One of the most heavily debated ethical issues in contemporary society is the extent of rights an unborn child truly possesses. In this case study, we read about a woman “G” who has a prior history of abusing glue and various other solvents. “G” already has three children who have disabilities, and was pregnant with another child at the time the Winnipeg Child and Family Service Agency sought injunction to force “G” into a treatment facility against her will in order to protect her unborn child from what they deemed an unfit mother. After initially being taken into treatment against her will, higher courts ordered the her release from treatment facilities. Let the record also show that while “G” did have a past record of solvent abuse, she had been clean at the time, and gave birth to a healthy baby.
The major moral issue that this case addresses is whether it is fair to take basic human privileges from the mother, in favor of the unborn fetus’ human rights. Sniffing glue is not illegal, and neither is drinking or smoking, but there is no denying that these types of abuses can pose some serious health risks to an unborn child. The hard part is not in deciding what is right or what is wrong, but rather deciding who’s claim to human rights carries more weight: the living mother, or the unborn fetus. From a moral standpoint, it is undoubtedly wrong for a pregnant mother to abuse her body, but from a societal and legal standpoint, who is anyone to deny the mother of her basic human rights? What if the pregnant mother decided she wanted to start training for a marathon? As ludicrous as the idea sounds, it is fully within her rights, even if it does put strain on the growing baby in the womb. Does that mean the mother is unfit to take care of a child, and does this justify legal intervention? There are clearly conflicting rights here between the right to self determination on the pregnant mother’s side, and the right to life on the part of the fetus. Many argue however that the latter right should not even be considered, because the question looms as to whether a fetus can or should even be considered as a living person, and if not, if that fetus then has a claim to basic human rights and privileges.
In my personal opinion, which is open to dispute, I find the mother morally flawed in her decision to abuse solvents while pregnant, but in terms of the law I do not see a violation, and feel that she is well within her human rights even if it is at the expense of her baby’s health. I do believe that treatment, however, could prove to be extremely beneficial to her and her children, but not something that should be forced upon her.
– Alexi Msays
Works Cited
Thomas, John and Wilfrid Waluchow. Well and Good: A Case Study Approach to Biomedical Ethics. 3rd ed. Broadview Press Ltd., n.d. Print.
Picture: http://pages.jh.edu/~jhumag/0407web/wholly/p21drug.jpg
Reading this post was refreshing as I, and many others, did not take the same stance. I had not originally thought about separating the mother from the law in the way you did. I think you raised a good point by acknowledging that although the mother may be “morally flawed” she is not violating a law. I am curious though how you concluded she was morally flawed. I agree that she is morally in the wrong, but I believe this because society has constructed scenario’s like this to be unacceptable. If society has constructed glue-sniffing while pregnant to be intolerable, than I believe society has made this belief off of good evidence and thus should act upon it. I do believe that the mother has complete rights to do as she wishes in regards to her own body, but now that there is another body that she is effecting, her rights have changed. As Gabrielle stated, “based on the Theory of Human Properties from Principles of Biomedical Ethics, all humans have rights because they are human; no human is excluded because it is a fetus, has brain damage, has a cognitive anomaly, etc.” According to this position, the unborn child has rights and cannot act upon them. I believe it is our responsibility as society to step in with the health of the unborn child in mind. When the two rights come into conflict between the mother and the child, society must act to minimize harm. The physical harm implemented on the child is greater than the harm the mother may feel from the effect of thinking her rights are violated.
The reason I said the mother was morally flawed was because, as has been said, while glue sniffing, smoking, and even drinking alcohol is still within the realm of one’s legal rights, evidence is unwavering and strong in the matter that this provides health risks for the unborn child. Keeping this in mind, for a mother to harm an unborn fetus that cannot act on his or her own rights, as you put it, is as morally questionable as beating a dog or child for no reason. “G” knows some of her actions will harm her unborn baby, yet since she has control over whether or not to harm it and still choses to harm it, that is a fault in her morality by choosing a clear wrong over a right.