The utilitarianism by Mills states that a law ought to be made to produce the best consequence for the larger group of people while deontological thinking by Kant argues that an individual moral action must be in tandem with the duty (Baron, 2017). It is critical to determine the possible motives of the physicians and doctors in conducting the test without the pregnant women consent. Through approaching this issue, the paper will solve the ethical dilemma that is faced by the physicians who encounter a pregnant woman who is addicted to the drug such as cocaine (SEALEY, 2017). The Supreme Court argued that a physician should never conduct drug test without the consent of the mother. Further, it goes ahead to state that the result of the test must not be made available to the law enforcement since it would be against Fourth Amendment.
Arguably, performing a drug test on any pregnant woman without obtaining their consent and result is the outcome to the police is wrong and violates the right of that particular person (SEALEY, 2017). Utilitarianism is simply based on the idea that a particular action is right when it significantly upholds a certain level of contentment while on the other hand, the action would be wrong if it generates sadness. A moral action, in this case, would hold that the consequences of testing a pregnant woman for the drug would determine whether it is morally right or wrong. The moral action should thus produce a right consequence (Baron, 2017). The morality of performing the test without or without the patient’s consent will be the one that would produce most utility.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In this case, a strict utilitarian might be applicable where it will give weight to the mother’s wellbeing in assessing the utility and ignoring whether carrying out the test has a negative impact on the particular part of the society. However, when focusing on the aspect of the morality of performing the test without the woman’s consent, there would be the need to balance it with a set of primary rights which defends the mother’s liberty such as protection from possible harm. According to Gottlieb (2001), undertaking a drug test on a pregnant woman without having her consent, in this case, would not uphold contentment because often utilitarianism supports what can be considered as an affirmative and hold that an action that will be considered as morally right often will result in the greatest good. Therefore, physicians and other employees of public hospitals should ensure that they act for the good of the whole society.
The deontological reasoning clearly will determine the morality of an action based on the intention and whether such an action has been done for the right reasons. Physicians have to do the right things no matter the consequence that might be involved. According to Kant, doing what can be considered as virtuous is not necessarily identifiable at all time, therefore; doctors and physicians should instead do right. According to Baron (2017), protecting the well-being of the pregnant woman through drug test is one of the core societal values, but it should be carried out with an explicit consent. If there is the likelihood of a serious injury to human health occurring despite the fact that scientific proof remains uncertain, then it follows that the society must intervene to prevent that particular harm. The physicians and other employees of public hospitals act to test pregnant woman without their consent apparently can be said to disregard the concept of ethics as proposed by Kant’s theory (Gottlieb, 2001). Deontological points towards the direction that the rightness or the wrongness of the physicians and other employees of public hospitals actions does not rely on a certain consequence but whether they meet a given duty.
Besides violating the Fourth Amendment, physicians could not perform a drug test on any pregnant woman without obtaining their consent is morally wrong as established by both utilitarian and deontological reasoning. Despite the fact that the primary objective of carrying out the test is to place an addicted woman under treatment a test without the consent of the pregnant woman is a violation of the Fourth Amendment (SEALEY, 2017). The law enforcement should conduct search and seizure, but by taking into considerations the entire basic requirement and on the other hand, a drug test on a pregnant woman should not be carried out without acquiring a search warrant or even consent. Despite the fact that a pregnant woman might be using an illicit drug, it is critical to treat them with utmost compassion and respect while at the same time maintain their overall dignity by obtaining the consent to go through a drug test (Gottlieb, 2001).
In conclusion, the question whether a physician should carry out a drug test on the pregnant women without their consent only if it will be for the greater good of the mother and not to provide reports for the law enforcement. A pregnant woman would be helped if the test taken takes into consideration their consent but conducting the drug test with the mother consent would hurt the physician over the long term since this would be considered as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The test’s outcome would be of greater benefit to the child and mother implying that the greater good in such a case would outweigh the right to the mother’s privacy.
References
Baron, J. (2017). UTILITARIAN VS. DEONTOLOGICAL REASONING. Moral inferences , 127.
Gottlieb, S. (2001). Pregnant women cannot be tested for drugs without consent. BMJ: British Medical Journal , 322 (7289), 753.
SEALEY, G. (2017). Drug-Testing Pregnant Women Nixed . ABC News . Retrieved 18 June 2017, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93769
