The dilemma presented in Case 5.4 in Well and Good called “Protecting an Unborn Child” is whether or not a mother’s right to self-determination is more important than her unborn child’s rights and health. Should she be forced into rehab for her drug addiction for the health of her fetus? This question comes down to an issue of autonomy vs. non-maleficence. In one respect, the mother’s choice to continue her drug-abusive ways should be respected because it is her body and her right to control it. On the other hand, the decisions she makes during her pregnancy will mostly likely (due to the experiences of her previous pregnancies) affect the child in a negative fashion in the long run. According to Beauchamp and Childress, both are important moral principles that must be considered in the final decision. There have been many cases in which these two important moral principles fall into conflict.

One example of a similar situation is Case 3.5 in Well and Good called “Religious Conflict over a Life-Saving Blood Transfusion,” which we discussed in class. This case involves a Jehovah’s Witness father who wants to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion for his daughter in order to save her immortal soul from hell while possibly condemning her to a physical death. In this case, we also discovered a conflict between autonomy and non-maleficence, where respecting the decisions of the father (and possibly even the daughter) on behalf of his child had the possibility of harming her physically. In this case, we discussed a “standard” used by courts in which doing no harm to the patient outranks the parents’ choices on the care of their child. It is the doctor’s obligation to do everything he can to help the patient, even if it means not respecting decisions of the parents that are potentially harmful to the patient.

Another conflict of moral principles in the case of the unborn child is autonomy and justice. The mother’s right to self-determination directly violates the unborn child’s rights (if he or she has any) to a healthy life in the future. While it is true that an unborn child technically does not have the same legal rights granted to human beings, the decisions being made about the unborn child’s health will affect him or her for the rest of his life when he or she is born. Therefore, is it right to deny rights to an unborn child when the consequences won’t be evident until he or she is born and has rights of their own?

By choosing to carry the pregnancy to term, she is choosing a life for her child. Assuming she wants that child’s life to be easy and free of complication, her decisions to continue in her drug-abusive ways are almost guaranteeing a hard life for her child with respect to her past pregnancies. With that decision, I believe “G” is morally obligated to protect the well being of her child even before he or she is born since these decisions will affect her child only after they are born. However, I would have to agree with the courts that legally, you can’t force the mother to end legal actions that may or may not harm a fetus with no legal rights. In a perfect world, I would love to see women choosing to be mothers by making the decision to carry their pregnancy to term make decisions to not do drugs, smoke, drink, and do other activities with specific, known negative effects on a fetus. If a mother’s moral obligation is to care for her child, then why should that begin just once the child is born?

Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th ed. New York, N.Y.: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.

Thomas, John E., and Wilfrid J. Waluchow. Well and Good: A Case Study Approach to Health Care Ethics. 4th ed. Toronto: Broadview, 2014. Print.