Legal and Ethical Issues in Health - Book Report/Review Example

Legal and Ethical Issues in Health of Introduction Infanticide is one of the issues that have resulted in quite a lot of heated debates and controversies not only in recent time but also during historical times. Pitted against each other in these debates are the opponents and the proponents of infanticide. Scholars, more so health scholars and philosophers have been in the forefront advocating for or against infanticide and other related acts such as assisted suicide and abortion. Infanticide refers to the act of intentionally killing an infant. Infanticide should however not be mistaken for neoanticide, which refers to the killing of babies within 24 hours of their birth. While some societies had some infanticide norms that were accepted, more so with regards to the girl child (sex-selective infanticide), others banned such practices and both sexes were regarded equally important. The United Kingdom is one of the countries in which infanticide continues to be a rather controversial public issue (Hoffer & Hull, 1981). At the frontline in the infanticide debates in Britain are health practitioners and philosophers of divergent standings and opinions. In the UK, one of the renowned philosophers who have taken stances on the issue of infanticide is Jonathan Glover, a British philosopher of ethics who was born in 1941. This paper thus critically discusses Jonathan Glovers case for infanticide, explaining his argument for the practice. Most of Jonathan Glover’s literary work on death, life, capital punishment and war are examples of practical or applied ethics with rational and rather composed approach to and light on a number of highly controversial but key moral issues concerning life and death. In fact, Glover’s arguments for these social issues, more so infanticide and abortion are quite fair and balanced, not to mention insightful and free of redundant philosophical technicalities (Hoffer & Hull, 1981). Jonathan Glover’s Case for Infanticide In his book “Causing Death and Saving Lives” that was published in 1977 for the first time, Glover discusses several practical ethical issues often raised concerning death and life with regards to abortion, infanticide, suicide, euthanasia, capital punishment, and war. The approach that Jonathan Glover uses in supporting infanticide is rather largely consequentialist. Even so, he gives some emphasis on individual autonomy, which would see people being treated not as means to an end but as ends. According to Glover, mere consciousness or life itself are not fundamentally valuable as they are pre-requisites for other aspects of living that make life precious and worth living (Glover, 1991). There are several arguments and principles put forward by the opponents of infanticide that Glover disagrees with. These include the principle of double effect, the assertion that the acts of killing people and letting them have different moral implications and the doctrine of acts and omissions. In his philosophy and literary work, Glover uses historical and current cases in which he stresses the penalties of moral decisions for those affected instead of merely emphasizing the theoretical principles that are remotely applied. One case that Glover uses to emphasize his support for infanticide involves a couple named Hector and Rosalie Jean Zevallos who were abducted in August 1982 for carrying out abortions in Granite City, Illinois (Glover, 1991). In fact, this couple was threatened with death if they did not close their clinic. However, they were released after eight days. This is just an example of the many antiabortion/anti-infanticide waves of violence that has been encountered since historical times. Cases abound in which planned health facilities such as hospitals and parenthood clinics have been torched while their owners and their families have been threatened with death. The reasons Glover cites for the passion that infanticide and abortion bring about include the issues of feminism, morality, religion and the need to establish social control of medical expertise and technology. The issues and questions are particularly raised in connection with peoples’ rights to be parents and an infant’s right to life. Glover agrees that with such weighty issues coming up, it is expected that infanticide results in such deep and conflicting emotions in society. However, one is easily struck by the manner in which the simplicity of the resulting emotions contrasts with the complexity of the issues raised by the infanticide debates. The emotionalism and oversimplification of the emotional responses to infanticide have only resulted in far-fetched claims and stances by both sides of the infanticide debate. While some view infanticide or abortion as the mere removal of a part of a woman’s body, others consider the infant as much a person as any grown human being (Glover, 1991). Explicitly, while the opponents of infanticide are accused of supporting the oppression of women, those supporting infanticide are accused of supporting murder. Jonathan Glover generally asserts that infanticide is ethically and morally justifiable, emphasizing that the concept of the “sanctity of human life” is not only erroneous but also misleading. Glover further states that it is the autonomy of the person whose life is at stake that should be the basis of the decision to end a life. That is, besides the degree to which a given life is worth living, the effects of such a life are the other factor that should be considered before a life is ended (Glover, 1991). Glover thus proposes that a policy that recognizes that infanticide is not always wrong is the best way forward for dealing with the debates and controversies surrounding infanticide. Criticism of the Principle of Double Effect As mentioned earlier in this paper, Glover criticizes the principle of double effect in his arguments for infanticide. The principle of double effect, also known as the double-effect reasoning, refers to a moral criterion by which some philosophers evaluate the acceptability, tolerability and morality of certain legitimate acts that would be normally be avoided due to their negative effects. For instance, while it is legitimate to relieve a terminally ill patient of his/her pain, it would be immoral for those ascribing to the principle effect theory to relieve such a patient of pain if such an action would result in the death of the patient. Homicide self-defense, assisted suicide and infanticide are some of the health practices that have been marred by issues relating to the principle of double effect. One element of the double effect that Glover criticizes is that an action with anticipated and inseparable harmful effects is justified if the nature of the act is itself good and ethically neutral (Milner, 2000). Second, Glover opposes the assertion by the adherents of the principle of double effect that if an act is committed with the intention of its good effects and not the bad effects as a means to an end and as an end itself, then such an action is justifiable. That an act with bad effects is considered justifiable if its good effects prevail over the bad effects in sufficiently justifiable circumstances is thus one of the elements of the principle of double effect that Glover rejects. Glover states that the principle of double effect is repeatedly used and cited in pregnancy, abortion, assisted suicide and infanticide by those opposed to these acts to justify the same acts. For example, medical practitioners who oppose abortion are sometimes forced to remove an expectant woman’s uterus or fallopian tube, aware that such an action would certainly result in the death of the fetus or embryo (Glover, 1991). The circumstance forcing such an action by is that the expectant woman is highly likely to die if such a procedure is not undertaken. That the main effect of the process is to save the woman and not to terminate the pregnancy makes the operation justifiable and not carrying out the operation would result in greater sin that saving the life of the embryo or fetus. It thus appears that those opposed to infanticide and abortion apply double standards when it comes to comparing the lives of the expectant woman and the unborn baby. In other terms, the life of the mother is thus regarded as more valuable than that of the fetus or embryo. Largely seen as a consequentialist in his approach to ethical and philosophical issues, Glover rejects the double-effect perception that acts vary in their morality and moral permissibility even when they have the same consequences. Like John Stuart Mill before him, Jonathan Glover believes that people should do the right thing, their motive being duty or reward notwithstanding. Therefore, with regards to infanticide, Glover asserts that peoples’ ethical analyses need not be based on the objectives or the distinctions between anticipated and unintentional consequences of their actions (Glover, 1991). Conclusion Jonathan Glove is one of the renowned philosophers of modern times. Glover is particularly known for his philosophy on practical on issues such as death penalty, infanticide, war and abortion among others. Infanticide, just like other issues related to life and death, has been a rather controversial one is the past and in the contemporary society. In relation to infanticide, Glover asserts that it is the interest of the individual whose life is at stake, which is the most important consideration before the life of an infant is terminated. Glover thus criticizes the proponents of the principle of double effect who only justify infanticide when circumstances endanger the lives of others. According to Glover, therefore, infanticide ought to be considered from the perspective of an infant rather than from the perspective of the simple emotionality of those close to the infant. Whether the life to be terminated or persevered is worth living should be viewed from the infant’s standpoint. Jonathan Glover hence believes that infanticide is ethically and morally justifiable and should therefore be permitted and conducted in the best interest of the individual whose life is at stake. References Glover, J. (1991). Causing death and saving lives: the moral problems of abortion, infanticide, suicide, euthanasia, capital punishment, war, and other life-or-death choices. Penguin books. Hoffer, P., and Hull, N. E. (1981). Murdering Mothers: Infanticide in England and America, 1558-1803. NY: New York University Press. Milner, L. S. (2000). Hardness of heart / hardness of life: the stain of human infanticide. Lanham/New York/Oxford: University Press of America. Read More