Introduction
The ethics of abortion concern primarily the question of what moral values are formed in health care, among staff, and in society. Ethical egoists believe that the choice of women who do not want to become mothers is predominant, so prohibitions against abortion are wrong and violate personal morality (Rachels, S. & Rachels, J., 2019). At the same time, proponents of the social contract point out that the issue of abortion is a matter of contract or legislation and belongs to collective use (Economides, 2018). This raises the dilemma of whether legislation and contracts regarding abortion override women’s ethical and moral values and their right to their bodies. On the part of medical professionals, the problem arises of which of these two views is ethically sound from a medical point of view (Faúndes et al., 2004). The paper discusses a hypothetical case in which a gynecologist must decide to perform an abortion for a woman who is a survivor of abuse in a state that prohibits the practice.
Overview of Dilemma
The dilemma under analysis is a conflict between two opposing sides. From an ethical perspective, a woman’s rights to her body are paramount, as are men’s rights to their own (Rachels, S. & Rachels, J., 2019). Consequently, prohibiting surgery, especially after experiencing an act of violence, would violate a woman’s values and morals because she would be forced into psychological distress. Creating such conditions would diminish women’s rights to their own lives and choices, and is therefore immoral.
From the perspective of the ethics of the social contract, the physician’s tactics must be based on current state laws, which require abortion in exceptional cases that do not include sexual abuse. The social contract disregards the moral side of the law, taking it as a given and appealing to it independently of personal opinion (Economides, 2018). Based on this attitude toward abortion, the gynecologist has to check the woman’s pregnancy for exceptional cases (e.g., fetal abnormalities) and then make a decision. If the pregnancy proceeds typically, then according to the contract, he will have to refuse the patient’s abortion, despite the unethical nature of this attitude to the woman’s problem.
Conflicts
There is a conflict of interest between the doctor, the patient, and the current law. On the patient’s side, his interests will take precedence over the opinion of the doctor and the law because it is immoral for a woman to keep a child conceived in sexual violence. At the same time, the doctor’s violation of the law will result in liability for both him and the patient, regardless of his opinion. The conflict would be tripartite, in which the ethical values and morals of the doctor and the patient would stand below the law (Duerksen & Lawson, 2018). In addition, the physician may be a conflict between his professional values and his perception of family and childbearing (Rachels, S. & Rachels, J., 2019). In such a case, there is a conflict about the reasons for which staff personal values take precedence over professional and legal goals.
The central conflict in this dilemma is whether a pregnancy following sexual abuse is a sufficient justification for an abortion, even though the law does not provide for this right. It is a valid justification for the ethical egoist because, in this particular case, morality has been violated, and an invasion of integrity (sexual abuse) has been committed (Rachels, 2018). At the same time, the ethics of the social contract oblige us to put the morality of the law above the personal because abortion becomes a matter of collaborative law and responsibility.
Professional Ethics Policy
The AMA Code of Ethics for Physicians obligates the physician to be compassionate and morally just toward the patient. It also obligates him to be tactful in complex matters and within the bounds of professional values (Faúndes et al., 2004). There may be a conflict over the fact that the code of ethics does not correlate with the family responsibilities of gynecologists (Angier, 2018). It is justified by their professional duty to conduct policy in a way that preserves the nation’s health and promotes fertility (Stretton, 2008). If the physician chooses to be true to himself and his values that such pregnancies are unacceptable, he would be violating his duty of loyalty to society to preserve families (Fathallah, 2019). In addition, there would be a conflict with professional ethics, which forces one to act in the patient’s best interest but to comply with the law.
Moral Behavior
From my point of view, the moral thing for this doctor would be to do the following. First, it is necessary to provide psychological comfort to the woman and make a complete diagnosis of her and the fetus’s condition (Fathallah, 2019). After that, it is necessary to consult based on the law and explain to the patient whether or not she will be allowed to have an abortion (Faúndes et al., 2004). If not, the physician should encourage the patient to continue the pregnancy and seek resources to manage the pregnancy, deliver the baby, and support the unborn child (Medoff, 2010). If so, the doctor may operate, but I believe he should still insist on keeping the pregnancy. It would be the most moral thing to do because it would preserve professional ethics, take the law into account, and not violate the doctor’s family obligation.
Decision
According to Aristotle’s golden meaning, the best solution to the dilemma on the part of the doctor would be to recommend going to a state where abortion is legal. From a utilitarian point of view, abortion would not be a good thing, so the physician should not perform it. Finally, according to natural law ethics, preserving the unborn child’s life is as much the doctor’s responsibility as it is to save the born from disease. From an ethical standpoint, Aristotle’s theory works best because it resolves the conflict by allowing the patient and the doctor to have the same rights regarding abortion (Angier, 2018). Other theories, however, do not imply that the dilemma can be resolved in the patient’s favor and are therefore not ethical concerning the patient. However, I disagree because a physician’s morality must be determined by his desire to preserve any life (Stretton, 2008). Therefore, the ethics of resolving the dilemma is not attainable because it violates any creature’s sacred right to life.
Conclusion
The dilemma regarding abortion is one of the central issues of modern ethics and the social contract. According to the ethical egoist, the dilemma of pregnancy from sexual abuse is resolved in favor of abortion; according to the contract, it is contrary to state law and wrongful. There is a conflict of interest between the physician, the patient, and the subject matter of the law; furthermore, the physician’s professional values clash with his family’s obligations to the nation. The most ethical solution to the problem would be Aristotle’s golden mean principle because both physician and patient would be relieved of their obligations to the law. Nevertheless, from my point of view, the best solution is the ethics of natural law, namely the preservation of the unborn child in any case.
References
Angier, T. (2018). Aristotle and the charge of egoism. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 52(4), 457-475.
Duerksen, K. N., & Lawson, K. L. (2018). Removed from humanity: A qualitative analysis of attitudes toward abortion providers in anti-abortion individuals in Canada. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 36(4), 449–459.
Economides, N. (2018). The theory of social contract and legitimacy today. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 9(5), 19-28.
Fathallah, Z. (2019). Moral work and the construction of abortion networks: Women’s access to safe abortion in Lebanon. Health and Human Rights, 21(2), 21–32.
Faúndes, A., Duarte, G. A., Neto, J. A., & de Sousa, M. H. (2004). The closer you are, the better you understand: The reaction of Brazilian obstetrician-gynaecologists to unwanted pregnancy. Reproductive Health Matters, 12(4), 47–56.
Medoff, M. (2010). The impact of state abortion policies on teen pregnancy rates. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 177–189.
Rachels, J. (2018). The elements of moral philosophy (9th Edition). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.
Stretton, D. (2008). Critical notice-defending life: a moral and legal case against abortion choice by Francis J. Beckwith. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(11), 793.