Introduction
The Washington Times recently published a story of an emotionally distressed woman called Nancy Mayer who carried the pregnancy of a child infected with Trisomy (Duin, 2013). The disease is caused by chromosomal aberration and the chances of survival for the victim are nil. Doctors, therefore, find it instructive to terminate such pregnancies, but Mayer did not want to abort. A similar story is told of Trish Stone, a Kensington resident (Duin, 2013). She was pregnant with two children and one was diagnosed with hydrocephaly. The standard for such a condition is the elimination of the fetus and the doctor prescribed it as the only solution that would save the other of the twins. The ethical discourse surrounding the two occurrences was strengthened by a United States governor, Sarah Palin, who declared that she was under pressure to abort the pregnancy of her son who was diagnosed with Down syndrome. The debate rekindled the memories of the eugenics movement in the 1920s that was advocating for the sterilization of inferior people so that they do not pass on their genes to the next generation. For legal clarity, the United States Congress enacted legislation providing that pregnant women be provided with accurate information concerning the fetus’s health. This paper will discuss the ethical dilemma surrounding abortion of handicapped children and prescribe an alternative course of action to be taken.
Main body
Laws of many nations have criminalized abortion except in situations where the life of the mother is in danger if the fetus is not terminated. Other nations, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, have labeled the abnormality of the fetus as enough grounds to necessitate abortion. Pro-choice movements argue that the choice to abort or to keep the child is squarely the prerogative of the mother and the laws should not intervene. The pro-life on the other hand aver that screening to establish the presence of abnormality is immoral and illegitimate. Their argument has been premised because screening is a precursor to discrimination. Disabled peoples’ rights are enshrined in the law and it is therefore repugnant to this fundamental right to establish the presence or absence of a disability with the sole purpose of making a judgment whether to abort or keep it. The quote by Tyano (2010) aptly captures the displeasure of those opposed to screening,” Eugenic abortion recreates and legitimizes primitive phobia against mental and physical illness just when society seems to be making real progress in outgrowing then” (34).
For a pregnant woman, it is often difficult to decide to abort a pregnancy. Admittedly, a disabled child is expensive, financially and psychologically, to maintain. As Smith and Tatalovich (2003) observe, the attitude of pregnant women changes the moment they realize they are carrying pregnancies of a disabled child. It is a case of dashed hopes and expectations as it dawns on them that their family life will change eternally. Many scholars and philosophers have argued that a child is not a real person (Tyano, 2010). They, therefore, find it not only excusable but also justifiable to terminate a handicapped child as it would be very expensive to allow it into the world. Some disabilities can be passed on to the next generation and it is only desirable if they are eliminated. This argument has irked ethicists who in defense have reaffirmed the sanctity of one’s life, his age notwithstanding.
Religion plays a very important role in the life of men. Religion and ethics are inextricably intertwined with each informing the other. Virtually all religions uphold the sanctity of life and scorn at attempts to take it away. Most doctors and parents are guided by a set of values, ethos, and principles that are repugnant to killing. Abortion, in some quarters, is regarded as the killing of innocent children. It presents a big dilemma when it is a choice between sparing a child whose life will be in jeopardy in any way. The situation is exacerbated by reported cases where children survive conditions that doctors had prescribed abortion like in the case of Down syndrome (Smith and Tatalovich, 2003). Additionally, many people with disabilities have done exceptionally well in various fields. It would prick the conscience of the mother and doctor to sanction abortion of someone whose chances of living and achieving in life are beyond the control of either.
Conclusion
Rather than abort a handicapped child, it is better to allow it to be born and experience life. History is replete with many “abled” but unhappy people. The fact that one has a disability is no reason to deny him or her the opportunity to live. A basic tenet of ethics, according to Tyano (2010) is that “it is better to suffer evil rather than inflict it” (3). Most disabled people are unequivocal in their opposition to abortion. But being handicapped, their opinion on the matter may be inadmissible because they have a direct interest in the matter. But the opinion of a surgeon would count a lot. Koop, a renowned surgeon from the United States averred that disability and unhappiness are not mutually inclusive (Smith and Tatalovich, 2003). Rather, people should come up with ways to help those who are disadvantaged in one way or another.
References
Duin, L (2013, May 10). Choosing not to abort babies with disabilities. The Washington Times, p 14.
Smith, T. A., & Tatalovich, R. (2003). Cultures at war: Moral conflicts in western democracies. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press.
Tyano, S. (2010). Parenthood and mental health: A bridge between infant and adult psychiatry. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley-Blackwell.