Medical Responsibilities for Parents

Research Paper

Kaitlynn Ellis

PH 340- Ethics

2 December 2016

Research Paper

        Throughout history and with new advances in medical knowledge, people’s views on whether or not parents have the final voice in medical care for their children has been very controversial. Some people believe that professionals should have some ability to overrule  parent’s decisions, while others believe that it is the parents moral responsibility to make decisions for themselves. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant (1998) talks about what is morally right and wrong; something is morally right if it acts on all people, also known as the categorical imperative. Parents have the moral responsibility and duty to make medical decisions for their newborns and young children while keeping their best interests in mind, regarding religion, life-death situations, and vaccines.

        Parents have the moral responsibility and duty to make medical decisions for their children, while considering their religious beliefs. Across the world, people believe in different deities, religions, and supreme beings. South Africa, India, Sweden, Canada, and United States are among some of the countries which have some religious freedom laws. In these countries, it is acceptable for parents to make medical choices for their child depending on a person’s religion and what they believe will be best for their child. This is morally okay since there are laws promoting religious freedom. If a specific person believes what they are doing what is best for their child, then they are only doing their moral duty of being a parent.  If a parent believes that they are helping their child as they know best and it cannot be proven that they are faking their religion, then they are being a morally good parent. According to Kant (1998), acting morally requires that people recognize others as moral agents. It is easy for outsiders looking in to think that they are doing the wrong thing because they do not share or understand the parents religious beliefs. People need to think and consider if they are moral and how they would react if they were in the same position. They may not have the same religious beliefs, but people tend to believe that their religion is correct. Likewise, parents should and need to realize that their children are moral agents as well. I believe that most parents already believe this because they do so much for their children by supporting and raising them. For parents to make the best medical choice, they need to realize that their child is a human being just like they are. When making medical decisions for one’s children, parents should ask themselves is this what they would do for themselves if they were in the same position. In the book, Intervention and Reflection Basic Issues in Bioethics, Ronald Munson (2012) talks about this exact issue with parents making decisions for their children based on their religion and beliefs. He says that we only worry about medical decisions when we reject or avoid medical attention for others and not ourselves. If we make a decision for ourselves, there is very little controversy about if it was the right or wrong one, because we will live with the outcome of our choices. Alternatively, if a parent makes a decision for their child and others do not agree with it, there will be more controversy, since you are deciding for someone else. If a child cannot physically decide medically decisions due to being too young, cannot talk, and other extreme situations, then the parents have the moral duty and responsibility to make these medical decisions.  They know the child best and have cared for him or her since before they were born. Doctors are supposed to let their patients know what is best for them and their family if possible, but at the end of the day, it is the parent’s choice. There are many different situations that brings religion into medical decisions, but doctors, states, governments, and others cannot make necessary and important medical choices for people they barely or don’t even know. The majority, if not all, parents want to make decisions for their children. They would prefer to not let someone that does not even know their child make those decisions for them. At the end of the day, parents have the moral responsibility and duty to make medical choices for their child, even when religion controversy is involved.

        Parents should have the moral responsibility and duty to make life or death decisions for their children. Most people would agree with this statement if the decision is extremely clear but would have some concern if the decision was unclear.  James and Stuart Rachels (2010) in their book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, use the example of Baby Theresa being an anencephalic infant and her parents wanting to terminate her life to be able to donate her organs to other children in need. An anencephalic infant lacks a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. These babies usually die within a few hours or days after birth, with very few exceptions. Rachels and Rachels (2010) argue that moral judgments must be backed by good reasons and that morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interest. In this case, the child was physically and mentally unable to communicate and never would. The parents were morally responsible for deciding what to do with Baby Theresa. They wanted to terminate her life, but the doctors would not allow this to happen. I believe that whatever the parents chose to do in this situation, would be morally permissible due to the simple fact that Baby Theresa would never have a normal life because of her condition. The parents did not want her not to suffer any longer and terminating her life would allow them to donate her organs to help other children in need. With the parents wanting to donate her organs, it is even more morally right, because they are helping others. The parents would not technically be committing murder, because Baby Theresa is already going to die fairly quickly. Consider the other extreme, a parent delivers a perfectly normal child and then wants to terminate its life, that would be murder, because the child was healthy and had a possible long life ahead of them. Also, the possible advantages of terminating a healthy child’s life (i.e. donating its organs) do not outweigh the benefits of a normal healthy child.  In Baby Theresa’s case, they had a legitimate reason to terminate the life of the baby, to assist others in living. This would positively help others. Only is it morally permissible to end someone’s life if it leads to positively benefiting a person or persons to a greater extent than if they were to stay alive. It is morally right and a moral duty for parents to choose to terminate this child’s life in these extreme situations.