Background In Case 5.4: Protecting an “Unborn Child,” a young 22 year old girl named “G’ is revealed to be addicted to having a glue as well as other solvents sniffing addiction. “G” addiction has made her incapable of raising children as she has had to relinquished her parental rights for three of her children to family services (Thomas, 201). The case study describes that the Manitoba Court of Appeal ordered that “G” be released from a treatment facility she was placed in by doctor recommendation. Due to “G’s” doctor’s belief that it was in the unborn child’s best interest to place “G” in a treatment facility and monitor “G” ’s activity on the grounds that every individual has the right to well-being of the individual.
Dilemma In this particular case the dilemma seems to be rooted in autonomy, which would be whether or the mother’s right to self-determination outweighs the non-maleficence argument which would site that it is the doctors professional job to make sure that the unborn child is protected. From the autonomy standpoint the mother has the individual ability to govern herself, her body and her choices independent of her place in a metaphysical order or her role in social structures and political institutions (Christman, John) . From the non-maleficence standpoint the choices made by the mother will impact the health of her offspring possibly compromising its health. Understanding both standpoints brings about conversation about a variety of important moral principles, which need to be considered.
Reflection I recognize that my decision may come from my ability to relate to “G” ’s situation, but I would have side with “G” on the matter. Being a feminist the minute I read the case I began think about the issue of women’s autonomy and being able to make decision based on body ownership. “G” owns her physical body and it is completely up to her to make all the decision regarding it. The author mentions in the case study that women’s rights activist contend that it is a human right more importantly a woman’s right to govern her own bodies will and that she must be offered the strongest possible protection (Thomas, 201).To often in the society we live in insurance companies, husbands, religions, etc. try to control the ownership of this sacred entity that belongs to no one but the physical person. And for these reasons I believe it is only right that “G” make the ultimate decision about the situation at hand.
Work Cited
Christman, John. “Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford University. Stanford University, 28 July 2003. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
Thomas, John E., and Wilfrid J. Waluchow. Well and Good: A Case Study Approach to Health Care Ethics. 4th ed. Toronto: Broadview, 2014. Print.
I also thought that G should have made the ultimate decision about her body. If she were to be institutionalized, it would raise questions about other situations involving institutionalization. For example, can we forcefully institutionalize someone that is mentally unstable?
However, playing devil’s advocate, what about duties to protect the fetus? We know that glue sniffing is damaging to the fetus’ health and doesn’t it have rights as well? If criminals lose their freedom by being in jail, could her glue sniffing be equivalent to that of a crime because it is harming another, and therefore she should also lose her freedoms?
While women’s rights activists advocate for women’s rights to their body and reproductive decisions, this case extends beyond that argument in my opinion. The logic of that argument applies to reproductive decisions like birth control and abortion, not fetal care. In cases like abortion, a human does not endure harm in the way it does in the case with Mrs. G. With abortion. During an abortion, a fetus is terminated and never has the chance at life, but in this situation, the fetus is presumably not going to be aborted and will become a human life entitled to the same rights as all persons. Because of Ms. G’s glue sniffing, the fetus will face consequences and disadvantages as a person in the future, like Ms. G’s other children. This does not just affect the fetus, but also society because the child will become a burden in the foster care system. While feminism certainly advocates for women’s reproductive rights, I do not agree that it advocates for women to engage in irresponsible behavior during their pregnancies. With empowerment comes responsibility, so I feel that while feminism may advocate freedom to choose for women, it does not advocate for them to make decisions that are damaging to the health of their children.
I’d honestly have to disagree with you, the way the woman treats her body is a decision that her and her only can make. And that applies to her child as well, the fetus belongs to the mother and as wrong as it my be it is not a healthcare provider or a courts decision to decide what she want to do with her body. Abortion causes harm to a child just as a fetus being exposed a toxic substance is the same thing. Its not ethical for any party either than the mother to impose.