The quality of life is best defined as the general well-being of individuals and societies. John A. Robertson argues that infants are persons, but believes we have no obligation to treat defective infants. Also, we have H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. who argues that infants are not persons, and believes there is a duty not to treat them if treatment prolongs a painful life. Altogether, Robertson and Engelhardt both have different views of the quality of life one possesses.
John A. Robertson rejects the claim that infants are not persons. Robertson says, "The arguments supporting care in all circumstances are based on the view that all living creatures are sacred, contain a spark of the divine, and should be so regarded" (Robertson, p.537). …show more content…
Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. claims in the greater sense that infants are not persons. He argues that the only way infants exist is through their parents and family (Munson, P. 543). Engelhardt states, "Young children, though, are neither self-possessed nor responsible. While adults exist in and for themselves, as self-directive and self-conscious beings, young children, especially newborn infants, exist for their families and those who love them" (Engelhardt, p. 544). With this being said, Engelhardt argues that children are not responsible for themselves only those around them are responsible for them, thus, the parents/guardians utilize their rights on their behalf (Engelhardt, p. 545). He also says, "[U]ntil children become persons strictly, they are persons in virtue of their social roles" (Engelhardt, p. 545). Here Engelhardt is claiming that the parents of defective infants have sole role in the choice of treatment for their child, because the child has no means of deciding for themselves. Also, Engelhardt argues that it is wrongful to prolong the life of a child if pain and agony is foreseen. Engelhardt states, "In particular, it would at least give a framework for a decision to stop treatment in cases where, though the costs of treatment are not high, the child 's existence would be characterized by severe pain and deprivation" (Engelhardt, p. 546). So, if potential injury is rather large than the continued existence of the child may be questioned. Engelhardt says, "Further, it implies that the person 's existence under those circumstances should have been prevented and that not having been prevented, life was not a gift but an injury" (Engelhardt, p. 546). In some instances, life cannot always be seen as a good thing, yet, it can portray that of a wrongful life. Engelhardt states, "This concept involves the claim that certain qualities of life have a negative value, making life an injury, not a gift; it involves, in short, a concept of human accountability
John A. Robertson rejects the claim that infants are not persons. Robertson says, "The arguments supporting care in all circumstances are based on the view that all living creatures are sacred, contain a spark of the divine, and should be so regarded" (Robertson, p.537). …show more content…
Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. claims in the greater sense that infants are not persons. He argues that the only way infants exist is through their parents and family (Munson, P. 543). Engelhardt states, "Young children, though, are neither self-possessed nor responsible. While adults exist in and for themselves, as self-directive and self-conscious beings, young children, especially newborn infants, exist for their families and those who love them" (Engelhardt, p. 544). With this being said, Engelhardt argues that children are not responsible for themselves only those around them are responsible for them, thus, the parents/guardians utilize their rights on their behalf (Engelhardt, p. 545). He also says, "[U]ntil children become persons strictly, they are persons in virtue of their social roles" (Engelhardt, p. 545). Here Engelhardt is claiming that the parents of defective infants have sole role in the choice of treatment for their child, because the child has no means of deciding for themselves. Also, Engelhardt argues that it is wrongful to prolong the life of a child if pain and agony is foreseen. Engelhardt states, "In particular, it would at least give a framework for a decision to stop treatment in cases where, though the costs of treatment are not high, the child 's existence would be characterized by severe pain and deprivation" (Engelhardt, p. 546). So, if potential injury is rather large than the continued existence of the child may be questioned. Engelhardt says, "Further, it implies that the person 's existence under those circumstances should have been prevented and that not having been prevented, life was not a gift but an injury" (Engelhardt, p. 546). In some instances, life cannot always be seen as a good thing, yet, it can portray that of a wrongful life. Engelhardt states, "This concept involves the claim that certain qualities of life have a negative value, making life an injury, not a gift; it involves, in short, a concept of human accountability