The Issue of Moral Status in Biomedical Ethics

The Problem of Moral Status 

In this chapter, Beauchamp and Childress start by explaining the problem associated with moral status. This begins with questions on which groups, objects, or people are or should be protected by moral norms. Throughout the history of human beings, there are specific tribes, racial groupings, enemies in war and all non-human animals that have always been treated as inferior beings who are incapable of morality. They are deemed to have a low level of moral status and fewer or weaker rights in society. Additionally, the authors allude that in some blemished societies, full or partial moral rights of individuals are determined by their moral status. They also give an example of how animals used in biomedical research are presumed to have no moral rights according to medicine and biomedical ethics. From my perspective, I believe that the problem of moral status arises from how things like animals, plants, objects, including many others are treated to be incapable of morality. I argue that no matter the moral status of something or someone, they should be accorded a full moral status in their own right. 

Another problem that raises questions on moral status is surrogate decision making. Beauchamp and Childress argue that an individual’s moral status is usually lowered in respect to recognition of surrogates as rightful decision-makers who may entail that incomplete people have lost their rights of decision making. Therefore, any of them of their decisions do not have the same authority as they had before. Similarly, children involved in research are treated like their moral status have diminished only to advance the research goals which do not benefit them in any way. I think that outright denial of moral status to an individual is very implausible, and everyone has a right to speak out and be treated as human. In research, vulnerable parties are owed more protections, whether they are young, incompetent, or old. 

The problems of moral status also arise in cases of pregnant women who are considered to be brain dead, but their psychological capabilities are often maintained before delivery. Maintaining the body of a pregnant woman who is brain dead against her wishes implies that she has lower moral status than dead bodies since her body has been subjected to extreme measures to benefit the fetus. The question of whether the fetus has stronger rights than a brain-dead pregnant woman may arise despite some moral status beliefs. In my opinion, it is accepted in many societies that the fetus has a stronger moral status than that of a braindead pregnant woman, to the point of an expectant woman’s body being maintained for the sake of the fetus moral rights. However, it remains unclear whether the brain-dead pregnant women also imply to have their rights. 

Theories of Moral Status 

Having a moral status incorporates some protections that have been afforded by moral norms, including obligations, rights, rules, and principles. Beauchamp and Childress in this chapter, use some simple examples to show how protections can only be afforded to entities that have morally been wronged by actions. Some examples include infecting a person’s dog and computer with a harmful virus. Deliberately harming a person’s object means that a people has wronged not only the owner but also the object. This means that direct objects also count for their rights while indirect do not. There is a clear notion that moral theory fails to clarify the fact that some urge that one property confers moral status. To this end, the question of whether moral ethics should be used in the entities of beings remains unanswered. 

Beauchamp and Childress further argue that the identified properties in the five prominent theories of moral status cannot resolve the main problems associated with moral status on their own. However, the theories collectively provide an over-all, despite the untidy framework for tackling the problems. Furthermore, the five theories are first looked at and assessed why each one is attractive but problematic. The theories present plausible perspectives on moral status, but the theories are not sufficient by themselves. Therefore, the theories fail to adequately account for some of the actions done by human beings, and it remains doubtable that all controversies about moral status can be resolved. The authors, in the end, explain how some disagreements regarding moral status persists, and they also offer suggestions for reducing the conflicts. The theories fail to give the way forward concerning the problems associated with moral status since some actions are still under controversies. 

The first theory of moral status holds that the human characteristics and the traits of the species Homo sapiens impart moral status. This theory roots for the imperatives of upholding human rights, reiterating that it is the moral obligation of every individual in society to respect the rights of fellow humans. This theory, however, arises concerns by exalting the moral status of one natural kind over the others. In this regard, the theory is one sided. The second theory confers that moral status is contingent on the cognitive capabilities of individuals. This theory holds that individuals act and depict moral status in their lives on the premise of their cognition. The third theory is based on moral agency. According to this theory, how an individual plays their role as a moral agent determines their moral status. This assertion, however, does not explicitly point out the prerequisite conditions for moral status. The fourth theory is grounded on sentience such that humans as well as nonhumans hold properties that are neither moral properties nor cognitive but still count towards moral status. Therefore, having the capacity of sentience enables one to have a moral status, according to proponents of this theory. The fifth theory is based on and it hold that relationships between parties account for their moral status. This theory cannot account for how associated protections and moral status are established. 

The Moral Significance of Moral Status 

Beauchamp and Childress suggest that some writers argue that moral theory should be analyzed in terms of the role of moral virtues and moral character to determine how individuals should be treated. If the moral theories are not well considered, they may hinder the process of decision making by making individuals ignorant of essential features that should be well-thought-out in the process. As such, the theories do not offer relevant information and an account of moral priorities on how we should treat or respond to different matters and thus, individuals would be better off without the theory of moral status. Nonetheless, all individuals have different preferences, and it is upon us to decide on which are right or not, and therefore no theory of moral status can apply in such situations. With that in mind, it is clear that the theory of moral status has its limits and should be well analyzed and not discarded. 

On the other hand, moral coherence should be considered when it comes to undertaking risky biomedical research on vulnerable populations such as humans who lack certain capabilities. Protection for these populations should be high since they are no able to safeguard their interests. Ideally, for biomedical research to be justified, it has to come with potential benefit, and if not, it should be restricted. Individuals from vulnerable populations undergo many challenges, and if they are in our circles, it is vital for us to show them sympathy and moral responsiveness. Any form of compassion is morally ideal, and with that, we can be able to avoid incidences of child abuse, animal abuse, and neglect of the elderly in nursing homes. 

The main concern on moral status has been growing out of concern especially on the most vulnerable populations. The foundation of research and clinical ethics are governed by rules that require additional protections for the vulnerable populations. Vulnerable people, in context of biomedicine, are those who are incapable of protecting their own rights due to immaturity, sickness, mental illness, cognitive impairment, and debilitation. Most of them are usually impoverished adding to potential outcomes. Other vulnerable populations include homeless families, illegal aliens, and political refugees who are often subjects of human research. Vulnerable populations are also affected by the issue of moral status especially in biomedical research centers because of their inability to consent on anything done against their wishes. 

Reference 

Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2013).  Principles of biomedical ethics . New York: Oxford University Press.