Religious and/or moral principles are a hindrance with medical ethics. Examine and comment on this claim, with reference to the topic you have investigated.

Authors Avatar by ghthomas3003 (student)

George Thomas 12JB

Religious and/or moral principles are a hindrance with medical ethics’. Examine and comment on this claim, with reference to the topic you have investigated.

Abortion is the medical ethic of which I have investigated; a controversial topic to say the least. The above statement is one that definitely applies to the problems of abortion. However to understand how the statement can be applied one must come to terms with the definitions and aspects of abortion. Abortion can be defined as the intended termination of an unborn child, a foetus. The abortion act was introduced to the UK in 1967; however in Ireland the approach is still illegal. With abortion there is a criteria that follows: two doctors must certify and allow for the abortion to proceed and an abortion cannot go ahead if the method were to cause any lasting physical or psychological damage. In most cases an abortion can go under way if it protects the life of the mother.

        The methods of abortion are also an important aspect to consider. There are various methods and treatments a woman can have to proceed with the abortion. For example a woman between 7 – 15 weeks can take a pill which induces the same consequences of a miscarriage; an early medical abortion. This contrasts then with the late term abortion which relies on surgery and surgical instruments being used to extract and exterminate the foetus inside the womb. Abortion is a medical ethic which provokes argument through its many aspects of ‘immorality’, ‘necessity’ and most importantly whether it is right or wrong. Firstly I will observe the topic of personhood.

        Personhood is a seemingly important aspect of the abortion topic. Many moral and religious principles do indeed cause hindrance within this complex ethical world. Personhood looks at the idea of a foetus’ position and rights in our world; whether it should be granted ‘person status’ or not. This idea was developed by jack Mahoney who worked to define persons. Through this idea he came up with a criterion in which human life would need to fulfil to reach this ‘person status’. He looked at how a person needs to be able to display traits such as self –consciousness, emotions and rationality to be considered a person. When we apply these attributes to a foetus we can see how one would seem to display none of these traits, therefore a foetus, through this idea, is not a person. Religious principles are definitely a hindrance when observing this medical ethic through the religious idea of ensoulment. Ensoulment is the belief that there is a stage in pregnancy where the foetus is ‘given’ a soul or in a way, a “passport for life”. So when looking at abortion, the termination of a foetus immediately becomes murder. Of course this would conflict with the belief that “thou shalt not murder” which can be seen in the bible. Principles in Hinduism may cause hindrance towards abortion in the light of ahimsa; the belief in reverence for all life. A moral principle may cause hindrance within abortion through ensoulment through belief in conflicting claims – the moral principle of logical correctness. An example of being the suggested ‘cut’ off point where a foetus ‘gains its soul’. St. Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas argue that ensoulment occurs on the 46th to 47th day of pregnancy whilst in Islam, Muslims argue for the occurrence on the 120th day. Here, we can see a set of highly varying dates which would question theists and atheists, “Which is correct?” Another aspect of the personhood arguments comes from the Sanctity of Life (SOL) and Quality of Life (QOL) argument. This is a highly disputed argument which many feminists and social activists may dispute over. In our society recently there are ongoing pleas for the legality of abortion. A prime example, being Ireland versus the European Union. Of course, Ireland is a highly Roman Catholic country therefore their religious principles are of course a hindrance towards abortion. Their belief of women going “forth and multiply[ing]” conflicts with the reasons behind abortion. Their religious principles restrict them for acting ‘personally’. On the other hand, people within the EU care quite strongly about the right of the matter and are very ‘pro-choice’ when it comes to deciding the future of a mother’s life. Many scholars and theists have opinions on the QOL vs. SOL argument, for example Aquinas, who draws much inspiration from the laws of nature, would see the religious principles cause hindrance because he sees it right for the natural cause of pregnancy or even in some cases, miscarriage. He wouldn’t agree with an induced miscarriage or termination. On the other hand theists like Joseph Fletcher would take an approach with the idea of love. Situation Ethics promotes the idea that an action should inflict the most loving thing. Therefore he would sympathise and take into account the woman’s choice of abortion in this case. I believe that the QOL vs. SOL argument is a very strong one indeed and one that won’t cease to exists as long as religious and moral principles remain in our world.

Join now!

        The next topic I will go onto investigate is the idea of viability. Viability is the view that at what point should an abortion be acceptable, or viable? The law in the UK has the cut off point of up to 24 weeks which, with moral and religious principles, causes hindrance to abortion. The hindrance being with moral principles and the cultural evolution. There have been cases where, whilst in the same hospital, women at 22 weeks are going into a premature pregnancy, however another women at 24 weeks is having an abortion. The problem here is that, with the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay