Abortion in Relativity
In 2000, Alicja Tysiac, a mother of 3, attempted to get a certificate that would permit her to get an abortion. She got the certificate on the grounds that it could trigger blindness because in Poland abortions are only allowed in instances of rape, incest and/or medical threat. Ms. Tysiac acquired permission to get an abortion on basis of a medical threat and the doctors refused to go through with abortion, causing the woman to carry it. Just as expected, serious visual side effects followed the birth. Ms. Tysiac’s case can be analyzed and judged as just or unjust by viewing it through the scope of a handful of ethical ideologies. Ms. Tysiac’s case fails double effect and deontology however it passes utilitarianism and Ms. Tysiac is virtuous in her attempt to receive an abortion.
Double Effect is a relatively strict code of ethics, if a situation fails one rule of ethics, then it fails to apply to Double Effect. The first rule: the action must not be evil rather it must be good or neutral. It is important to note that different cultures have different attitudes toward abortion. Some cultures view that abortion is akin to murder, where some cultures view the mother’s life as coming first and some find that abortion is akin to cutting your hair. Crimes like murder are universally deemed as an evil crime however abortion brings in to question the idea of the living status of the fetus and if it is truly alive. Thus, analyzing that whether this action is good or neutral is difficult. The Catholic Church, having incredibly strict ethics surrounding abortion, would say that the action is morally evil. Some religions like the Jewish faith think it is a moral obligation to undergo the abortion if it means the health of the woman. Atheism and more liberal Protestants think of abortion as morally neutral. Since there is such a range of opinions in this issue, it can be argued that the moderate opinion, that abortion is neither good nor bad and that the fetus is neither alive nor not alive, should be used when analyzing double effect. So, the action can be said to be morally neutral.
The next rules: that bad effects should not be intended and that the good cannot be a direct result of the bad. This rule does not apply in this case. The bad effect or, in this case, the unpleasant effect should not be intended. Abortion would be the bad or unpleasant effect. Saving this woman’s eyesight would be a good effect but it would come directly from the bad effect of the abortion. If there was a surgery to cure her eyesight but it also meant abortion as a side effect, then these two rules would apply. However, since this is not the case and the abortion is directly intended, Ms. Tysiac’s case fails these two rules of double effect.
The final rule of double effect, which is that the good effect must be proportionate to the bad effect. It can be argued that this applies to this case, however it would depend on the analyzer’s opinion on the moral nature of abortion. In the morally neutral view that this paper has chosen to adopt, the good effect of preserving Ms. Tysiac’s health and protecting her livelihood of her 3 other children. Suffering could be argued to be disproportionate if one viewed the fetus as equivalent to Ms. Tysiac’s life. Ms. Tysiac would have a chance to suffer from blindness whereas the abortion would have definitely happened. This is important to note but based on the decision that abortion would be viewed as morally neutral, the suffering would be proportionate. Since the reception of abortion varies based on the country one is in, it is clear that the country of Poland acknowledges that the health of the mother is important enough to preserve. Thus, the culture she lives in clearly views that the good effect of preserving the mother’s health is proportionate to the bad effect of the abortion. Despite this however, two rules of double effect were failed and thus double effect would not apply to the case of Ms. Tysiac.
Deontology is an ethic theory that puts a strong emphasis on the morality of the action and not what it accomplishes. It is an ethical theory that does not concern itself with the consequences, unlike utilitarianism. Deontology actively and strictly condemns bad actions. To analyze the deontological ethical theory, the morality of the action of abortion must be determined, just as in the case of double effect. However, unlike double effect which permits neutral actions or morally ambiguous actions, deontology does not permit any morally questionable actions for good outcomes. This leans the action of abortion toward being morally bad.
Deontology also condemns what is deemed unnatural, which admittedly is a hard thing to discern whether something is natural or unnatural. However, it can be easily argued that abortion is an incredibly unnatural one. To commit an abortion is to stop life from being created, something that has been seen to be a sacred act in some cultures, and what is natural and intended was for Ms. Tysiac to go blind. This is a bleak statement but to truly adhere to deontology would be to accept the bad effect instead of compromising your morality by aborting your fetus for your own benefit.
One could make an argument that all of healthcare is unnatural. There is some merit to those arguments, especially those arguments that call to attention that birth control is unnatural. However, the unnatural nature of the majority of the healthcare profession is to prolong life not cut it short. Birth control does not put a stop to a process that had already began like abortion does. Abortion is an unnatural thing that involves death, and its goal to cut a life short. While Ms. Tysiac’s life could have been prolonged by the operation, it is crucial in deontology to never use one person’s lives as a tool for your own benefit. Equality for all persons and, if one viewed a fetus’s life as equivalent to Ms. Tysiac’s life, this would be particularly egregious in the deontological perspective.
My own opinion is from a utilitarian perspective. Morally questionable actions should be considered when thinking of the overall happiness of those involved. My concern lies for Ms. Tysiac and her three children. If Ms. Tysiac went blind, her children would likely suffer due to their mother not being able to consistently support them because of her eyesight. It is highly unlikely that 140 euros could support a differently abled woman and her 4 children. Why bring a child in this world where they would not be living in a secure, happy environment? It also seems morally unethical to make the choice to take away Ms. Tysiac’s vision for her. The Polish Hospital refusing to give her an abortion is an example of gross misuse of paternalism. The hospital elected to decide her fate for her instead of respecting her autonomy. This gross paternalism is made even more evident by the fact that Ms. Tysiac had gotten the certificate allowing for the abortion and the hospital went against the law. Abortion is allowed in situations of medical complications of the mother but if hospitals are not forced to respect those certificates, there is little point in lying to your citizens that abortion is legal in those situations. It is dangling an unattainable procedure in front of women’s faces which is cruel.
Virtue is also important to studying this case. While it is not the main ethical theory behind my opinion, it can still be discussed for insight. Ms. Tysiac’s goal is to preserve her wellbeing and the lives of her kids which is a very virtuous sentiment. Being overly selfless in every situation is not virtue. If Ms. Tysiac had a child willingly, even though she knew she could not support them physically or financially, then that would mean she was not being particularly virtuous. Ms. Tysiac sought out an abortion for a virtuous reason and she passed utilitarian thinking.
The analysis of the Ms. Tysiac case differs when looking at it through the lens of different ethical theories. Due to the tricky moral nature of abortion, it is difficult to access the morality of this situation. In double effect, abortion could be argued as a morally neutral action. Since there is a range of opinions, a moderate opinion, that a fetus is not a life but not unalive was taken. Double Effect was failed however due to the intention being the abortion of the fetus, not a side effect to the cure for blindness. Deontology was also failed because it does not permit any morally questionable actions. However, my own opinion was that this situation passed utilitarianism and Ms. Tyisac was virtuous in her concern for self and her children. This case is complex and various conclusions can be drawn based on the ethic theory, the specific culture, and one’s own personal opinion.