I do want to point out here that just because the journalist chose to only quote those particular bits, doesn't mean that Moazami only talked about that during the interview. You're talking about arguments he's failed to make - but you don't know that, he might very well have made those too, except the journalist found them less interesting for the article.
As a teenager, I once got the opportunity to interview someone and turn it into an article that was published in a national newspaper here - but I still remember how upset I was when I read the final printed article, in which the editors had liberally edited the interviewee's actual words, turning some of my paraphrases or interpretations into direct quotes and various other changes. I never did find out if the interviewee was also bothered by having words put into their mouth, or if they were more media-savvy than me and had known in advance to expect that. But ever since then, I've been careful not to take written interviews too literally - and certainly when it's just one or two sentences as part of a larger article, like here.
Anyway, all that aside, I don't think it's right that the quoted statements are 'dismissing ethical principles entirely', they are just taking a different view on the ethics of the case? One less aligned with your Catholic view, no doubt, and more utilitarian in nature. But you know, that's what ethical debate is all about, how to weigh competing mutually exclusive interests against each other - in this case, certainly the interests of the donor but also those of the people waiting for transplants. Some people who favour capital punishment might, for instance, not consider it unethical to use death row inmates as involuntary organ donors, or might even want to speed up their execution on account of that. To me that idea is abhorrent, but then I don't think there is a single objectively true set of ethical principles which everybody must agree on...
