Background
In Case 5.4: Protecting an “Unborn Child,” a mother referred to as “G” has an addiction to sniffing glue and using other solvents. She has already given birth to three children, who have all been given up to child services. Two of those children had mental and physical disabilities due to “G”’s addiction. Upon becoming pregnant again, child services wanted to protect her unborn child and had her placed in a treatment facility. Although the lower court agreed with child services, the Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the decision and released her from the facility. The Court of Appeal ruled that “G” had the right to make her own decision.
Dilemma
Although there are many issues in this case, the main ethical conflict involves autonomy versus non-maleficence. Autonomy is the right to make one’s own choices. This case involves the right of “G” to care for her body during pregnancy. “G” has human rights that were infringed upon by forcing her into a treatment facility. Even if a treatment facility is the best place for her to be, she should still have the right to make her own decision. On the other side of the issue is non-maleficence, which means causing no harm to the physical body. In this case, non-maleficence concerns not harming the fetus. If the mother continues to harm her body through her addiction, the fetus could be affected as well. The ethical dilemma considers at what point the unborn child needs to be protected even if it means restricting the mother’s rights.
Reflection
The central issue in this case can be argued for both sides. In my opinion, it is important to respect “G”’s right to decide whether or not she wants to be in a treatment facility. We should respect a person’s human rights and freedom of choice. However, if “G” chooses to harm her unborn child by her addictions, then I feel the responsible thing to do is to protect the unborn child. Since the child cannot make a case for itself, someone needs to look after his or her rights. I believe that if “G” continues with her addiction, then she should temporarily be placed in the treatment facility for the benefit of the unborn child. “G” should feel that she has a moral obligation to take care of her unborn child while she is pregnant. In not doing so, she could appear unfit to be a mother. Therefore, the wisest decision is to place her in the facility so that she can receive the proper assistance. Treatment facilities have been created and are available to help in situations such as these. Child services are essential in finding cases like “G,”’s where a facility would be the correct course of action. The support of child services should be taken seriously. The ethical dilemma of autonomy versus non-maleficence is a difficult one. However, I am inclined to side with the argument that the benefits of protecting the unborn child outweighs the temporary restriction on “G”’s human rights.
Works Cited
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Thomas, John, Wilfrid J. Waluchow, and Elisabeth Gedge. Well and Good: A Case Study Approach to Health Care Ethics. 4th ed. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2014. Print.
Image Sources
http://www.salon.com/2011/05/18/what_not_to_ask_a_pregnant_woman/
http://homeopathic-treatments.com/?attachment_id=1174
I like that Marissa explained both sides of the issue, and I do see her point with the decision to keep “G” in a treatment facility temporarily. However my issue with this is where do we draw the line of who is mandated to be placed in such a place for the benefit of their unborn child? What if someone drinks a lot, but is not technically an “alcoholic”? Do they deserve to be put in a facility simply because it could harm their child, even if they do not have an addiction? What about the person who eats too much fatty foods and doesn’t exercise? At what point are we taking away an individual’s autonomy at the expense of non-maleficence?
One can make a controversial counter-argument that if abortion is legal in many places and is viewed by some people as being morally sound, then why can’t the mother’s autonomy in this case be respected as well? When a woman undergoes an abortion, she is removing a fetus from her womb before it is able to survive on its own which some people view as being a violation of a child’s right to life. Nevertheless, with the case of an abortion, the baby does not survive to see that his wellbeing was forsaken to protect the rights of his mother, and has to live his or her entire life with the consequences. The child does not have to live with the decisions that the mother may have made during the pregnancy. Of course, whether or not one views abortion as a violation of a child’s “right to life” depends on one’s definition of “life” and opinion on who is allowed to have “rights”. Is respecting the mother’s autonomy and refraining her from doing drugs more important than giving the child the freedom to have a healthy life? In this case, even though the child is not yet born, his or her well-being for the future should be taken into account, more so than the mother’s autonomy. Moreover, if one understands drug addiction as an illness that impairs an individual’s self-control, then the doctor may be violating non-maleficence for not only for the child, but also the mother. That being said, I agree that the moral dilemma favors the course of action that places the mother in a treatment center.
I agree with everyone on here that G should be put in a treatment facility, and that her right to self-determination is outweighed by the rights of her unborn fetus in this case. However for me, this decision really came down to the fact that by choosing to have this child, G is choosing life for the unborn fetus. Therefore, G is essentially saying that her fetus will eventually have rights and the protection against harm, so how can she do something now that is most likely going to harm her child? If she is choosing to have the child, obviously she doesn’t wish upon him or her a life filled with mental and physical hardships because of her addiction. Personally, I would rather see G simply decide not to carry the child to term than to do things during her pregnancy that will most likely affect her child negatively for the rest of his of her life. It’s not fair for her to choose life for the child and immediately then choose to hinder it. Not to mention that by going to this treatment facility, G will be getting help that she needs to be freed from her addiction. Finally, Danielle mentions the possibility for a “slippery slope” if we force G into a treatment facility. This is honestly a great point, and I’m not sure I have an answer to this issue. However, I do think there is a big difference in what G is doing with her glue addiction, and someone choosing to drink occasionally during a pregnancy. While neither is smart, there is some fine line in there, where an addiction will obviously cause much more harm to the fetus than an occasional drink.
I think it would be interesting to look at this case using the theories and degrees of moral status defined by Beauchamp and Childress as Ann Lin did below in context of abortion. Nearly all of the posts that examined “G”‘s case seem to view non-maleficence towards the unborn child as outweighing “G”‘s autonomy like Melissa did. However, if we were to analyze this case from the point of view of the five theories of moral status, we would would most likely conclude that “G” has a greater degree of status than her baby (greater capability for cognition, agency, sentience, and relationships). Even if addiction diminishes “G”‘s capabilities for moral status, lessening her status, it’s likely we would still find her to have greater status than her unborn fetus according to these theories. If that is the case, then what pulls us towards favoring the rights of the fetus every time?
Is it that society has an inherent bias against addicts that causes us to disregard their status completely? Is there something in our common morality that results in a tendency to rank vulnerable populations (babies versus drug addicts) in a certain order? Is this order determined by sanctity that we place on the process birth and infancy? I don’t know, but I think it’s interesting that regardless of logical theories an rational analyses by scholars like Beauchamp and Childress we feel a pull towards a need to protect the fetus.
I agree with much of what you said! There is a hard decision that needs to be made, and it is important to look at both sides of the argument. Personally, I feel as though “G” used her autonomy to make the decision to keep her baby and carry it to term. That decision also includes making sure no preventable harm comes to her baby. So I would agree that she should temporarily be placed in a facility in order to ensure the safety of her baby. I also like how you mentioned Child Protective Services, because it shows how the law can have a say in this situation. CPS was created in order to prioritize children who cannot always stand up for themselves, like this unborn baby.