Engelhardt's Wrongful Life
Robertson has the stronger defensible position in regards to the ethical issue of when, if ever, it is morally permissible or even obligatory to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from an infant that is severely handicapped.
Engelhardt’s strongest opposing argument is his claim that there is no obligation to treat when the infant’s own life would be worse than death – this is also known as the “injury of continued existence”. Engelhardt takes a nonconservative stance on this issue – meaning that he believes in rights and rules and that the best consequences are not necessarily the only determining factor. Engelhardt argues that infants have a right not to have their lives prolonged” (pg. 132). He then proposes a legal concept of “wrongful life” where their actual existence is …show more content…
Engelhardt also notes that there are negative aspects of life that may give it a negative value, “making life an injury, and not a gift” (pg. 133). He concludes that this is reason enough – that it is in the infant’s best interest – for withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from a severely handicapped infant.
Engelhardt’s argument is insufficient to change my position on this topic because Robertson shows that Engelhardt’s objection is not actually that strong - because even impaired life is often better than it is portrayed and it is nearly impossible for someone else to judge if an infant’s life is worth living or not. Robertson takes a mostly nonconservative stance on this issue – except one of his arguments could be seen as being more conservative, or utilitarian, because he claims that the best consequences are the determining factor in determining if it is ethical or not to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a severely handicapped infant. Robertson argues against Engelhardt by asking if the quality of
Engelhardt’s strongest opposing argument is his claim that there is no obligation to treat when the infant’s own life would be worse than death – this is also known as the “injury of continued existence”. Engelhardt takes a nonconservative stance on this issue – meaning that he believes in rights and rules and that the best consequences are not necessarily the only determining factor. Engelhardt argues that infants have a right not to have their lives prolonged” (pg. 132). He then proposes a legal concept of “wrongful life” where their actual existence is …show more content…
Engelhardt also notes that there are negative aspects of life that may give it a negative value, “making life an injury, and not a gift” (pg. 133). He concludes that this is reason enough – that it is in the infant’s best interest – for withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from a severely handicapped infant.
Engelhardt’s argument is insufficient to change my position on this topic because Robertson shows that Engelhardt’s objection is not actually that strong - because even impaired life is often better than it is portrayed and it is nearly impossible for someone else to judge if an infant’s life is worth living or not. Robertson takes a mostly nonconservative stance on this issue – except one of his arguments could be seen as being more conservative, or utilitarian, because he claims that the best consequences are the determining factor in determining if it is ethical or not to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a severely handicapped infant. Robertson argues against Engelhardt by asking if the quality of