Introduction
In the modern world, there are two popular opinions concerning the appropriateness of abortions. Crudely speaking, some people are convinced that pregnancies should always be controlled by women, whereas others tend to equate abortions with crimes. However, apart from these extremities, there is a number of intermediate positions that are demonstrated in the assigned case. The paper aims at analyzing them, presenting the underlying theories, and defining the most appropriate perspective to be used in the case.
Which theory or theories are being used to determine the moral status of the fetus?
As is clear from the details provided in the case, Maria is a person who tends to evaluate anything with the help of religious categories and notions. The fact that her immediate reaction to the heartbreaking news is praying and saying that everything is in God’s hands is indicative of her position. The woman’s opinion is based on Christian religious ethics, according to which having abortions is incompatible with having high moral standards.
In reference to the physician, Dr. Wilson, he values the principles of non-violent communication and wants to inform Jessica about the prognosis and the consequences of each decision with maximum honesty. Coupled with his unwillingness to involve a sense of duty in decision-making, it indicates that scientism and, possibly, utilitarianism are the theories that shape his opinion. Dr. Wilson emphasizes the role of objective facts such as the inability of the fetus to feel pain during the first and the second trimesters of pregnancy (Page, 2015).
Marco, Jessica’s husband, is likely to construct his viewpoint with regard to the principles of utilitarianism and ethical egoism. In general, he is ready to accept any decision of his wife since he loves and respects her, but he clearly understands that the birth of a child with a disability would prevent him and Jessica from improving their financial situation. The fact that Marco would not want to sacrifice his well-being to meet the needs of a disabled child shows the link between his position and ethical egoism (Kahane, Everett, Earp, Farias, & Savulescu, 2015).
Jessica can be called the key stakeholder in the situation being analyzed. As it is clear from the case, it is extremely difficult for her to choose between two possible options informed by Christian ethics and utilitarianism. These options include staying faithful to her religious beliefs concerning the sanctity of life and focusing on the sense of healthy egoism. Obviously, there are numerous controversies between the theories since Christian ethics involves accepting God’s will and self-sacrificing attitudes (Thomas, 2016).
How does the theory determine or influence recommendation for action?
The recommendations given by Maria are clearly influenced by religious ethical values that she supports. The woman believes that it is God who gives life and, following this logic, only God should decide how long every person should live. In the Christian perspective, unborn and young children are sinless and “spiritually blameless”, which makes crimes against them even more violent (Thomas, 2016, p. 518). Together with the importance of self-abnegation, these considerations make Maria appeal to Jessica’s sense of guilt and discourage her from having an abortion.
When it comes to Marco, it is not stated in the case that he encourages Jessica to make a certain decision. In general, his line of conduct is based on his feelings to his wife, and he does his best to support her. However, his viewpoint and recommendations are also impacted by the utilitarian worldview. According to it, the maximum utility defines the best option to choose. The birth of a disabled child would be a problem in terms of his or her future, mental health, relationships with other people, and the family’s financial position. Also, they would not be able to meet this child’s unique health needs and afford the treatment that would reduce developmental problems.
Dr. Wilson tells Jessica about all possible options and lets his patient make a decision on her own. Even though he seems impartial, his recommendations for action are impacted by scientism and utilitarianism. The theories value the positive outcomes of actions or utility and scientific facts (Burch, 2016). His recommendations emphasize utility since he refers to the future child’s bad quality of life and his parents’ mental torment. At the same time, being a healthcare professional, he values objectivity and scientifically proven facts. It is common knowledge that in-clinic abortions are safe for women, painless for the human fetus, and do not cause infertility.
What theory do you agree with? How would that theory determine or influence the recommendation for action?
All theories mentioned have their advantages, but to me, the use of religious viewpoints in patient education is not the best option since healthcare specialists should offer facts. Respecting patients’ religious beliefs is pivotal, but outcomes for clients should be evaluated objectively and correctly disregard of healthcare workers’ religious affiliation. With that in mind, I agree with scientism and the recommendations given by the physician.
Using this theory, I would honestly tell the patient about the consequences of choosing an abortion. Among the latter, there are abortion risks compared to pregnancy risks, safety, the types of abortion procedures, possible complications, etc. In addition, it would be paramount to discuss the key health risks for abnormally developing children, physical/intellectual disabilities and their impact on the process of socialization, and the cost of medical care for rare conditions and Down syndrome.
Conclusion
To sum it up, the assigned case demonstrates a range of popular positions related to abortion disputes. Importantly, all participants except for Dr. Wilson use their personal interests to a different degree; thus, Maria is ready to do her best to help Jessica with her child, whereas Marco focuses on financial difficulties. The objectivity of the scientism perspective used by Dr. Wilson and his unwillingness to misrepresent facts justify its use in the healthcare context.
References
Burch, M. (2016). Religion and scientism: A shared cognitive conundrum. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 80(3), 225-241.
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193-209.
Page, S. (2015). The neuroanatomy and physiology of pain perception in the developing human. Issues in Law and Medicine, 30, 227-236.
Thomas, D. (2016). Better never to have been born: Christian ethics, anti-abortion politics, and the pro-life paradox. Journal of Religious Ethics, 44(3), 518-542.