Life offers various challenges and hardships, and it is through these elements that people gain experience in life. These challenges often come in the form of decisions that people make, and they could make or break a person. However, decision-making at times is not a matter of life and death; it can be a way in which to learn to prevent future generations from making the same mistakes. In the case study presented, Jessica and Marco need to make a decision based on a report that has been submitted to them by Dr. Wilson. The doctor discovered Jessica’s fetus, and it has been concluded to be abnormal in that the fetus is unable t0 develop arms, and there is a possibility of Down’s syndrome at a rate of 25%.
In addition to this, Aunt Maria has made a suggestion that but they all had a different opinion on the type of decision they were going to make. They argued about their financial situation, individual interests, and their faith. However, in the long run, there were only two decisions to make, which was to either keep the fetus or raise an abnormal child or to do an abortion of the pregnancy. They all had different moral status theories, and this came before factoring in all the considerations before making the final decision. There are specific theories that will be highlighted to establish the type of decisions that these two individuals have made.
Theories used to determine the Moral Status of the Fetus
Jessica feels the need to be financially independent in the future, but at the same time, she believes that life has to be protected, and this is because it is valuable. Jessica’s belief in the value of life as moral status is anchored on the basis that it is alive. She has to make a decision based on the option of keeping the pregnancy because, to her, life is sacred, and it is valuable (Minerva, 2013).
As per GCU analysis, Marco is referring to the fetus at its current age as not having moral status according to three theories, which are the theory of consciousness, philosophy of sentience, and the theory of moral agency (Bernstein, 2015). GCU further defines moral agency as the capacity to make a judgment if something is done worse or best, and whether the intentions can be morally judged. According to Minerva, s fetus cannot be able to function rationally, and it cannot be able to experience pleasure or pain until it is around 28 weeks old. As per the case study, the fetus has not yet attained the specified age, according to Minerva (Minerva, 2013).
The theory of moral agency based on the relationship also applies to Dr. Wilson and his relationship with his patient. Dr. Wilson has to respects the rights and decisions made by both Marco and Jessica, and this is based on their contact (Chen, 2014). The main reason is that people have rights as well as their principles and values. The theory of sentience is applied in the field of medicine, and this involves the rights of animals, which is highly regarded and carried out with high respect.
The fetus will eventually grow into a person, and this is irrespective of that fetus’s imperfection. The embryo will develop as God has intended that being to create. Dr. Wilson understands the situation, and he tells Jessica that she has to have the final word regardless of the decisions and views of the other people. A fetus does not have moral status, and this is because the fetus lacks rationality, which is based on language and self-awareness and the fact that they cannot be able to protect themselves (Bernstein, 2015). However, the fetus will develop and grow into a rational being, and this is where the conflict arises.
The fetus should be given a chance, and this is because there is a chance of the outcome being different from what people think. The baby who is born could end up being mentally capable or incapable, and this is not certain. However, due to financial constraints, everything is working against the couple and their faith. This is a dilemma, and the fact that there is a bond between the mother and the child is a massive hindrance in trying to take the most affirmative action (Bernstein, 2015).
Bernstein, M. H. (2015). The moral equality of humans and animals. Springer.
Crisp, N., & Chen, L. (2014). Global supply of health professionals. New England Journal of Medicine, 370 (10), 950-957.Giubilini, A., & Minerva, F. (2013). After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?. Journal of medical ethics, 39 (5), 261-263.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more