A Situational Analysis of the Ethical Issue of Abortion and the Responses of the People Involved - Assignment Example

A Situational Analysis of The Ethical Issue of Abortion And The Responses Of The People Involved I. Ethical Dilemma In our hypothetical case, Mrs. Khas an unwanted pregnancy. With four children to care for, the idea of having yet another child to care for is depressing for her. To help Mrs. K, her doctor recommends abortion and referred her to a clinic. This situation presents a big ethical dilemma for the people involved in this case. Although Mrs. K may legally terminate her pregnancy based on the Abortion Act 1967, her unborn child may also have a right to life. Moreover, the fact that the father of the unborn child disagrees with the idea of terminating the pregnancy presents yet another problem. The question now is whether or not Mrs. K has the right to terminate her pregnancy to protect herself from physical and emotional stress. We have to understand that Mrs. K may not be able to cope with the situation and her depression can affect the quality of life of her other kids. Yet, if Mrs. K aborts her baby, she will deprive her baby of a future life. II. Ethical Issues The ethical dilemma of abortion in this case revolves around several issues including the right to life on the part of the fetus, the right of the pregnant woman over her body, the right of the father to protect his unborn child and the right of the healthcare provider to promote the best interest of his or her patient. To get a clear picture of these issues, let us discuss them separately. a. The right of the pregnant woman over her body The big issue here is whether or not the right of the pregnant woman over her own body is superior to the right of the fetus to be born. In our case, Mrs. K is clearly unable to cope with another pregnancy. In fact, she suffers from depression because of this situation. Arguable, a person has some ethical claims over his or her body. In the case of women, physical autonomy may exist as a form of necessity. Since the woman has the right over her body, she has the right not to allow the fetus to use her body. According to Judith Jarvis Thomson in her article “A Defense of Abortion”, aborting the fetus is permissible in some circumstances even if the fetus has a right to life. However, Thomson also said that the woman’s right to abortion does not include the right to directly insist upon the death of the fetus if the fetus is viable or is capable of living outside the womb. In other words, where the woman has the right to her body, the fetus also has the right not to be derived of what rightfully belongs to him or her. An argument that critics often throw at Thomson’s ideas is that where the woman voluntary had intercourse that leads to pregnancy, the voluntary act of the woman can be considered as an implied permission for the fetus to use her body. The idea here is that since the woman is responsible for putting the fetus inside her womb, she now has the duty to let the fetus use her body. Applying the arguments to the case of Mrs. K, we now ask the question as to whether or not it is ethical for Mrs. K to get an abortion and if it is not ethical for Mrs. K to have an abortion, would it be ethical for her to give birth to an unwanted child. Technically, forcing a woman to bring a fetus to full term and then raise the child thereafter is contrary to the very idea of self-autonomy and freedom of choice. In the case of Mrs. K, the fact that she already has four children and that she feels that she cannot cope with another one, forcing her to have another child would be tantamount to depriving her of the right to have quality of life. We have to understand that Mrs. K only has limited capacity to withstand certain situations. In fact, the idea of having another child already made her feel depressed. Clearly, she is not ready to have added responsibility at home. At this juncture, imposing on her to have another child would be unethical in itself. b. The Right Of The Fetus To Be Born The issue as to whether or not a fetus has the right to be born has been the topic of many debates. Pro-life supporters are quite unbending when it comes to the issue of abortion. According to them, the fetus is an innocent human being that should be protected and allowed to thrive. This argument now leads to debate as to when life begins and when the fetus becomes a human being. In the effort to determine as to when life begins, a set of criteria was drawn to mark the personhood of the fetus. These criteria include “consciousness, reasoning, self-motivation, the ability to communicate and self-awareness” (Warren, 1973). All these criteria need not be present for the fetus to be considered as a person. According to Warren, it is enough that some of these criteria be present for the fetus to be considered as a living person. However, the existence of one requisite for personhood does not make the fetus a living human being (Warren, 1973). Note that fetus may be conscious because it can feel pain but it has no power to reason, it is cannot motivate itself, it does not have the ability to communicate the way nature human beings do and it does not have a sense of self-awareness. Warren believes that the fetus cannot be considered as a person at this point because it only satisfies one of the criteria cited. The arguments of Warren are echoed by other experts in the field. According to Tooley (1972), the fetus lacks the right to life because it lacks self-consciousness. It is not even aware that it is alive thus it practically does not have the will or the desire to live. Singer (2000) on the other hand insists that since the fetus lacks rationality, it cannot be considered as a person. McMahan (2002) for his part argued that autonomy is important for the fetus to be considered as person. Since the fetus does not have autonomy, it is not a person. The criteria proposed by Warren have been criticized heavily by different sectors. According to Marquis (1989), the criteria proposed by Warren would deprive two classes of born human being from being considered as persons. These two classes of human beings are the reversibly comatose and infants. He reasoned that persons who are reversibly comatose are not legally conscious or self-aware and they do not have the ability to communicate and to reason at this point (Marquis, 1989). In the case of infants, Marquis argued that infants also lack some of the requirements for personhood espoused by Warren. Warren later on conceded to the arguments presented against her proposed criteria for personhood (Warren, 1982) but this does not resolve the issue as to when the fetus can be considered a person who has the right to be born. The ethical issue of whether or not a fetus can be pre-terminated still stands. c. The right of the father to protect his unborn child Another ethical issue that is present in this case is whether or not the father has the right to compel the mother to bring the fetus to full term. We have to understand that the fertilization of the egg of the woman requires the participation of the man. Without the male sperm, the woman would not be able to bear a child. In our case, Mr. K and Mrs. K are married. In fact, they already have four children. In an ideal world, the parenting should be shared where both the mother and the father have the obligation to nurture the children and provide them of their needs. The question now is that since Mr. K has the obligation to support the child when it is born, does he have the obligation to protect the fetus while it is still in the womb of the mother? If Mr. K as the father of the unborn has the right to protect it, does this mean that he can compel Mrs. K to bring the fetus to full term? The ethical questions presented in this case are rather disturbing and there is a need to really look into the matter and discern as to whether or not the husband can compel the wife to bring the fetus to full term. We have to understand that in the case of Mrs. K, there are already a lot of indications that she may not be able to care for the baby once it is born. The fact that she is already suffering from depression is a clear manifestation that she is deeply disturbed by the idea of having another child. d. The Obligation of the healthcare provider to promote the best interest of the patient The classic Hippocratic Oath that doctors take at the start of their career says that, “I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone …” (see National Institute of Health http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html) clearly show that the doctor has the responsibility promote the best interest of the patient. In doing so, the doctor or the health professional should see to it that his or her advice does not harm the patient in anyway (Edelstein, Ludwig; Owsei Temkin, C. Lilian Temkin (1987). In our case, Mrs. K came to the doctor for advice regarding her condition. Upon knowing that she pregnant and that she is not ready to have yet another child, the doctor advised Mrs. K to get an abortion in accordance with the Abortion Act 1967. The advice of the doctor is only fitting since the patient is already suffering from depression and is has manifested her inability to cope with another pregnancy. Moreover, the act of the doctor in referring Mrs. K to a clinic which provides abortion services is only fitting. The clinic can provide Mrs. K the kind of service that she needs. Although abortion may be done in accordance with law, this does not mean that it is ethical in itself. We have to understand that legal does not always equal to ethical.Yes, the doctor has the obligation to promote the welfare of his or her patient but this does not change the fact that abortion has ethic issues. Note that in the Hippocratic Oath, the physician swears “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, not will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion…” (See National Institute of Health http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html). Given this situation, we now come to a crossroad where the obligation of the doctor to promote the well-being of the patient now comes in conflict with the sworn duty not to intentionally cause an abortion. III. Potential Conflicts And Points Of Agreement in Terms of Ethical Arguments The arguments in abortion cases present both common and conflicting ideas. As mentioned before, arguments regarding abortion in this case revolve around the issue of bodily rights of the woman, right to life of the fetus and the right of the father to preserve the life of his unborn child. When it comes to bodily rights of the woman, the point of agreement may be that the woman has control over her body and she has the right to decide how her body may be used. However, conflicting views now comes in when the right of the woman and the right of the unborn clashes. Pro-life people argue that the right of the woman over her body ends when the right of the fetus to live begins. In other words, when the woman, through consented intercourse conceives a child, she has the obligation to allow the unborn child use her body. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates argue that the fetus is not yet a person thus; it still does not have a right to life. Following this trend of arguments, conflicting views as to when the fetus become a person comes in. Another point of agreement is that the father has the obligation to take care of his children but the conflict comes in when the father encroach upon the right of the mother to control her body. There is a conflicting view as to whether or not the father has the right to compel the mother to continue the pregnancy. IV. Points of View of The People Involved There are three people that are directly involved in our hypothetical case namely, Mrs. K, Mr. K and the doctor. Each of these persons has different views of the situation and their views may be affected by their gender, profession, ethnicity, religion, age and sex. To get a better perspective regarding the views of the people involved in this case, let us discuss them one by one. a. Point Of View of Mrs. K Mrs. K has a large stake in the issue since it is her body that we are taking about. The facts of our case clearly stated that Mrs. K has been on contraceptives for sometimes clearly shows that she does not want another child. Besides, she already has four children to think about. Being a woman may also play a role in her stand regarding the issue of abortion. Note that women have the traditional role of caring for the children and she must be anticipating the impact of another child in the lives of her other children. Since she already feel overwhelmed with the responsibility of caring for four children, naturally, she does not welcome yet another addition to her family. Given this situation, we can say that Mrs. K is in favor of abortion. However, her stand on the matter may be different if she has been a religious person or if she belonged to an ethnic group that frowns upon termination of pregnancy. Note that most Christian churches, especially the Catholic Church, are very much against abortion (Pope Pius XII, November 26, 1951). The Catholic Church generally does not allow abortion except in extreme cases where lives are at stake. On the other hand, the teaching of Judaism, when it comes to abortion is also more or less like the Christian’s. According to the teachings of Judaism, abortion may be permitted where the life of the woman is in danger (Bank, Richard, 2002). As it is, mere inconvenience on the part of the woman does not permit her to abort her unborn child. b. Point of View of Mr. K Although most abortion discussions are centered on the woman that does not mean that the man should be excluded. Note the conception cannot happen if there was no participation of the man so to some extent; the man does have a moral right to present his side of the issue. Contrary to common belief, men do have some strong feelings regarding abortion (C.T. Coyle, 1999). A lot of men tend to feel emasculated when they are not consulted when it comes to decisions regarding abortion (Williams, W. 1996). In the case of Mr. K, he chooses to save the life of the fetus despite the fact that Mrs. K clearly does not want the child. The stand of Mr. K in the mater may be influenced by his gender, his religion and his ethnic background. Gender in this case may play a big role. If we take a look at the situation, it would be a lot easier for Mr. K to demand that Mrs. K bring the fetus to term simply because it is not his body that is going to host the fetus. We have to understand that pregnancy involves a lot of physical and emotional changes and since Mr. K has not experience pregnancy in his life, he cannot relate to the stress that pregnancy brings. Had Mr. K been in the shoes of Mrs. K, he may have a different take on the matter. You see, things change when the person’s body is involved. On the other hand, the religious belief of Mr. K may be a determining factor when it comes to his stand on the issue of abortion. If Mr. K is a devout Christian, naturally, he will not want to have the fetus aborted unless the life of Mrs. K is threatened. In our hypothetical case, although Mrs. K is suffering from depression, in the religious point of view, this is not enough to warrant an abortion. The only time when abortion is allowed under Christian doctrine is when the issue is already a matter of life and death on the part of the mother. c. The Point Of View Of The Doctor Doctors tend to look at abortion at the medical and legal point of view. Under the clinical point of view, a woman who is afflicted with depression is considered as unfit to undergo yet another stressful situation. Since the duty of the physician is to protect the patient from harm, the doctor recommended the termination of the pregnancy. Note that when a certain situation falls within the ambit of permitted abortion, most doctors would recommend the same to their patients. However, the view of the doctor in this case may change when influence of religion comes in. According to the teachings of the church, it is a sin to kill an unborn child. With this in mind, the doctor may think twice about recommending abortion to his or her patients. Bibliography 1. Bank, Richard (2002). The Everything Judaism Book, Everything Books 2. Edelstein, Ludwig; Owsei Temkin, C. Lilian Temkin (1987). Owsei Temkin, C. Lilian Temkin. ed. Ancient Medicine. Johns Hopkins University Press. 3. Marquis, Don (April 1989). "Why Abortion is Immoral". The Journal of Philosophy 86 (4): 183–202. 4. McMahan, Jeff (2002). The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. Oxford Ethics Series. New York: Oxford University Press. 5. Pope Pius XII (Nov. 26, 1951) The Catholic Teaching on Abortion, Allocution to Large Families 6. Schwarz, Stephen D. (1990). The Moral Question of Abortion. Chicago: Loyola University Press.  7. Singer, Peter (2000). Writings on an Ethical Life. Ecco (HarperCollins). 8. Warren, Mary Ann (1973). On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. in Thomas A. Mappes. Biomedical Ethics. David DeGrazia. McGraw-Hill. pp. 456–461.  9. Warren, Mary Ann (1982). Postscript on Infanticide. in Thomas A. Mappes. Biomedical Ethics. David DeGrazia. McGraw-Hill. pp. 461–463.  Read More