Q. Michael is a surgeon in the United States. On the issue of abortion, social opinion is sharply divided in the USA. There is one group of conservative, religious and pro life activists, who regard human life from its inception as sacrosanct. They totally life activists, oppose abortionn in principle. They also belong to the right wing of the political spectrum.
The other group consists of liberals of various hues including women's rights activists. They are known as pro-choice and advocate that a pregnant woman should have full freedom to undergo an abortion. For them, the decision of a woman to continue or terminate her pregnancy is her individual choice and not a matter of social or religious policy.
As a prolife protagonist, Michael believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother’s life. So, he refuses to perform an abortion for Martha who fears that her pregnancy might endanger her health in some ways. Since Martha had faith in Michael's skills, she decides reluctantly to go to another clinic.
After a couple of years, Martha is pregnant again and this time she is diagnosed with cancer, and goes to Michael for an operation. He agrees to perform a surgery on Martha although the foetus might die in the process.
Do you think that Michael's decisions show his moral inconsistency?
Q. Michael is a surgeon in the United States. On the issue of abortion, social opinion is sharply divided in the USA. There is one group of conservative, religious and pro life activists, who regard human life from its inception as sacrosanct. They totally life activists, oppose abortionn in principle. They also belong to the right wing of the political spectrum.
The other group consists of liberals of various hues including women's rights activists. They are known as pro-choice and advocate that a pregnant woman should have full freedom to undergo an abortion. For them, the decision of a woman to continue or terminate her pregnancy is her individual choice and not a matter of social or religious policy.
As a prolife protagonist, Michael believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother’s life. So, he refuses to perform an abortion for Martha who fears that her pregnancy might endanger her health in some ways. Since Martha had faith in Michael's skills, she decides reluctantly to go to another clinic.
After a couple of years, Martha is pregnant again and this time she is diagnosed with cancer, and goes to Michael for an operation. He agrees to perform a surgery on Martha although the foetus might die in the process.
Do you think that Michael's decisions show his moral inconsistency?
In this case, we can apply the doctrine of double effect. It makes a subtle distinction between a result which a moral agent intends, and a result which follows as a side effect of what he does.
In the first situation, the result (death of foetus) is a direct consequence of his action; he intends it. In the second situation, though he may foresee the result, he does not intend it.
This principle explains why Michael later agreed to perform the operation. Had he performed abortion, he would have intended the death of the unborn baby. This would be against his moral principle of valuing life. But in carrying out the surgery to treat Martha's cancer, Michael would aim to save Martha's life while merely foreseeing the death of the foetus. It would be an unfortunate side effect. Performing an abortion, by contrast, would involve intending to kill the foetus as a means of removing risks to Martha's health.
Evidently, the distinction involved is rather fine. In certain situations, as in a war of self defence, even when one foresees human losses, one does not intend it. It is an unfortunate and unavoidable side effect. But these are exceptions. By and large, one has to avoid unacceptable levels of collateral damage.
In this case, we can apply the doctrine of double effect. It makes a subtle distinction between a result which a moral agent intends, and a result which follows as a side effect of what he does.
In the first situation, the result (death of foetus) is a direct consequence of his action; he intends it. In the second situation, though he may foresee the result, he does not intend it.
This principle explains why Michael later agreed to perform the operation. Had he performed abortion, he would have intended the death of the unborn baby. This would be against his moral principle of valuing life. But in carrying out the surgery to treat Martha's cancer, Michael would aim to save Martha's life while merely foreseeing the death of the foetus. It would be an unfortunate side effect. Performing an abortion, by contrast, would involve intending to kill the foetus as a means of removing risks to Martha's health.
Evidently, the distinction involved is rather fine. In certain situations, as in a war of self defence, even when one foresees human losses, one does not intend it. It is an unfortunate and unavoidable side effect. But these are exceptions. By and large, one has to avoid unacceptable levels of collateral damage.
