CT Essay - Finkbine PDF

Preview

Summary

I analyzed Finkbine's case and wrote about what I believed to be the best thing to do about her pregnancy....

Description

30-year-old Sherri Finkbine made the decision to have an abortion after discovering that the thalidomide tranquilizers she had been taking early on in pregnancy were known to cause severe deformities, such as restricted growth of the arms and legs, in developing fetuses. After spreading awareness about the dangers of the drug, she was denied an abortion by hospitals in the United States due to public hysteria, resulting in her decision to undergo the medically accepted abortion in Sweden legally where they declared the baby had been born without legs and a single arm. The idea of terminating a pregnancy had not been a popular trend in the 1960s. The procedure was only legal in the state of Minnesota at the time, where Mrs. Finkbine lived, only if the physician felt as if the pregnancy was posing a threat to the expecting mother’s health. The ethical dilemma involved with this case deals with the belief that her decision to have an abortion was unnecessary in her case considering Mrs. Finkbine’s health was not at risk. In this essay, I will argue as to why I believe Mrs. Finkbine’s decision to undergo abortion was not the morally right choice and why adoption ought to have been considered. Although nobody knows how many miscarriages the sedative caused, many babies born affected by thalidomide were far too damaged to survive beyond their first few months of life. A woman named Louise Medus was born without arms and legs after her mom was prescribed thalidomide during pregnancy to help treat her morning sickness. According to BBC, Medus claims that she had to learn to cope with her disability by constantly reminding herself that “there’s always someone who is worse off than myself”. Meanwhile, she claims that her parents are still suffering “not only from guilt for taking the drug, but also from all those years of wondering what is going to happen to their child” (McGrath). The effect of which her deformities had on her parents, along with having to spend most of her childhood in residential care, resulted in a lack of emotional bonding between her and her parents throughout her life.

I believe that every fetus deserves a chance at life and an abortion is not necessary even if the child might not be deemed capable of living a long, fulfilled life due to being handicapped. According to BBC, “most people with disabilities say that they would much rather be alive than have been killed in the womb”. Allowing expecting mothers to terminate their pregnancy simply because their babies are disabled implies that the lives of the disabled are considered less valuable in society than others, which is simply untrue and hurtful to disabled people. This belief influences discrimination and prejudice pertaining to the lives of the disabled, which is unethical. I believe that disabled people are still human beings who deserve to live just as much as people without disabilities. It is up to society to take whatever reasonable measures needed to help eliminate anything that might make it difficult for disabled people to live as normal of a life as they possibly can. Morality revolves around how and when we decide to apply medical technology. For instance, late abortions, the use of the sonogram, embryological knowledge, and the emergence of neonatal medicine. Although futile medical treatment might be necessary, I believe that the fetus should be given a chance at life and not be terminated until it shows no signs of possible survival or the mother’s life is being threatened. Arguments supporting late abortions of a disabled fetus mainly focus on how a fetus can be replaced and that woman have the right to make such a choice. Pro-choice supporters believe that the amniocentesis test, as well as other prenatal tests, exist to provide women with the choice of whether they want to terminate the fetus and try again. Parents could simply grieve the loss and move on. They believe that granting life to a disabled fetus is life-altering for the whole family, not just the impaired fetus. Individuals who agree with terminating a disabled fetus believe that it is morally wrong to pressure a woman to give birth to a baby who will knowingly have impaired cognitive ability, limited life choices, and compromised health. Advances in

medical technology in prenatal testing influence difficult ethical decisions of when it considered acceptable to terminate a fetus. However, pro-choice supporters believe that these difficult ethical decisions are to be left to the expecting mothers, not government officials. The thousands of expecting mothers who were taking thalidomide were not aware that the nausea medicine caused severe birth defects due to the company’s inability to test the drug before releasing it for human use. They bring forth the valid point that abortion is considered acceptable when it threatens the mother’s health, both physical and mental. Which means that the expecting mothers should have the choice to terminate the disfigured fetus in order to protect their mental health and not have to suffer from the guilt of influencing their fetus’s deformation. With all things considered, I believe that the best thing in Finkbine’s case would be to not terminate her existing pregnancy. Considering the affect the abortion would have on her mental health, I believe that the public hysteria and threats towards her and her family for going through with her decision to abort the fetus would only cause more stress and suffering than the possible guilt derived from choosing to keep the disabled fetus. Also, the pregnancy does not pose a threat to Finkbine’s physical health, meaning the decision to abort the fetus is not medically necessary. If a miscarriage were not to occur during the pregnancy, then she should consider the fetus’s possibility of survival, and consider putting the child up for adoption. This decision would not only prevent public hysteria and threats toward her family, but it would also relieve her from having to live with the possible guilt of knowing that she influenced the fetus’ deformities. If Finkbine decided that she did not want to keep the disabled child and the survival rate of the fetus seemed promising, then I am sure that someone else would not mind taking care of the child with a sense of sympathy.

Works Cited 1. BBC. “Tributes Paid to Thalidomide Campaigner Louise Medus-Mansell”. BBC

News Radio Gloucestershire. 14 Nov 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-englandgloucestershire-46212464. 2. McGrath, Nick. “My Thalidomide Family: Every Time I Went Home I Was A

Stranger”. The Guardian News & Media. 1 Aug 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/01/thalidomide-louise-medus-astranger-when-i-went-home. 3. BBC. “Disability in the Feotus”. BBC. 2014.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/disability.shtml....