Analysis of “The Schiavos” and “Fetal Testing for Down Syndrome”
Terri Schiavo was a young woman in a persistent vegetative state (PSV) for nearly 13 years. Her husband fought to have her feeding tube removed to allow her to die naturally, yet her family contested his fight, claiming that Terri responded and interacted with them. Although her autopsy results confirmed what her husband argued. Terri suffered from blindness, and the inability to communicate, or interact. Yet her family continued to contest that she interacted with them, (Schiavo Autopsy). Terri’s case involved the application of passive, involuntary euthanasia by allowing her natural death after the cessation of her tube feedings. I will evaluate these cases using Utilitarianism, Kantian Deontology, and Natural law theory. Utilitarianism argues that humanity must concentrate on doing whatever will bring about the greatest happiness for the largest amount of people, (Mackinnon 54). Basing the practice of passive, involuntary euthanasia on this theory, it becomes obvious that Terri could not enjoy life, and lacked the ability to communicate, thus had no chance at happiness. However, permitting her to die naturally would alleviate the suffering of her husband and family and the financial burden of her care. Though her family remained unready to recognize that Terri’s condition as PVS, the autopsy confirmed PVS. Natural Law theory recognizes the connection between law and human morality and encourages us to do what we “ought” to do, (Mackinnon 10). The greatest natural law theorist, Thomas Aquinas, argued that suicide or in this case, assisted suicide, runs contrary to the natural inclination that man should love himself, (Fieser). Application of this theory would indicate that in this case, Terri’s assisted suicide goes against humanity’s natural inclination to love and protect his or her person. Immanuel Kant’s Deontology mirrors this belief. Kant postulated that he had a duty to himself to protect his life at all costs and if he took his life, he would be violating that duty, (Fieser). Thus Kant would have argued that taking Terri’s life by passive, involuntary euthanasia displayed a form of assisted suicide, contrary to human inclination. In contrast, “Fetal Testing for Down Syndrome” utilizes involuntary active euthanasia in which the direct action of a person causes the termination of another person’s life. Medical staff utilize testing and ultrasound technology to determine if a fetus has Down Syndrome. Thus parents must decide to have and care for the child, have the child and adopt it out, or terminate the pregnancy, (Pierce 50-52). Applying Utilitarianism, this active killing of the child would negate that child’s chance at having the greatest chance of happiness. An article in Utilitarian.org argues, “the main consideration would be the interests of the fetus: not only can its future life be expectedly happy (or at least having a balance of happiness over suffering) it might also be the case that the abortion itself produced pain, particularly if it occurs later in the pregnancy, (Abortion 1). Moving on to Natural Law theory which poses that the good intended must not be obtained by means of the evil effects, (Irving), the death of the unborn child may not be considered as a means to enhance the best outcome for the parents. Kantian Deontology respect for humanity poses, “it is the duty of a parent to care for their child, not abort it and that humanity should treat everyone as an ends in themselves, …show more content…
Thus for me, this utilitarian position is the best option as long as it is not used against the will of the patient. That is why it is imperative to consider the creation of Living Wills to make needs and wants clearly known. The application of the three discussed theories to abortion, however, indicate that the parents do not consider the greatest outcome of the child in the womb and its chances of a positive, fulfilling life. The greater value in this case considers the parents, and not the child. Kant’s belief that persons must act out of duty to preserve our lives makes the most sense to me as abortion goes against the rights of the fetus without giving that fetus a chance at a natural, contented
Terri Schiavo was a young woman in a persistent vegetative state (PSV) for nearly 13 years. Her husband fought to have her feeding tube removed to allow her to die naturally, yet her family contested his fight, claiming that Terri responded and interacted with them. Although her autopsy results confirmed what her husband argued. Terri suffered from blindness, and the inability to communicate, or interact. Yet her family continued to contest that she interacted with them, (Schiavo Autopsy). Terri’s case involved the application of passive, involuntary euthanasia by allowing her natural death after the cessation of her tube feedings. I will evaluate these cases using Utilitarianism, Kantian Deontology, and Natural law theory. Utilitarianism argues that humanity must concentrate on doing whatever will bring about the greatest happiness for the largest amount of people, (Mackinnon 54). Basing the practice of passive, involuntary euthanasia on this theory, it becomes obvious that Terri could not enjoy life, and lacked the ability to communicate, thus had no chance at happiness. However, permitting her to die naturally would alleviate the suffering of her husband and family and the financial burden of her care. Though her family remained unready to recognize that Terri’s condition as PVS, the autopsy confirmed PVS. Natural Law theory recognizes the connection between law and human morality and encourages us to do what we “ought” to do, (Mackinnon 10). The greatest natural law theorist, Thomas Aquinas, argued that suicide or in this case, assisted suicide, runs contrary to the natural inclination that man should love himself, (Fieser). Application of this theory would indicate that in this case, Terri’s assisted suicide goes against humanity’s natural inclination to love and protect his or her person. Immanuel Kant’s Deontology mirrors this belief. Kant postulated that he had a duty to himself to protect his life at all costs and if he took his life, he would be violating that duty, (Fieser). Thus Kant would have argued that taking Terri’s life by passive, involuntary euthanasia displayed a form of assisted suicide, contrary to human inclination. In contrast, “Fetal Testing for Down Syndrome” utilizes involuntary active euthanasia in which the direct action of a person causes the termination of another person’s life. Medical staff utilize testing and ultrasound technology to determine if a fetus has Down Syndrome. Thus parents must decide to have and care for the child, have the child and adopt it out, or terminate the pregnancy, (Pierce 50-52). Applying Utilitarianism, this active killing of the child would negate that child’s chance at having the greatest chance of happiness. An article in Utilitarian.org argues, “the main consideration would be the interests of the fetus: not only can its future life be expectedly happy (or at least having a balance of happiness over suffering) it might also be the case that the abortion itself produced pain, particularly if it occurs later in the pregnancy, (Abortion 1). Moving on to Natural Law theory which poses that the good intended must not be obtained by means of the evil effects, (Irving), the death of the unborn child may not be considered as a means to enhance the best outcome for the parents. Kantian Deontology respect for humanity poses, “it is the duty of a parent to care for their child, not abort it and that humanity should treat everyone as an ends in themselves, …show more content…
Thus for me, this utilitarian position is the best option as long as it is not used against the will of the patient. That is why it is imperative to consider the creation of Living Wills to make needs and wants clearly known. The application of the three discussed theories to abortion, however, indicate that the parents do not consider the greatest outcome of the child in the womb and its chances of a positive, fulfilling life. The greater value in this case considers the parents, and not the child. Kant’s belief that persons must act out of duty to preserve our lives makes the most sense to me as abortion goes against the rights of the fetus without giving that fetus a chance at a natural, contented