Medical ethics case help!?

Question:I have a newborn with anencephaly (she is born without a brain and a very rudimentary brainstem, she has no consciousness, no sense of pain no nothing, is essence she is a human body only, NOT a human being (sorry if I sound too cruel, but that's just my point of view)). One of the parents wants to give meaning to this child's life, for she will surely die, and wants to donate her organs to people in need. The other parent wants to give her dignity, bury her and put her to rest.
1) What moral issues, problems or dilemmas are raised by this situation?
2) What is the morally right (or, perhaps it would be better to say, morally best) thing to do in the situation presented in the case
3) Support whatever conclusions you come to by the most convincing arguments, analysis and evidence you can provide

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I have a newborn with anencephaly (she is born without a brain and a very rudimentary brainstem, she has no consciousness, no sense of pain no nothing, is essence she is a human body only, NOT a human being (sorry if I sound too cruel, but that's just my point of view)). One of the parents wants to give meaning to this child's life, for she will surely die, and wants to donate her organs to people in need. The other parent wants to give her dignity, bury her and put her to rest.
1) What moral issues, problems or dilemmas are raised by this situation?
2) What is the morally right (or, perhaps it would be better to say, morally best) thing to do in the situation presented in the case
3) Support whatever conclusions you come to by the most convincing arguments, analysis and evidence you can provide

I see no moral dilema. Donating organs does not remove the dignity of the child.

Is that father willing to watch yet another baby die knowing his signature would prevent it? Would that father have denied a donation from another baby if that would have saved his. Of course not.

Allowing that child's unavoidable death to help another survive is the highest form of moral act that can come from this.

Well, considering the child is a minor, it is the parents perogitive to do either. The child's ailments, while extremely sad, are somewhat irrelevant. This case presents the same questions as would one with a 6 year old who had cancer. Firstly, the child must be allowed to live for as long as it naturally could. Upon its seemingly inevitable death, I believe it should not have it's organs donated if one parent vehemently objects. Considering they were both in joint custody of the child, donating the organs should require both of their approvals.

The "child" isn't suffering anything. Because it isn't conscious. So it's actually better to farm its organs, if that is even possible. The ony reason I'd "put it to rest" is because it is troublesome, and it depends on how philanthropic a person wants to be with their deductibles, medical insurance, etc. complications.