Case Study: Fetal Abnormality And Moral Status

The Diagnosis

Moral status in ethics is the position of an entity by value in which it requires to be considered in decision making morally (DeGrazia, 2014). It also seeks to know whether an entity’s well-being can be accounted for by others or whether it can make moral claims on other beings. An entity has moral status if and only to some degree its interests matter morally for its own sake. In understanding moral standing, ethicists have taken several positions to determine the moral status and the existing worth of an entity (Campbell, Ulrich & Grady, 2016). Aristotle’s teleological views the world as a hierarchy where plant and animals in the lower levels have value only when it comes to their purpose to a human being (Fraser, 2008). Kant’s deontological focuses on moral duties human beings have to other human beings in relation to autonomy but not to nonhuman organisms which have no autonomy (Everett, Pizarro & Crockett, 2016). Singer’s utilitarianism argues for recognition of the moral status of nonhuman animals and humans on the basis of interests in experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain (Fennell, 2015).

When it comes to the moral status of the human embryo it lures attention and raises questions of identity, sex, humanity, faith, and healing. In our case study, Marco and Jessica are expectant and the ultrasound scan has diagnosed the fetus is unlikely to develop hands and will have a Down syndrome. Dr. Wilson advises them on the possible solution which is abortion. Marco is willing to support his wife’s decision but also finds it difficult raising such a child due to their economic status and plans. Jessica is also worried about their socioeconomic position and her beliefs that all life is sacred. For Aunt Maria her religious beliefs and practices take the better part of her and go ahead to tell Jessica to let God take control and think of her responsibilities as a mother. The properties which an entity is entitled to acquire moral status are human properties, cognition, moral agency, sentience, and relationship (DeGrazia, 2014). To determine the case of the moral standing of the fetal in this case theories to be used are to be in connection with the views of them.

In personhood theory, primary views of genetic, mental and developmental exist. It assumes that human properties exactly correlate with the biological species. Genetic personhood includes all human beings with respect to their developmental stages and age (Callahan, 2017). Embryos, fetuses, cognitive anomaly, brain-damaged have a human genetic code and are given moral status. From conception, biologically it is important since it is the sanctity of life. Religions like Roman Catholic highlights that human life should be respected in its origins and procreation. The fetus is the unborn child which must be cared for like any other human being (Callahan, 2017). It is in this case that Aunt Maria is telling Jessica to let God take place while she also believes that life is sacred. Since conception to death human beings has the necessary characteristics for full moral status (?uradzki, 2014). Mental personhood focuses on individuals who are capable of self- conscious, self- direction, ability to enter into meaningful relationships, exist independently, capacity for rational thoughts and language use (Bandura, 2014). Down syndrome affects the abilities of a person who has it. In this case, the fetus is incapable of mental personhood and that is the reason Dr. Wilson is advising Marco and Jessica to consider abortion. The cerebral function is of highest importance morally. The fetus is already predetermined to have a Down syndrome. In developmental personhood, it is argued that the closer an entity approaches unquestioned personhood to that possessed by a normal human being the moral status is higher. Normal development of an embryo is likely to grow to adulthood(Hickman, 2014).

The Ethical Dilemma

The relationship theory looks at the relationships in which persons discuss the rights and obligations that raise moral status. Whether a relationship is granted by custom, developed over time, they determine the worthiness of moral status to the persons(Fraser, 2008). Maria and Jessica have a relationship and Maria are pleading with her not to consider an abortion but instead to let God take place and in turn, think of responsibilities of being a mother. Marco and Jessica have a marriage relationship that is granted by custom and he is willing to support his wife in whatever decision she makes.

To my view, moral agency theory stands on the basis of right holding. That is, human beings have the genetic make-up which is sufficient for moral agency. It acts in light of moral reasons. The set of codes located in the genes generate moral agency. It is also based on psychological capacities like empathy and reasoning which have a genetic basis (Owen & Owen, 2015). All normal human beings have the two components. Human beings having a genetic basis for the moral agency doesn’t mean that they will all act morally. Even those at the beginning of life like fetuses have the genetic basis to exercise moral agency since the genetic codes do not change much even after conception (Lapsley, 2015). For children with Down syndrome also show moral agency to some extent. For the case of a fetus lacking hands, it could be because of the defects of the genes that make up an attribute or those that undermine the development of an attribute. That is it lacks the genes to form the hand or some conditions needed by the genes were blocked or unavailable. Hence mental retardation is also caused by abnormal build -up of some certain amino acids which become toxic to the brain and tissues when the cell is unable to process them. Treatment can be done at early stages and normal cognitive growth and development resume. Hence even those with defects in genetic have moral agency (?uradzki, 2014). In this case, the fetus has moral agency too.

Conclusion

It is good to respect every being in principle and treat it well the best possible. The competence of the physician should not be on the basis that he knows best and can act against the will of the patient for the patient’s benefit. In this case, the autonomy of the couple should be given space to make their own informed decisions.

References

Bandura, A. (2014). Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action. Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development,Theory, 45(1).

Callahan, D. (2017). Religion and the Secularization of Bioethics. Hastings Center Report, 20(4), 2-4.

Campbell, S. M., Ulrich, C. M., & Grady, C. (2016). A broader understanding of moral distress. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(12), 2-9.

DeGrazia, D. (2014). Moral enhancement, freedom, and what we (should) value in moral behaviour. Journal of medical ethics, 40(6), 361-368.

Everett, J. A., Pizarro, D. A., & Crockett, M. J. (2016).Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(6), 772.

Fennell, D. (2015). The status of animal ethics research in tourism: a review of theory. Animals and Tourism: Understanding Diverse Relationships, 67, 27.

Fraser, N. (2008). Recognition without ethics?.In The culture of toleration in diversesocieties.Manchester University Press.United Kingdom. 19(1), 20-46.

Hickman, J. R. (2014). Ancestral personhood and moral justification. Anthropological Theory, 14(3), 317-335.

Lapsley, D. (2015). Moral identity and developmental theory. Human Development, 58(3), 164-171

Owen, T., & Owen, J. (2015). Virtual criminology: Insights from genetic-social science and Heidegger. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology, 7(1), 17..

?uradzki, T. (2014). Moral uncertainty in bioethical argumentation: a new understanding of the pro-life view on early human embryos. Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 35(6), 441-457.