Case Description
The baby was born with the health condition of a misshapen head and an aloof look in the eyes. The parents did not accept the baby with the condition as the baby had other complications. She was born with duodenal atresia, which is a sealed patch in the small intestine. A very basic surgical procedure may solve the issue and Baby Owens would develop into a normal, healthy child, at least as normal and healthy as a Down infant can be. The condition is fatal if left untreated since the baby would be unable to feed. In all honesty, there was no way for the doctors to know how serious Kid Owens’ mental retardation was, but for the Owens family, whether it was severe or minor, the fact that their baby might eventually be retarded was one condition they simply could not accept.
My position
I firmly advocate for euthanasia in this scenario. The principle of pragmatism suggests that the ultimate goal of human existence is growth and success. However, in this particular situation, it is clear that the medical condition of the infant will forever be a limiting factor in her life. For instance, the doctor maintains that even though the surgery can be performed, the child will always be mentally retarded and paralyzed. For this reason, it is logical to argue that the probability of the child realizing growth and success in the later stages of her life is close to impossible as the odds are already stacked against her.
Reasons for the position
There are various considerations for the position. First, through the lens of the principle of justice as fairness, opportunities should be maximized while minimizing inequalities created by disadvantages and differences. In this case, the infant is already disadvantaged due to her medical condition. Thus, letting the child live is kin to subjecting the child to eternal pain and misery. Nevertheless, philosophers like Plato argue that passive euthanasia should be practiced on patients who cannot live their normal life due to their deteriorating medical condition.
Reasons why other positions are flawed
Those who believe in the principle of natural law and existentialism believe that the infant should be allowed to live. According to the principle of natural law, any action that conforms to the constructs of natural law is deemed morally acceptable. In contrast, any action contrary to natural law is considered morally wrong. As such, ending the infant’s life is deemed morally wrong since natural law dictates that humans have no inherent power to end the lives of fellow humans. However, I find this position flawed because humans have responsibilities towards fellow humans, including providing care and love. Similarly, I find the reasoning offered by those who argue based on the principle of existentialism flawed. It cannot be argued conclusively that ending the infant’s life was totally out of her will, as she cannot make decisions independently.
Criticism from those using other principles
The observers of the principle of existentialism fiercely criticize the views offered by the premises of the principle of pragmatism and justice as fairness, especially in this scenario. For instance, while the principle of pragmatism strictly outlines success and growth as the ultimate objective of human existence, the principle of existentialism disagrees by invoking the concept of will to power.
Response to the criticism
The criticisms by observers of natural law are anchored on the basis that ending the life of the infant is morally wrong; thus, the fact that the child is bound to live a miserable and painful life should be overlooked. Although the criticism is perfectly acceptable, especially when analyzed with keen consideration to spirituality, I believe it is still informed as life is a complicated endeavor with numerous realms that cannot be fully comprehended by evaluating a single sphere.
References
Doherty, R. F. (2020). Ethical dimensions in the health professions. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Haddad, L. M., & Geiger, R. A. (2018). Nursing ethical considerations. Europe PMC. Web.
Marseille, E., & Kahn, J. G. (2019). Utilitarianism and the ethical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis in resource allocation for global health. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 14(1), 1-7. Web.
Case presentation. (n.d.) Web.