A family from Africa settled in our neighborhood several years ago. The family members enjoy living here, although they sometimes miss their home country. Two years ago, the parents were expecting a child, a girl, to be specific. At birth, she was very healthy. However, two days after hospital release, they received a phone call from the hospital instructing them to take the baby for a screening test. The results indicated that the child had metabolism errors that are usually fatal if not treated. That night, the baby became inactive, and they took her for an emergency. The baby was diagnosed with high levels of ammonia. Her health was deteriorating very fast. Doctors informed the parents that their daughter needed lifelong medical treatment to lower ammonia levels. Additionally, they said that she needed immediate dialysis and intubation to lower the ammonia levels. They hesitated to give consent for these processes since they were scared.
The family faced the dilemma in deciding whether to allow the child's treatment or take her back home and let nature its cause. They feared that doctors were proposing extreme and painful interventions for a newborn. At first, the parents requested other treatment options other than intubation and dialysis. They also requested to take the child home and allow natural recovery of which the doctors refused. The doctor in charge informed them that letting them go was unethical for invasive treatment since it was an emergency. The doctors also informed the parents that their daughter’s treatment would only be life-sustaining. On hearing that, they refused to give consent claiming that their daughter was better left untreated. They claimed that according to their culture, it was advisable to let nature take its course. They had no problem with letting their daughter die naturally as she would join their forefathers and have a suffering-free life in the spiritual world.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In this situation, a moral relativist would argue that the family would have what they perceived as right according to their culture. Ethical relativism argues that there is no universally valid moral principle. Also, moral rightness or wrongness of actions is distinct from society to society, and there is no moral standard that binds all societies (Pecorino & Sullivan, 2002). The family had moral objectivity to abide by the moral obligation of their culture. Religion and spirituality are primary factors that many families observe while making decisions; thus, the family’s upbringing and the experience were different from that of the practitioners. It was particularly true when the ethical decision was made. Death for some culture is the end while in others is a new beginning. The family believed their daughter would have a life free of suffering, contrary to what healthcare providers viewed.
The cultural relativist would have argued that the family's views and beliefs should have been understood and respected by the health care providers. According to Rachels (2018), different societies have varying moral codes which determine what is right for that society. The practitioners should have understood that the family's viewpoints are based on their culture and should not have judged against their criteria. Cultural relativism argues that the normative concept of tolerance and acceptance of each other's viewpoints (Maria & Adam, 2021). The relativists argued that since all people have their own cultures, there is a need to respect each other’s culture. The approach was correct as people should be allowed to make decisions according to how they feel and believe is right. The parents were taken into the ethics committee, which confronted them on the need for child's treatment. They argued that the child should continue being treated due to the uncertainty of her prognosis and high treatment standards in the US.
The approach of treating the child was very much correct as it helped improve the child's health status rather than let it deteriorate and make the child suffer. Giving the child treatment was the objectively right thing to do. Offering treatment to the child would help her live long and without suffering.
References
Maria, B., & Adam, C. J. (2021). Relativism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/relativism/
Pecorino, A. P., & Sullivan, S. O. (2002). Relativism. In Ethics. https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_3_Relativism/Relativism_Types.htm
Rachels, J. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9 ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
