Ethical Dilemmas In Prenatal Life

Pregnancy includes many different topics, such as conceiving, prenatal care, labor, birth, and adoption, so the ethical dilemmas that can occur are many. The reproductive system produces a new life, and at what point during the pregnancy this life has rights of its own is a much debated subject. Should a mother have sole maternal rights over the prenatal life, and therefore, the right to make choices as she sees fit? Or should the father have an equal say in the decisions? Perhaps once the child has reached a certain stage in development, neither the mother nor the father have the right to make certain decisions, like abortion, since the child has the autonomous right to live. This brings us to the ethical dilemmas and contrasting values
that revolve around prenatal testing, and the right to selectively abort the child based on the results. There are several different types of prenatal tests that can be performed during pregnancy. Prenatal tests are designed to give you information about your health and your babies health. Some tests can even help detect the possibility of birth defects and genetic diseases. While some prenatal tests are recommended by doctors to all pregnant women, other more complicated tests, like genetic testing for certain abnormalities, are recommended for those that are considered high risk (WebMD, 2016). Of the genetic testing performed during pregnancy, some are “screening” tests that tell you whether or not the baby has a higher risk of being born with a certain abnormality or disease, while others are “diagnostic” tests that give a more definitive result. Prenatal testing can be viewed from different perspectives depending on how a parent uses the information.
If testing is done strictly for informative purposes and to prepare the family for any abnormalities, it might not be as controversial. However, if test results come back positive for a genetic abnormality, such as Down syndrome, ethical dilemmas arise from a decision of whether or not to abort the pregnancy. For certain life threatening illnesses that would reduce a child’s life expectancy down to a couple of years, with a poor quality of life, the decision to abort might not seem so unethical. But if that’s the case, where do we draw the line? And, who decides what diseases or abnormalities would make it ethically ok to abort a
child? The range of genetic prenatal testing for conditions and traits that are available today is rapidly growing (Kukla & Wayne, 2015). With so many tests available, or might become available, to test things like eye color, height, sexual orientation, or psychological traits raises a variety of ethical issues related to selective abortion. Viewing the issue of prenatal testing and selective abortion from different philosophical approaches is a good way to find a more ethical relativist solution. A consequentialist would view prenatal testing as a morally right action. The testing itself causes very little harm, if any, and the results of the test can be considered very important information in some cases. If a consequentialist were faced with the decision of whether or not to abort their child, based on the results of genetic prenatal testing, it would depend on the impact the abnormality has on the child’s wellbeing, the families wellbeing, and what it would mean for society. If, for example, the child was diagnosed with a 100 percent chance of developing asthma by age 5, a consequentialist would view this as having little impact on the well-being of the child, very little impact on the well-being of the family, and no impact on society. So in this case, having a child with asthma has less consequences than what might happen if society found out they aborted their child because he might have asthma. In other circumstances, for example, a test result that indicates the child will be born with down syndrome, would be viewed differently. In this case, a consequentialist would feel that the morally right thing to do is to abort the child because the consequences are greater. The child would have a challenged life, with lower than average sense of well-being, the parents would have to take drastic measures to care for the child, and it would ultimately affect their well-being. Society would have to help support the child, through disability taxes. When viewing this from a deontological perspective, the choice would be much more clear. As an expecting mother, you have a duty to love your child unconditionally and to protect them from harm. Since you have a duty and obligation to care for the child, and a decision to abort the child based on the results of genetic testing, would be avoiding your duties, and morally wrong. A deontologist would use the results of genetic testing, strictly for preparation. They would prepare themselves mentally, and learn about the condition so they could give their child the best care possible. A much more complicated ethical dilemma is the one a virtue ethicist would face. Because we are all brought up differently, in different societies, with different parents, and with various educational backgrounds, we place higher value on different virtues, and would therefore feel differently about this dilemma. A virtue ethicist would make the decision based on how bad the abnormality is. The ethical dilemma is between which virtues the ethicist values more, and because this varies across individuals, one person might decide it would be wrong to let a child be born blind, while another might feel that the child’s life is more important than his sight. After looking at any ethical dilemma from the different ethical perspectives it’s easy to see why some people feel a choice is morally right, while others may feel is morally wrong.
Every person’s perspective of morality is different, which is fine, provided they follow the rules in the society they live in. From a deontological perspective, we have to follow the rules and laws of society. From a virtues perspective, we might not always feel that what we are doing is the right choice, but if it’s the law, and we want to be good members of society, we do it anyway. As far as societies governing body is concerned, they have to set the rules for things like selective abortions according to all three ethical philosophies. First of all, they have a duty (deontology) to society and have to respect everyone’s right to make their own decisions. They also have a duty to protect the future generations. Secondly, governing bodies have to look at the consequences (consequentialist) of the actions they allow to take place, before making a decision on whether or not it should be permissible. And lastly, governing bodies have to consider the virtues of each individual, giving them the freedom to make their own choice when the consequences are not too great for society. In conclusion, the ethical dilemma surrounding selective abortion, is one that society as a whole chooses where to draw the line. When people begin to select their children based on eye color, or any other physical
traits, I believe we will see a shift that limits or prevents abortions all together. Until then, up until a specified time in the prenatal stages, our right to make our own choice is the law in the United States, but when the consequences of this privilege start to outweigh our individual rights, we will see that change (Guttmacher Institute, 2016).