Should we strive to save a foetus's life once the carrying mother is brain-dead? Justify your answer.

Authors Avatar

Should we strive to save a foetus’s life once the carrying mother is brain-dead?  Justify your answer

The most difficult part of answering this question came from my own prejudices and preconceived ideas. I found myself agreeing with things I did not want to agree with because there was no suitable available explanation to the contrary. Taking a step back my own ideas obviously came from my upbringing, a predominantly Christian society. Taking theology out of the picture seemed wrong at first but since it is already out of the picture, bringing it in would be even more obsurd. Indeed if theology were that important, presumably the girl who is brain dead (I will call Sarah), would not have had sex outside marriage in the first place. Religion would be called upon to decide the ultimate fate of the foetus if this happened to a married couple. Since it is not we must look for other ways at finding our difference from animals. Why should we act morally if we are animals after all? This is answered in the way that we are separate from animals, and it is this which either connects us to or separates us from foetuses.

The much used quote by Arthur Clough seems to apply best to the status Sarah but I will attempt to discover if it also applies to the foetus. Death is when ‘the moral standing of the individual changes so radically that the same rights and claims attributed to living persons are no longer attributed’. The problem being that ‘moral standing’ is explained differently by different schools of thought, usually an attempt at assessing the moral status of the foetus which we will discuss later.

In our case, the death of Sarah is not disputed. The EEG shows no traces of brain activity. Switching off the ventilator would be perfectly acceptable since a person cannot be killed twice. What we must further discuss is whether it would be right to switch off the ventilator, allowing the foetus inside Sarah to die. The main problem is the geographical location and environment. If the foetus was located a few inches away having emptied its lungs of fluid and severed the connection with its mother, there would be a legal (and moral) obligation to treat it in the hope of actively prolonging its life, rather than ending it.

Wasserstorm describes four possible viewpoints people will regard foetuses by. The first example is that the foetus has its own unique moral category, which is close, but not identical to that of a typical adult. They are regarded as different and superior to higher animals, but less than persons. The analogy is made of slaves whose rights and status are limited. This argument sees no moral difference between abortion and infanticide but that it is something less than murder. The moral status of the foetus is argued in terms of potentiality where abortion would inevitably destroy something capable of producing things of a highest value, and presumably denying our case foetus its potential would therefore be a moral wrong.

The second possible moral state of the foetus explained by Wasserstorm describes it as having the same moral state of the human, justified theologically that at conception it acquires a soul which immediately sets it apart from other entities. Also justified by the fact that a third trimester foetus is exactly like a neonate, where such beings are regarded with the same moral significance as adults and afforded the protection and respect of an adult. Without a definitive point where this high moral status is reached, it is said this status should be given at conception. Here our foetus would be as valued as one of us and switching the ventilator off would be murder. If Sarah had survived, her life would presumably have been balanced against that of the foetus where none should have had a preference over the other. The fact that Sarah was a relatively young conscious being and her baby had never had a consciousness may have worked in her favour.

Wasserstorm’s third viewpoint of the foetus states that it is nothing more than a collection of cells such as and organ or a tumour. This point opposes the previous point by stating the differences between normal humans and foetuses, in terms of our consciousness, autonomy and communication.

The final state of the foetus is proposed that it is as morally relevant as an animal, an entity entitled to the same respect we would give to higher animals. This accepts that it is wrong to inflict needless pain or cruelty on the animal due to the high possibility they can suffer, and consequently the moral state that would place upon us as mediators of this suffering. This thought allows foetuses to be used for the benefit of humans like animals are, including experimentation.

These states give the case foetus a range of values, from full value at conception as given to full adult persons or no more value than that of say, a plant. Our foetus either has some moral value or none at all. We should either help it live out of duty or let it die since it may have no worth. Conflicting views emerge from the fact that legally the foetus has no value but there is something which compels the doctor in our case which would probably by backed by a significant proportion of the population to endeavour to keep the foetus alive and healthy, to enable it to become one of us, that is a valued person.

Join now!

That which we value most about ourselves is proposed by Harris as the concept of rationality and self-awareness in a time frame. The fact that as persons we can indeed value our own existence and justify this, and want to go on living is said to be the thing that makes us valuable over other entities. Such value is said to be species neutral but complex language such as ours seems to be definite proof of this value. In our case of mother and child the only person valued as described here was the mother before she became ill. Upon ...

This is a preview of the whole essay