Ethics Case Study: Honoring Parents

Honoring Parents’ Requests: the Ethicality of Termination in Case Study #1 Ethical dilemmas revolving around those with disabilities are quite frequently a topic of contention within the general public, namely that of which asks the question of whether or not one with a disability should live or face significant struggles in the future. The case presented involves a child with Down Syndrome who necessarily requires a stomach procedure in order to survive independently; the child’s parents ultimately decided against the surgical procedure. The child—should doctors abide by its parents’ decision—will ultimately die of exposure. Oftentimes, the denial of human life in a situation like that of which is described is compared by some to that of …show more content…
Down Syndrome comes with a range of side effects and symptoms. Namely, someone who has Down Syndrome is likely to have delayed language, poor memory, and are susceptible to heart defects, gastrointestinal defects, leukemia, spinal problems, immune disorders, and others (Mayo Clinic). Recent research has also identified that those with Down Syndrome also experience a lower tolerance to pain and other issues that present Down Syndrome patients with painful circumstances (McGuire, Defrin). Given these conditions and others, it is apparent that children and adults with Down Syndrome experience a life of pain and negative social stigma. Undoubtedly, most parents take this into account when making a decision on whether or not to terminate a child with a condition such as this. Again, this does not negate the fact that many children and adults with Down Syndrome are able to live happy and fruitful lives, or that some Down Syndrome patients experience relatively little pain and have less side effects as compared to others. However, many parents choose to terminate a child who would have the propensity to suffer at the hands of a unfortunate condition, and that decision should be respected and abided by. With regards to mode of termination, I argue for option one (letting the child die of exposure) rather than directly killing the child. To directly kill a child to avoid suffering in this case would be to kill an already born baby in lieu of letting nature continue and the child die as a result of its condition. I personally struggle with this argument, as I believe that no child should have to suffer the pain of dying of starvation such as this, but I also do not see it as ethical to directly kill an already born baby, although my decision could perhaps be adjusted with further thought. As it stands, however, the decision to “let nature take