Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Given that a fetus is a developing human being, it ought to have a moral status that is equal to that of other humans. However, the moral status of a fetus is dependent on its health condition and that of the mother. Greasley (2017) asserts that the balance between maternal rights and fetal rights gives the moral status of a fetus. Essentially, a fetus can have no rights, equal rights to humans, or advancing moral status with the gestation period. The purpose of the case analysis is to examine theories that influence the determination of the moral status of the fetus and recommend an appropriate theory.
Theories Used to Determine the Moral Status of the Fetus
The analysis of the case study shows that Jessica and Maria determine the moral status of the fetus based on the human properties theory. This theory stipulates that human properties that a fetus possesses give the moral status. Greasley (2017) holds that for a fetus to qualify as a human and get the deserved moral status, it must have the human genome. As a married couple, Jessica and Marco caused the conception of the fetus with a blend of their genes. Additionally, based on their religious convictions, Jessica and Maria perceive that life is sacred and a gift from God.
Furthermore, Marco Jessica, Marco, and Dr. Wilson employed the cognitive properties theory in determining the moral status of the fetus. According to Rusthove, and Bartholomew (2014), the cognitive properties theory holds that one ought to have cognitive abilities, such as rationality, self-conscious, and communication, to be a human and attain the moral status. Marco and Jessica foresee that their child would not have the moral status because of functional and cognitive disabilities. As Dr. Wilson diagnoses that the fetus lacks arms with 25% probability of developing Downs syndrome, it implies that the fetus has no moral status.
Marco, Jessica, Maria, and Dr. Wilson use the relationship theory in determining the moral status of the fetus. This theory holds that the moral status of an individual is dependent on the position of an individual in the social matrix. In the society, humans live in the hierarchical social matrix, which creates diverse forms of relationships with parents, siblings, relatives, and friends. The position of an individual in the social matrix determines the nature of relationships, which subsequently influence the moral status (Rusthoven & Bartholomew, 2014). In the case study, the fetus has the moral status because its survival is dependent on decisions of Marco, Jessica, Maria, Dr. Wilson, and the priest. As parents, Marco and Jessica have the obligation of protecting their unborn baby. Maria, the guardian, has a duty of advising and counseling the young couple on how to build their family and bring up children. Dr. Wilson has the responsibility of advising the family on the course of action aimed at improving the quality of life for the fetus. The priest offers spiritual guidance and prays for the family to overcome challenges that they face in relation to the fetus.
The Influence of Theories on Recommended Actions
The human properties theory makes Jessica and Maria recommend carrying the pregnancy to term as the course of action. Both Jessica and Maria assign the moral status to the fetus for they consider life as a sacred gift from God. In this view, Jessica and Maria believe that the fetus has an inherent moral status that is not subject to human determination. Moreover, from the perspective of the human properties theory, the fetus has human genes, which determine its moral status. Thus, the human properties theory recognizes the fetus as a human and assigns it the moral status that is worthy of humans.
Marco, Jessica, and Dr. Wilson recommend for abortion based on the cognitive properties theory. Basing on this theory, the fetus does not qualify to be a human because it lacks cognitive abilities, such as rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and purposeful action. Since the fetus has cognitive disabilities, Jessica and Marco fear that the life of their child would be entirely dependent on them. Dr. Wilson asserts that fetus has no moral status for he predicts that the fetus would have a disability and endure poor quality life.
The relationship theory makes Marco, Jessica, Maria, and Dr. Wilson protect the fetus from undue suffering. Being parents, Marco and Jessica are ready to protect the fetus by ensuring that their family lives a meaningful life. Maria is the guardian who has the responsibility of guiding the young family and advising them on how to cope with challenges in life. Dr. Wilson plays a central role in the social matrix for he provides sound medical and scientific advice, which is essential in ensuring that the fetus does not live a miserable and deprived life. Thus, the relationship theory creates a dilemma in the determination of the moral status of the fetus.
The Appropriate Theory and Recommended Action
I agree with the action of the cognitive properties theory in the determination of the moral status of the fetus. This theory recommends the abortion of the fetus because it determines that the fetus lacks cognitive and functional abilities. Crary (2016) argues that cognitive abilities define the moral status of an individual as they reflect the capacity to lead a quality life. Since the diagnosis shows that the fetus lacks arms and has a predisposition to Downs syndrome, it infers that the fetus has no cognitive abilities to warrant the moral status. Thus, although the human properties theory and the relationship theory assign some level of the moral status to the fetus, the cognitive properties theory negates their determinations for it has a medical and scientific basis.
References
Crary, A. (2016). Inside ethics: On the demands of moral thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greasley, K. (2017). Arguments about abortion: Personhood, morality, and law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rusthoven, J., & Bartholomew, G. (2014). Covenantal biomedical ethics for contemporary medicine: An alternative to principles-based ethics. New York, NJ: Oxford University Press.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.