Degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s are known for their severe impact on the wellbeing of victims. These diseases affect the quality of the patient’s life following progression of neuronal degeneration. Unfortunately, these diseases have no treatment which explains the emphasis on the quality of care provided to patients. For such diseases, a cure would be a remarkable discovery. However, some cases occur whereby a cure for a disease raises ethical questions with regard to how it is acquired. The case under discussion presents the issue of using the tissue of aborted fetus to treat Parkinson’s disease. Using a hybrid model of utilitarian and deontological ethics, the use of fetus tissue is morally acceptable only if the fetus is acquired through unavoidable medical circumstances such as miscarriage, and not abortion that is acquired for the purpose of selling the tissue of the fetus.
One of the fundamental issues in the scenario in question is that the use of tissue from aborted fetus might lead to increased rates of abortion. Svenaeus (2017) acknowledges that there has been no consensus regarding the ethics of abortion whether in the United States or other countries in the West. It is presented that “the stalemate between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is more or less total and has often been presented as a war between religious and/or conservative and feminist and/or liberal ideologies” (Svenaeus, 2017, p. 78). The morality of using fetus tissue to treat Parkinson’s or any other degenerative disease, therefore, would be subject to evaluation by both pro0lifers and pro-choicers. Additionally, Kadivar et al. (2017) noted that in cases where a patient’s health is at risk, one is required to apply the principle of non-maleficence. The principle of non-maleficence demands securing patients’ safety through preventing injury or damage. Therefore, with regard to using the tissue of aborted fetus, the outcome is positive in that those with Parkinson’s will be saved from the adverse effects of the disease. On that account, the act of using fetus tissue would be moral as it is focused on securing the wellbeing of patients.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Arguably, whether the use of aborted fetus tissue is morally acceptable or not is contingent on the nature of consequences. Through the lens of utilitarianism, Mandal et al. (2016) explained that if decisions made lead to more of benefits as opposed to negative outcomes, they are morally acceptable. For utilitarians, the main concern is nature of outcomes that is, whether the positives outweigh the negatives. For the case involving the use of aborted fetus, while an aborted fetus has no life, its tissue could be used to help the many patients who are suffering from Parkinson’s. If the tissue is proven to be effective even in dealing with other degenerative diseases, its position as a feasible and reliable treatment method would be strengthened. A defining feature of the utilitarian model is that the outcomes of an act justify the means used prior (Mandal et al., 2016). With this understanding, if the tissue is acquired from the fetus of a woman who suffered a miscarriage, it would not be deemed morally wrong to use it for other purposes. Kadivar et al. (2017) emphasized the role of health care professionals to promote the best possible outcomes for patients. Therefore, if research has proven that treating patients with Parkinson’s using fetus tissue leads to dramatic improvement, then such an act should be supported. Morality of the use of the fetus tissue is upheld in that the intention is to promote a positive outcome in patients. Here, the greatest good outweighs the concern that the fetus tissue should not be used in such a manner.
While a utilitarian approach approves the use of fetus tissue to treat individuals with Parkinson’s disease, Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics is likely to question this particular method. Mandal (2016) noted that deontological ethics emphasizes the obligations and duties of individuals and that the outcomes of an act might not justify the means. Barrow and Khandhar (2020) noted that within Kant’s deontological model, acts are supposed to fall within categorical imperatives; categorical imperatives are described as unconditional and moral absolutes. The requirement for health care providers is that they should act in a manner that is justifiable even in a case where a different provider engages in the same act (Barrow & Khandhar, 2020). In a case where the use of fetus tissue has been approved as promoting improvement in patients with Parkinson’s, then such an act would be considered universal. However, a point of reservation is that some women might get pregnant to get an abortion and, afterwards sell the tissue of the fetus. If a health care professional learns that such is the case, the use of the fetus would be morally wrong. There is likely to be a rise in cases of abortion some of which might be the outcome of rape, or forced pregnancies for monetary gain. Purchasing the tissue of the fetus would be a way of promoting rampant abortion in women. Kadivar et al. (2017) noted that some health processes are risky to the wellbeing of patients. Therefore, it is important to appreciate that abortion is a risky procedure and could lead to fatal outcomes on the woman.
It is important to appreciate that health care decisions are premised on varied factors such as the right to treatment among patients, the legality of a particular treatment approach, alongside the obligation to promote justice in service delivery (Mandal, 2016). With regard to the case at hand, a miscarried fetus does not have life, and is therefore secondary to an individual suffering from Parkinson’s disease. From a utilitarian perspective, there is justification is using the fetus tissue to treat the degenerative disease in question. However, the use of these tissue should be based on how it is acquired in the first place. Barrow and Khandhar (2020) emphasized that one should only act if that act can be adopted universally. Therefore, through the lens of deontological ethics, using fetus tissue from women who got pregnant for the purpose of aborting would not be considered moral. As noted, there are varied adverse outcomes that could occur following commercialization of fetus tissue. While the objective is to treat those with Parkinson’s disease, the manner in which the tissue is acquired should be moral. Therefore, it is not morally acceptable for women to get pregnant and get an abortion afterwards just to sell fetus tissue.
Conclusion
Based on the case assessment, the final decision is that fetus tissue can be used to treat individuals with Parkinson’s disease. However, there should be limitations with regard to how the fetus tissue is acquired. Women should not be allowed to get pregnant to get an abortion to sell fetus tissue. Such behavior does not satisfy the requirements of deontological ethics. Therefore, a utilitarian approach approves of the use of fetus tissue in treating Parkinson’s disease, while deontological intervention seeks to control the manner in which the fetus tissue is acquired. The integration of the two ethical frameworks, therefore, justifies the treat of Parkinson’s disease using fetus tissue.
References
Barrow, J. M., & Khandhar, P. B. (2020). Deontology. In StatPearls . StatPearls Publishing.
Kadivar, M., Manookian, A., Asghari, F., Niknafs, N., Okazi, A., & Zarvani, A. (2017). Ethical and legal aspects of patient's safety: a clinical case report. Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine , 10 , 15.
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical parasitology , 6 (1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5070.175024
Svenaeus F. (2018). Phenomenology of pregnancy and the ethics of abortion. Medicine, health care, and philosophy , 21 (1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9786-x
