What would a divine command ethicist say is the moral thing to do here? Why would they say that? Do you agree with the divine command ethics? Why or why not?
The dilemma for this weeks discussion involves a 12 year old child who lost a large amount of blood and requires a blood transfusion, the parents want to prevent the transfusion and remove the child from the hospital, even if that means death to the child. The parents happen to be members of a religion that believes that blood transfusions are immoral, and if the child receives blood from another person it is seen as immoral in the eyes of the parents and God. The divine command theory believes that God dictates what actions are morally right and wrong (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). The parents view their decision as moral in their eyes and if God says something is immoral than it must be correct.
Personally, I do not agree with the divine command ethics, due to their religion it is putting this child at risk for death because they need the blood transfusion. I think everyone needs to have respect for religions different from their own, but if the child needs the blood transfusion in order to live I think that religion needs to be pushed aside and do whats in the best interest of the child. I believe I would participate in this dilemma only if we respected the religion and have tried every other solution to help this child without giving blood, but if nothing else is working then giving blood would be the appropriate action to take for this child.
Evaluate what a natural law ethicist would say is right to do. Do you agree with them? Why or why not?
Natural law is a moral theory which asserts that there is a moral code which applies to all humans and which exists within our nature. “Natural Law Theory supports doing unnatural deeds such as surgery for the sake of realizing a restoration of health and the prolongation of human life which are each consistent with the natural drives, or in other terms, survival” (Chapter 7. Deontological Theories: Natural Law, n.d.). Based off of this statement made, I think that the natural law ethicist would proceed with the blood transfusion, even though it is against the parents religion because it is a life or death situation for the child. I would have to agree to an extent with the natural ethicist because it means survival for the child, but I would want to ensure all other options have been ruled out and a blood transfusion is the last option we would have.
Given what you said are the right things to do, what would an emotivist say about your positions and judgments? What role does subjectivity play here in determining what is ethical?
“Emotivism is the view that moral judgments do not function as statements of fact but rather as expressions of the speaker’s or writer’s feelings” (Britannica 2013). I think an emotivist would judge the dilemma based off of survival, they would want to proceed with the transfusion even though it is against the parents religion. Subjectivity plays a major role in determining what is ethical, for this dilemma I believe the ethical thing to do would be to proceed with the transfusion because it all comes down to survival, and the family should be educated by the healthcare team on the high risk of death if the child doesn’t get the transfusion.
References
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2013, May 22). emotivism. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/emotivismLinks to an external site.
Natural Law Theory. (n.d.). https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/ethics_text/chapter_7_deontological_theories_natural_law/Natural_Law_Theory.htm Links to an external site.
ANSWER
Divine Command Ethicist:
A divine command ethicist would say that the moral thing to do in this situation is to respect the parents’ religious beliefs and not give the child a blood transfusion, even if it means that the child will die. They would argue that God’s commands are absolute and must be obeyed, even if they seem harsh or illogical to humans.
Natural Law Ethicist:
A natural law ethicist would say that the moral thing to do is to give the child a blood transfusion, even if it is against the parents’ religious beliefs. They would argue that the natural law protects human life and that it is therefore morally permissible to violate someone’s religious beliefs in order to save their life.
Emotivist:
An emotivist would say that there is no objectively right or wrong answer to this question, as morality is purely subjective. They would argue that the best course of action is to choose the option that will produce the greatest happiness for the most people. In this case, that might mean giving the child a blood transfusion, or it might mean respecting the parents’ religious beliefs.
Subjectivity in Ethics:
Subjectivity plays a major role in determining what is ethical. This is because morality is based on human values, which are inherently subjective. For example, some people value human life above all else, while others value religious freedom above all else. In this case, the decision of whether or not to give the child a blood transfusion will ultimately come down to the values of the people involved.
My Opinion:
I personally believe that the natural law ethicist has the strongest argument in this case. I believe that human life is the most important value, and that it is therefore morally permissible to violate someone’s religious beliefs in order to save their life. However, I also respect the right of people to hold religious beliefs, and I believe that it is important to try to find a solution that is acceptable to both the parents and the healthcare team.
In this specific case, I would try to talk to the parents about the risks of not giving the child a blood transfusion. I would also explain to them that the child is old enough to express their own wishes, and that I would be willing to talk to the child about their feelings on the matter. Ultimately, I would make the decision based on what I believe is in the best interests of the child, even if it means going against the parents’ wishes.