, we ought to be known for our
thoughts to make sense as it is the one that drives our actions. As evident in the film's trial
scene, "And if we were looking at it only from Anna's situation, sure, it is brutal... It is awful.
But it's not as awful as putting your child in the ground" (Furst & Cassavetes, 2009). This
dialogue by Sara Fitzgerald, the mother of both children, served it as her defense in court
against her thirteen-year-old daughter, Anna Fitzgerald, who, after being told to give a kidney
to her older sister Kate that has acute promyelocytic leukemia and slowly losing her battle
against it, sues her parents for medical emancipation. One implication of these words is the
duty of a mother who wants to be a good parent. This is an ethical issue since it is immoral to
violate another person's rights to preserve another. Anna was born with a purpose, to live for
her sister. She was conceived as a bone marrow match for her sister and was the result of a
preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Although Anna is healthy, she may as well be ill. It was
said that in the movie that at age 5, Anna Fitzgerald underwent a multitude of procedures,
injections, and transfusions to help her elder sister.

Compared to trivial matters concerning our duties as human beings to take effort for
survival like killing some animals for food consumption and the fact that we are stealing
something that are theirs, what this output wants to divulge is the fact that sacrifices are
interconnected. From the movie itself, with no assurance if the sick child were to live under
the sacrifices of her younger sister survives or not, the well-being of Anna is still at stake.
The nature of deontological ethics reside on the mother and the procedure of genetic
engineering. If the mother keeps sacrificing the younger daughter, will she be sure that life
will still be there for both of her daughters?
Stakeholders Perspective

Kate Fitzgerald - The protagonist of many of the movie's events and the middle Fitzgerald
child. She has battled cancer for practically her whole life and seems to be accepting of the
possibility of death. Although there are glimmers of Kate's potential throughout the story, her
struggle with illness mostly determines who she is.

Sara Fitzgerald - In the course of the film, Sara predominantly fulfills the role of a mother,
and her desire to defend her daughter Kate takes precedence over all other motivations.
Anything else, including Jesse's misbehavior or Anna's quest for independence, is secondary
to Kate's survival. Ironically, Sara does not always behave like a mother to her other children
since she puts so much attention on raising Kate. When Anna files the case for medical
emancipation, Sara often ignores Jesse's self-destructive conduct, which Jesse uses to get her
attention. She also often fails to consider the possibility that Anna may be truly upset. Even
though Sara loves Jesse and Anna, she finds it difficult to think of them as distinct individuals
from Kate. Even with Kate, Sara is more concerned with her physical than her mental well-
being. Sara, for instance, does not trust Anna when she says on the witness stand that Kate
doesn't want to live any longer since Kate and Sara have never discussed these sentiments.

Anna Fitzgerald - The most conflicted character in the movie is the youngest Fitzgerald child.
Both her relationship with Kate and her attempt to live separately from that relationship
characterizes her. The conflicting emotions form the tragic foundation of Anna's personality.
She is overcome with remorse for wanting to live apart from Kate and questions whether she
is a bad person for thinking that way. Anna likewise desires to act in her sister's best interests.
When Kate finally decides she no longer wants to live, and despite how much it saddens her,
Anna sues her parents for medical emancipation. Both of Anna's objectives are satisfied by
the lawsuit: it gives her authority over her body and enables her to put her own needs ahead
of Kate's; also, since Kate will die without Anna's kidney, Anna may grant Kate's request to
die. She has given the Fitzgerald family much more than just medical support even though
she was genetically engineered. Kate has benefited from her emotional qualities just as much
as from her physical ones. As a result, Anna's story shows that, regardless of how far science
develops in its ability to create artificial humans for a specific purpose, such humans will
always be thinking, and feeling beings who will signify more than simply their scientific
purpose for existing.

Campbell Alexander - In the course of the film, Campbell, who plays Anna's lawyer, changes
from an emotionally distant opportunist who shuns closeness into someone who, while still
sardonic, is more trustworthy and genuinely cares about Anna's well-being and her
family. He uses his sarcasm to keep others at a distance because he fears that because of his
epilepsy, people would feel sorry for him or view him as a burden. Even though Campbell
thinks that he has no control over his body due to his epilepsy, Anna also experiences this
feeling, albeit in a different way. This helps Campbell and Anna connect. He consents after
the movie to make medical choices on Anna's behalf, demonstrating the two have formed a
bond as the relationship progresses.

Jesse Fitzgerald - The Fitzgerald family's oldest kid and troublemaker. Jesse is a tender and
sensitive individual despite having a gruff demeanor. He uses his destructive actions to cover
up a deep-seated feeling of worthlessness. Jesse has never been able to forgive himself for
being incapable of helping Kate. In addition, he frequently feels forgotten by his parents since
they give Kate practically all of their attention. As a result, he sometimes acts out to get their
attention.

Connection of Theories

Having children means we have duties to fulfill and a lot of responsibilities to think
about. Whenever parents decide about matters concerning their children, they tend to go
beyond the measures unexpectedly if it means they could fulfill their parental duties. Usually,
a person knows what is morally right or wrong when it comes to decision making especially
if it involves life of another. What we do not know is if we can take what we will lose rather
than what we will gain in the long run. The movie “My Sister’s Keeper” (2009) directly
criticizes the rational mind of a person about things that one should be certain about: safety of
one’s life. However, the ethical issue that surrounds the movie involves both morality and
reason that human beings are uncertain if it comes together: genetic engineering.

The mother, Sara Fitzgerald, came up a once in a lifetime decision that involved the
lives of her children. According to the idea of deontological ethics, it is through the emphasis
of the decisions why an act came to possibility therefore, the action itself matters for the
benefit of many. In context, it does not rely mainly on thinking about the consequences that
one act could cause the upcoming events since in this particular non-consequentialist ethics,
the person is focused on the duty and what it will contribute. In the movie, it was being
portrayed that the younger sister was alive because she has a “duty” to keep her older sister
alive and this was possible because of genetic engineering. This advance science process uses
laboratory-based technologies to change the DNA makeup of an organism (National Human
Genome Research Institute, 2022). Factually speaking, unlike surrogacy that undergoes this
type of process, the movie presented an cruel act on the younger sister, Anna Fitzgerald.
Sure, her parents willfully and with reasonable mind, decided on this decision to conceive her
to be a lifetime donor to their older daughter and gave a part of their reproductive cells to
bring Anna out of this world for a purpose but, what about the part where Anna started to
breath and gain a right for herself by the time she was born? The life of the formed baby from
the process of genetic engineering was being violated by the time they have – little by little –
detached some parts of her without her consent and with known vulnerability for her age.
Still, as it was unjust for Anna as a child, it was favorable for Kate Fitzgerald as she was
slowly dying from her illness.

“We should treat people as an end, never as a means to an end” – is the core principle
of Immanuel Kant’s theory of duty regarding categorical imperative. Treating people with
dignity through making them see themselves as beings with value without hesitation is way
ethical than making them think that their value is calculated through doing things that can be
considered favorable. Anna Fitzgerald was deprived of her value and dignity as a person, and
especially as a child just because she lived by the help of genetic engineering. It indirectly
means that she owes her life to the idea of genetic engineering that made her valuable, not
because of her mere existence. Also, the fact that Sara and Brian (parents of the children), did
not think that the child they will conceive will have a life ahead of her other than the duty
assigned to her ahead of being born suggests that they did not even think about her worth as
she will grow up. But how can parents think of this idea if the well-being of the first daughter
was in the brink of death? Where do they even think to place their understanding about
human dignity and respect if they will lose the first child they ever loved?
 Kate Fitzgerald, the severely ill child that needs the saving from her younger sister’s
organs was left deprived of her decision as well in wanting to die because of the idea that her
mother thinks about all the time: she needs to be saved. Although as parents, the duties that
lies ahead of us are based on the welfare of our children, the mother failed to accept the
decision of her child to depart from life. Our duties are always a barrier for decisions that
seem to be well calculated but hard to accept since it scares us, it haunts us especially when it
is about losing someone. But as Anna Fitzgerald has rights of her body, so is Kate. Their
mother turned blind eye on the fact that, Kate was also suffering because of her illness. As
Anna carries the duty of saving Kate for the benefit of her family, there lies an exceptionally
hard truth: the body that they are trying to save is hurting as time goes by which is a reason
for Kate to force her decision as a terminally ill patient to just succumb in order for everyone
in her family to decrease their worries and responsibilities they are carrying as they are taking
care of Kate.

The effect of genetic engineering to the lives of human beings is destructible. It is for
a reason, but to what extent of morality can it further breach? The overall impact it took on
the lives of the Fitzgerald family heightened in a devastating manner. It took two children for
the parents to realize that as people should be valuable without any compensation to consider,
they also have rights to realize that they are hurt too, in different ways. The idea that can
benefit for everybody can overlook a single one that does not enjoy it.

Analysis and Evaluation

We can see in the movie My Sister's Keeper that one of the moral issues that was
brought up was the question of whether or not genetic engineering may be regarded ethically
right or wrong. This question was brought up in the context of the movie. When we examine
it from a deontological point of view, we are unable to argue that it is truly immoral because
it entails a great number of dangers and will have an impact on a human being's health for a
variety of reasons, including the breakdown of body parts, allergic reactions, toxicity, loss of
nutrition, and instability of emotional responses. Genetic engineering has a number of
drawbacks, including the possibility that some foods will have less nutritional value as a
result, the possibility of problematic pathogens, the conception of unwanted side effects, the
existence of an unfavorable level of diversity, and the creation of outcomes that are
unpredictable. Sara Fitzgerald, the mother of Kate and Anna, does everything in her power to
cure their ailing kid, even if it means sacrificing her own daughter to save the other. This is
shown throughout the movie. In the context of a mother's obligation, does it make sense to
put the needs of a sick child ahead of the needs of a healthy child? No, a mother's obligation
is to love her child no matter what they are, and it is a parent's duty to treat her children the
same regardless of their differences. Is it morally acceptable for Anna to sue her parents
while she is obligated to follow them? Deontologically speaking, Anna's actions can be
justified because it is also her duty to take care of her own body, and she has the right to
decide whether or not to donate her body parts. If we consider the circumstances in which the
protagonist is currently engaged, it is clear that genetic engineering is a wrongful conduct.
What if it becomes the norm? Imagine the physical and mental tolls that each youngster must
bear on a daily basis? Deontological Theory holds that genetic engineering is morally
unacceptable in this scenario since it affects a large number of children and their parents
physically, cognitively, and emotionally.
 According to an article written by Zachary Rom entitled Genetic Engineering: A
Serious Threat to Human Society, the availability of genomic information and genetic
engineering technology creates a lethal threat to humanity because terrorists can use both the
information and technology to recreate deadly pathogens, such as the poliovirus. The
naturally occurring poliovirus killed and paralyzed millions of people for many years. In
1988, a worldwide vaccination campaign against the virus nearly exterminated it from the
environment, and this solved the poliovirus epidemic. However, in 2002, well intentioned
scientists decided to recreate the poliovirus for research means. Using the genomic sequence
of the poliovirus found on a public database and commercially available machines, these
scientists synthesized fragments of viral genomes into a functional poliovirus (Avise 7).
These scientists proved that deadly pathogens can be recreated from genetic engineering
techniques. Also, the information and technology used in genetic engineering is readily
available and relativity cheap (Kuzma and Tanji 3). Mixing the power to recreate a deadly
pathogen with the public availability of genetic engineering information and technology
creates a lethal risk to humanity when terrorist exist in society. Terrorist could use genetic
engineering to reinstate the poliovirus into the environment, and the virus would kill and
paralyze more people. Luckily, these scientists were filled with good intent; however, there is
nothing to prevent terrorists from harming innocent lives. Recreating deadly pathogens makes
genetic engineering dangerous enough; however, genetic engineers also have the potential to
improve the effectiveness of deadly pathogens, such as Y. pestis. The author of this article
claims that the pursuit of genetic engineering will have negative consequences not only for
individuals' lives but also for society as a whole. People who seek to destroy society can see
this as an opportunity and utilize it to their advantage. This simply serves to further illustrate
how risky it is and why engaging in such behavior might be regarded immoral.

If we relate the actions of Sara Fitzgerald, the mother in the movie, and see it in the
lens of Deontological Theory, we may find at some point that her action can be justifiable
because she is just doing her duty as a mother and that is to help and save her daughter but it
can be argued because by focusing on her sick daughter she also failed her other duties in the
household such as being a wife and mother to her other children. The major problem in this is
the decision of the parents to undergo genetic engineering in an attempt to save their sick
daughter by sacrificing the other. Now, based on the facts stated above, the society considers
genetic engineering as a wrongful act but can we consider it morally right if we based it on a
duty of a parents? Well, it can be, but if we see it in the perspective of a human as a whole,
the action of the parents cannot be justifiable because they are being one sided and
considering genetic engineering is morally wrong to begin with because what if all people in
the world do it? Every child who is brought out of that means will suffer their whole life.
That is why we come up with the conclusion that genetic engineering, no matter what the
means or ends are is considered morally wrong in the lens of Deontological Theory and
humanity as a whole.

Action Plan

The main impediment to addressing the hazards of genetic engineering will continue
to be ethical issues. How to regulate the application of genome editing technologies in the
medical field is a subject of great concern? When gene editing is utilized to treat a genetic
condition of an unborn child, where any off-target alterations might swiftly develop, it poses
several ethical issues. The debate over the benefits and drawbacks of gene editing reportedly
gained attention after a Chinese scientist said he had altered the genetic makeup of two
unborn children, according to the article published by Li and Yao (2022). The modifications
were intended to be beneficial and decrease the unborn children's vulnerability to HIV
infection. However, there are worries that the targeted genetic sequence in this surgery could
potentially have an impact on how the brain develops. It also makes one wonder what
"informed consent" actually is. In research from Scelta et al. (2019), although genetic testing
is becoming prevalent, especially in the United States, it is not generally regulated. Numerous
genetic results' claims have not been independently validated, rendering them vulnerable to
fraud and manipulation. What's more, there are no standards for human genome research that
are accepted globally. It's conceivable that informed consent, privacy protections, and patent
rights are insufficient to halt unethical genetic research. Moreover, a real human being's
existence, mind, and body are fundamentally altered throughout the process of generating a
designer baby, often without the person's knowledge or consent. Without the infant having
any control over whether or not it is something the baby wants, it will change the baby's
intellectual, psychological, and physical composition for life. It is a procedure in which the
infant will not be treated more like a human person, but rather as a subject in a scientific
experiment.

Genetic engineering is not an error-free procedure. The long-term safety of genetic

modification on healthy human embryos is unknown and may result in permanent mutations
and catastrophic effects on future generations' heredity. The practice of genetic modification
to produce designer offspring is still in its early experimental stages. Genetics is not always
accurate; hence it is quite probable feasible that a mistake might occur in the case of designer
children. Researchers are concerned that even though they will take every precaution to
prevent any disease in the infant when changing the genes, an unintentional mistake might
result in the emergence of a novel illness that they may not be able to treat (Anderson, 2018).

A milestone should be reached in strengthening accountability and transparency to

end the modification of human genes to deter misconduct and minimize risks. To achieve
this, an action plan is should be disclosed. The action plan is focused on (1) The government
and companies should have committed to no further conversion of any gene for modification;
(2) is necessary to define a distinct offense and a more severe punishment under the criminal
law. If a medical facility or the person in charge fails to fully and honestly advise patients of
any hazards, civil liability should be expected; (3) the use of genome-editing technologies
should be restricted by the creation of more powerful and binding methods; (4) and the World
Health Organization (WHO) lead efforts to strengthen the collaborative network for
improved global registries and surveillance against human genome-editing technologies and
research.