When analyzing the case of premature twins, one may notice that the decision about whether to try to save the life of one of them largely depends on a specific ethical approach to the situation. By evaluating the existing theories that justify certain principles for interpreting such situations, distinctive ideas can be cited. However, taking into account the fact that newborns are people, regardless of their mental development, it allows for saying that the ethical theory of deontology is optimal in this case. The moral course of action for health professionals and parents should be based on the fact that the newborn is entitled to comprehensive care, despite the potential consequences. Inaction is unacceptable because it not only violates the basic ideas of humanism but also denies the value of medical care for newborns.
The deontological theory of ethics regards the right of any person to live as an integral attribute of social development. Based on the details of the case, one of the twins is at risk of not surviving or becoming disabled if doctors keep him alive. However, the ethical dilemma of whether to continue the fight or to let the newborn out of the torment is irrelevant if the parties concerned, namely the parents, are not ready for the latter outcome. The task of healthcare professionals caring for premature infants should not be reduced to determining whether the child should continue the struggle for life or not. Therefore, this ethical theory is an adequate interpretation framework for the case under consideration.
Considering a newborn as a person who does not have the right to make decisions may not be an adequate practice for making such decisions. Deontology is an approach that denies any form of inhuman treatment and aims to interpret situations from the perspective of human rights. Depriving the newborn twin of the right to life without his consent is contrary to the ideas of this concept. Moreover, there is no unequivocal guarantee that, in case of survival, the child will experience significant health problems. As a result, denying the right to life cannot be considered a rational decision.
The principle of morality, which is the basis of the deontological theory, implies providing those in need with help and support. The incapacity of the newborn twin should not be considered an objective reason for not carrying out the necessary procedures to save his life. The medical staff can offer his parents an alternative, but deliberate inaction is contrary not only to the concept under consideration but also to medical ethics. The unformed personality of the newborn does not give doctors the moral right to decide whether he deserves to continue to live or not. Therefore, in fulfilling their duties, physicians should make every possible effort.
Finally, the need to continue the work of saving the life of the newborn twin is important because, regardless of any metaphysical meaning, deontology considers life as the highest value. Even despite the unformed consciousness and lack of personal qualities, defenseless infants have the moral right to receive all the necessary help. Both from a religious and ethical perspective, while developing in the womb, the fetus begins to live, and the interruption of this life does not correspond to the provisions of the doctrine under consideration. Thus, in this case, doctors should not stop the attempt to save the life of one of the twins.