Index IntroductionPlotEthical AnalysisMy Sister's KeeperConclusionWorks CitedIntroduction'My Sister's Keeper', directed by Nick Cassavetes, was released in June 2009. The film is an emotional journey. The story revolves around Anna Fitzgerald, a teenager conceived for her seriously ill sister as a blood and marrow donor who has undergone countless operations and medical procedures. While the life of Kate, the eldest daughter, has been prolonged, Anna's decision to sue her parents for the rights to her body sets off a court case that destroys the family. Although the film represents a number of morally complex issues, from the ethics of genetic engineering to the right of terminally ill patients to choose to die, to a minor's right to control his own body, there is a moral struggle raging within of 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Plot Kate was diagnosed with leukemia when she was two years old. She has difficulty fulfilling her "big sister" responsibilities because Anna is repeatedly the one giving to her. Anna is known as the "savior child", the one able to keep Kate alive, which explains the chosen title, "My Sister's Keeper". Anna begins by leading the audience to believe that she is suing her parents for the rights to her body; she doesn't want to be Kate's donor, but it's actually Kate who wanted Anna to file a lawsuit because she could no longer bear the battle with cancer. Their parents argue with Anna to save Kate, not knowing the truth behind the cancer. cause. Sara is a determined mother, so much so that her single-minded desire to help Kate hurts others. Keeping Kate alive as long as possible is Sara's intention which requires unprecedented sacrifice and love. He neglects the rest of his family to protect Kate. Jesse, the Fitzgeralds' eldest son, often feels neglected, insufficient, and ignored by his family and goes to the city to feel noticed and observe life outside of his family. Sara, as a mother, is her right to make decisions for the family. However, this is a conflict of interest because Sara is making decisions that save one daughter at the expense of the other daughter's body. Ethical analysis of My Sister's Keeper This film poses complex moral questions, starting with the ethics of genetic engineering. The film does not promote "savior children", but questions the genetic engineering activity aimed at generating new life. Anna's existence is ethically and morally questionable. Savior babies are described as "babies born with HLA-matched body sections, usually umbilical cord blood to be used for bone marrow transplant to preserve the existence of the older sibling." Conception is a normal event that occurs during intercourse. The idea of ​​producing an embryo through engineering disrupts the natural order. Furthermore, those who are religious in a situation like this would contradict religious teachings regarding God's procreation intention. Parental motivation plays a role in deciding whether the development of a savior child is ethical. If the parents do not intend to have any more children and have the savior child for the sake of the other child, then it is a matter of using the savior child as a means to an end. If the parents intended to have more children, then the savior child is desired and was not designed to save the other child. However, having a savior child means using him solely as a meansto reach an end. Even if the savior sibling is loved, there are concerns that the child may feel like a means to some extent. This film also poses complex moral questions, from ethics to the right of terminally ill patients to choose to die. The question that arises is why Kate's doctor suggested a "designer baby", but not euthanasia. Whether terminally ill patients have the right to choose to die raises several moral dilemmas. Kate had no opportunity or support to end her pain and suffering. His parents, for much of the film, neglected his pain. Sara neither appreciated nor respected 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 do everything to die with dignity. With a doctor's care, patients have a better chance of experiencing a painless death. Understandably the doctor did not suggest euthanasia because universally taking a 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 the person from suffering. Other people will not understand what is better for the terminally ill patient than the patient himself. Only Kate is aware of what it means to feel pain and see those around her suffer. Finally, the film poses complex moral questions, starting with the ethics of a minor's right to control his own body. The third question asked in the film is to what extent people have power over their own lives. The right to life is a fundamental right. Anna's future is jeopardized by her duty to donate body parts to her sister. He wants to live a healthy life and achieve what every other average child his age does. Sara neither appreciated nor respected Anna's life. Forcing Anna to donate parts of her body means putting her health at risk. It 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 disempowerment. In this situation, Kate and Anna are powerless, while Sara has power. Sara requests Anna's body part and ignores Kate's request, which reinforces the inequality. Sara believed it was important to keep Kate alive even if it meant continuing to take parts of Anna to provide maximum benefit to Kate. Furthermore, Sara and the doctor acted based on virtue ethics. They did their best to keep Kate alive even though she wanted to die because it would have been morally right. Furthermore, someone with a good character would do everything possible to keep someone alive. Keeping Kate alive would be considered the universal moral thing to do. Ultimately, the family came to terms with Kate's wish and did what was best for both Anna and Kate. The Fitzgerald family followed the Kantian moral principle. A believer in 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 wants rather than letting her suffer from a treatment that is not effective. The family has found a moral balance between the extremes of the situation, Kate dies peacefully, and Anna has become medically emancipated and fulfilled her sister's wish. Furthermore, the principle of utilitarianism is implemented in the film. Utilitarianism states that an action can be justified for a, 46(3), 72-75.