To what extent should society have an interest in protecting the health and well being of the fetus? Although the cases are quite different I do see a basis for comparison between The case of Ms. G and an outside case. This case involved a pregnant Indian woman, Savita Halappanavar, who was vacationing in Ireland. She encountered significant medical distress. The only way to save her life would have been to terminate her pregnancy, which was essentially nonviable at this point. However, her doctors informed her that in Ireland, due to Catholicism, as long as there was a fetal heartbeat there could be no abortion. Now this is not entirely true, the mandate actually states that if there is significant danger to the mother’s life the pregnancy may be terminated. It is important to note that life is not equivalent to health in this case. There are variances in how medical health professionals define and danger to life and a danger to health (Berer,2013). This is a problem with specificity that is directly impacting health outcomes. Savita Halappanavar did not survive and died of septis three days later.
There are multiple dilemmas here. Just as in the Ms. G case other people are imposing on autonomy. Savita tried to argue with her doctors that this was not her will, and that further she was not Catholic or Irish so they should not treat her as if she was. The other side of this is that if the fetus would have been born it would have rights to autonomy as well. So should society protect those rights now? The moral principle of non-malevolence and benevolence are also relevant. There is significant harm being done to her because doctors are refusing to terminate her pregnancy. However, with respect to the fetus some would argue there is harm being done by terminating the pregnancy. Whose well-being are we chiefly concerned with?
Ultimately the decision to protect the health and well-being of the fetus led to the untimely demise of Savita Halappanavar. Although it is easy for us to discount this as the fault of a medical and law system steeped in the Catholic faith, I have to wonder if this is the far end of the slippery slope: taking autonomy away from women with respect to their bodies. Significant harm, death, was done to her by denying her treatment that could have saved her life in a failed attempt to save her non-viable fetus. I believe that the Canadian justice system made the right decision in the case of Ms. G. The Canadian Royal Court ruled that societies duty to promote the health of the fetus does not come at the expense of human rights (Thomas), while Savita’s doctors decided the opposite. This case made global news and has sparked legislators in Ireland to debate abortion public health policy.
Berer, Marge, Termination of pregnancy as emergency obstetric care: the interpretation of Catholic health policy and the consequences for pregnant women, Reproductive Health Matters , Volume 21 , Issue 41 , 9 – 17, 2013.
Thomas, John and Wilfrid Waluchow. Well and Good: A Case Study Approach to Biomedic Ethics. 3rd ed. Broadview Press Ltd., n.d. Print.
I found this case to be particularly interesting. I completely agree that there is a dilemma on behalf of the doctor because his beliefs were set within the guidelines of his faith yet he had a patient telling him to go against his values. I personally believe that the patient’s autonomy should come before the caregiver’s personal belief set. It is also interesting to me the fact that being within the boarders of a country will subject the individual of the local norms. I wonder if the doctor would have been charged with malpractice or even arrested if he were to have followed Savita’s wishes to abort the baby. One way the doctor may have been able to avoid infringing on Savita’s autonomy and Irelands Catholic ideals is to see if it possible for Savita to go to a neighboring country in which the abortion would have been allowed. The doctor may be left feeling guilty for enabling the abortion but at least he would not have participated in it and Savita may have survived. Another question I am left with is why wouldn’t the abortion be allowed if it would ultimately save a life. The result of this specific case was the loss of two lives. No one was benefitted.
You pose some interesting questions. I think time was definitely a factor in this case that prevented the transport as well as her critical condition. There are legal and moral dilemmas to consider here. I do wonder if the care provider’s sense of moral obligation went even further; causing them to fail intervene, but also to thwart any attempts of willing doctors outside of the country to intervene. The imposition on autonomy seems to be quite severe if this is the case.