Application of the Natural Law to Abortion Cases
The nature of human beings results in natural law. In his book “On Law, Morality, and Politics,” Thomas Aquinas states that the rule and measure of human behavior is. The natural law provides the only possible basis for morality and politics (2). In this paper, two legal cases have been analyzed using the dictates of natural law. The mandate of the natural law is for the law to be ordered for the common good of the individuals; however, some virtues are for the personal benefit of the individual; hence, not all virtues belong to natural law.
1st Case: A Four-Month Pregnant Woman with Tuberculosis
Issue
The subject of this issue focuses on a young woman who is four months pregnant and has learned that she has tuberculosis. She should take the medication prescribed by the doctor; however, it contains an abortive effect in addition to curing her. Her physician advises her to take medication that will treat her illness, but also cause the fetus to be aborted. In the absence of taking the medication right away, she will pass away because there is no alternative medication that can treat her illness. Whether or not the woman must take the medicine is being decided by a legal opinion.
Rule
The principle of double effect must be used in this case. According to the Law of Double Consequence, as explained by Thomas Aquinas, it is possible to damage a person while pursuing a proportionate benefit as long as the harm is not the planned result of the action but rather a foreseen side effect (26). According to the double impact doctrine in medical ethics, a treatment’s adverse side effect, even one that causes death, is acceptable if it was not planned and happens due to a positive activity (p32). The death of the fetus is just a side effect of therapeutic medication to safeguard the life of the mother in situations where preserving the life of the pregnant woman results in the loss of her unborn baby.
Legal Advice
Based on the natural law, there must be a moral answer to this awful predicament. The woman may decide to put her own life in danger to preserve the life of her child if the doctor thinks she will be able to bear the baby till it becomes viable. She might decide to put off getting treatment for her tuberculosis even though it might mean that her chances of surviving would be reduced.
The mother’s doctor has just two options if the mother’s tuberculosis cannot be stopped in time: she must start taking the treatment right away to survive. The doctor has the option of letting both patients die or saving one while losing the other. When a mother’s and a child’s lives are weighed against one another, there is a chance that the mother will make a conscious choice that is detrimental to the baby’s life.
The purpose is to do good by giving the mother the medication to save her life. This is where the double effect principle comes into play. According to United States law, when it is not possible to safely wait until the unborn child is viable, severe pathological conditions are allowed, even though they would cause the fetal child’s death (Aquinas et al., 42).
The undesirable outcome of killing the baby is its awful effect—the regrettable outcome of the good deed. The negative influence does not yield positive outcomes. Instead of executing an abortion, the doctor is treating a disease that is harming the mother. When the medicine is administered, the baby will pass away, but that is not the intention of the procedure. Although it implies the loss of one, rescuing one individual is preferable to permitting both to perish due to inaction.
Conclusion
The agent, who may be the doctor or the mother, who gives their agreement to the process, does not desire the killing of the fetus but rather the treatment of the problem, fulfilling the need. All people deserve ethical consideration and legal safety, particularly the fundamental right to live. The philosopher says in ethics that the three things that belong to the soul are habits, emotions, and thoughts. Natural law is neither an emotion nor the power of the soul.
2nd Case: An Attempt to Deliver a Hydrocephalic Fetus
Issue
A doctor finds out that a fetus is hydrocephalic while attempting to deliver it. A typical vaginal delivery is impossible because of the fetus’s big head; the mother and fetus would perish in the process. Because neither the woman nor the baby would withstand a C-section, the only method to preserve the life of the mother is to remove the fetus’s skull (craniotomy), which allows the stillborn baby to be delivered vaginally. A recommendation on whether or not this process would be permitted by natural law is requested.
Rule
The judgment on the matter is reached using the doctrine of double effect. It is occasionally acceptable to damage someone as a byproduct of achieving a good outcome, even when it would not be acceptable to harm someone as a method of achieving the same good end, per the rule of double effect. The maxim that “the purpose does not justify the means” was first stated by St. Thomas Aquinas. Evil must never be done to bring about good (50).
A terrible result can follow a morally righteous action, or it might happen concurrently with it, but still, the expected good can never be the outcome of wrongdoing. Such behavior is not morally justified. In this instance, aborting the baby is the way, while saving the mother’s life by abortion is the goal.
Legal Advice
Confirm the diagnosis and have a detailed conversation about the potential severity of the child’s impairment before deciding to terminate the pregnancy. In question, the mother will pass away if the mother’s attempts to deliver the baby are not stopped. The child will perish if the mother passes away. The kid will die if the fetus is terminated by abortion, but the woman will live. Both times, the youngster will pass away.
It is ethically efficient to preserve the mother by killing the child because there is no means to save the baby, but a method to preserve the mother. After all, saving one life is preferable to losing both (Aquinas et al., 42). Saving the mother is the best moral course of action because there is no possibility of saving the kid. The problem is classified as an indirect killing that may or may not violate natural law. The fetus is not only employed for the advantage of others; the fatal action is not directed at the baby but rather at something else.
Conclusion
A moral argument for the morality of abortion can be made if the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life and there is no possibility of saving the child. One can justify particular actions by using the rule of double effect, which depends on particular criteria to create proportionate reason (Aquinas et al., 22). When discussing issues referred to as indirect, the double effect is typically used. It aids the ethical agent in avoiding ever engaging in bad to accomplish a good goal.
Work Cited
Aquinas, Thomas, Richard J. Regan, and William P. Baumgarth. On law, morality, and politics. Hackett Publishing, 2003.