Imagine a scenario where a child is born with a rare and sev ✓ Solved

Imagine a scenario where a child is born with a rare and severe medical condition that leads to significant suffering over time. While the child initially appears healthy, the condition causes progressive physical changes and developmental challenges. Despite these challenges, the child remains mentally sharp and emotionally aware. This condition is life-threatening, with a drastically reduced life expectancy, often cutting short the possibility of reaching adulthood. Treatments exist that might alleviate some symptoms and potentially extend life, but they don't offer a cure and could involve extensive, long-term care.

Parents are faced with a tough choice: Should they approve a medical procedure that might extend their child's life, knowing it could lead to ongoing and expensive care? Or should they decide against it, which could result in their child's death? For this discussion, let's focus on the ethics of the decision rather than on who has the authority to make it . Respond to one of the following: Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum-ranking, and consequences. Do your best to answer whether it is immoral for the parents to withhold surgery.

Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLOs 9.1, 9.2, 9.3) Contrast what a Kantian would say according to its core principles of universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum ranking, and consequences. Do your best to answer whether it is immoral for the parents to withhold surgery. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLOs 9.1, 9.2, 9.3)

Paper for above instructions

Introduction
The ethical dilemma surrounding whether parents should approve a life-extending but burdensome medical procedure for their terminally ill child raises profound moral questions. These questions concern suffering, responsibility, quality of life, and the limits of medical intervention. Ethical theories provide frameworks for evaluating such dilemmas, helping us understand what might constitute a morally correct decision. This essay contrasts a Kantian ethical analysis—based on universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity—with a utilitarian analysis grounded in welfare, impartiality, consequences, and sum-ranking. Through this comparison, the essay evaluates whether it is immoral for the parents to withhold surgery and ultimately argues which theory provides the most compelling guidance.

Kantian Ethics and the Moral Duty to Preserve Life

Kantian ethics is grounded in respect for rational beings, adherence to moral duty, and universalizable moral laws. According to Immanuel Kant, moral actions are not judged by outcomes but by whether they arise from duties that rational agents must follow (Kant, 1785/1997). In this scenario, the child, though physically impaired, remains mentally sharp and emotionally aware, qualifying them as a rational being deserving of moral respect.

Universalizability requires that a moral action must be acceptable as a universal law. A Kantian would ask: Can the maxim “It is permissible for parents to withhold potentially life-saving treatment from a conscious, rational child” be universalized without contradiction? The likely answer is no. Universalizing such a maxim would undermine the moral duty to preserve rational life and would erode the basic ethical commitment society has toward protecting vulnerable individuals (Johnson, 2020).

Duty also plays a central role. Kant argues that humans have a duty to preserve life—both their own and that of others—when possible (Kant, 1785/2002). Parents, as the immediate caretakers, carry a moral duty to safeguard the welfare of their child. Even though the treatment is burdensome and costly, failure to act to preserve life violates this duty unless the treatment itself constitutes a violation of human dignity.

Impartiality and reciprocity further strengthen the Kantian obligation. Impartiality means that one cannot favor their personal preferences, emotions, or burdens over universal moral rules. Reciprocity means recognizing that if the child were in a position to reciprocate moral duties, they would reasonably expect the preservation of their own life. Thus, a Kantian would hold that withholding surgery is immoral unless the procedure itself would cause a level of suffering so degrading that it violates the inherent dignity of the child.

Given that the child remains mentally aware and values life, a Kantian would argue that respecting their rational nature implies sustaining their opportunity to live. Therefore, a Kantian ethicist would most likely consider it immoral to withhold surgery.

Utilitarian Ethics: Weighing Welfare, Consequences, and Total Good

Utilitarianism, in contrast, evaluates moral actions based solely on outcomes—specifically, those that maximize overall welfare and minimize suffering. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill maintain that the morally right action is the one that produces “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” (Mill, 1863).

Welfare is the central concern. A utilitarian would ask whether the surgery increases the child’s total net welfare. The surgery may extend life but at the cost of prolonged suffering, invasive procedures, and financial strain on the family. If the extended life is dominated by suffering, utilitarianism may deem the surgery morally unjustifiable.

Impartiality requires considering everyone’s welfare equally: the child’s suffering, the parents’ emotional and financial burdens, and any impact on siblings or extended family. No person’s interests count more than another’s simply due to identity or relationship.

Consequences play the defining role. A utilitarian would evaluate scenarios: 1. Approving surgery: The child lives longer but experiences pain; the family undergoes hardship; the emotional attachment provides moments of joy. 2. Withholding surgery: The child dies sooner but avoids prolonged suffering; the family experiences grief but avoids years of emotional and financial strain.

Sum-ranking requires adding up total suffering and total happiness. If the suffering outweighs the benefits—across all involved—utilitarianism concludes that withholding surgery is morally justified and may even be morally required (Singer, 1993).

However, if treatment alleviates symptoms effectively enough to provide the child with meaningful, pleasurable experiences—even amidst disability—then utilitarianism may support the surgery. Utilitarianism thus does not give a single rigid answer; it depends entirely on which course of action maximizes well-being and minimizes harm.

Is It Immoral for the Parents to Withhold Surgery?

Kantian perspective: Yes, it is immoral to withhold surgery because doing so violates the duty to preserve rational life, fails universalizability, and neglects the moral worth of the child as an autonomous being.

Utilitarian perspective: It depends on the balance of suffering and happiness. If surgery causes prolonged suffering with minimal benefit, withholding may be morally acceptable or even preferable.

These two approaches reach different conclusions because they prioritize different moral concerns. Kant focuses on moral duty regardless of consequences; utilitarianism focuses purely on results.

Which Ethical Theory Provides the Best Account?

Both theories offer compelling insights, but utilitarianism provides the most practical moral guidance in this scenario. Several reasons support this conclusion:

1. Medical decisions inherently involve predicting consequences. Utilitarianism directly analyzes the anticipated suffering, pleasure, and well-being associated with treatment. Kantian ethics, by contrast, overlooks the practical realities of long-term suffering and medical burdens.

2. The child’s welfare is central to the question. Utilitarianism carefully examines how treatment affects the child’s quality of life. Kantian ethics imposes an abstract duty to preserve life even when life may be dominated by pain.

3. Families live within real-world constraints. Utilitarian ethics considers financial, emotional, and social burdens that significantly affect overall happiness. Kantian ethics largely dismisses these concerns as morally irrelevant.

4. Utilitarianism respects complexity and variation. Outcomes vary by medical condition, available treatments, and individual pain tolerance. Utilitarianism can adapt; Kantian ethics cannot.

5. Compassion aligns closely with utilitarian reasoning. Utilitarianism allows parents to prioritize reducing suffering. Philosophers such as Peter Singer argue that compassion-based reasoning rooted in minimizing harm better addresses medical dilemmas than rigid deontological rules (Singer, 1993).

Therefore, utilitarianism offers the most nuanced and morally sensitive approach for determining whether withholding surgery is immoral.

Conclusion

The dilemma of whether parents should approve a life-extending but burdensome medical procedure for their terminally ill child challenges fundamental ethical principles. Kantian ethics prioritizes duty and respect for rational beings, concluding that parents have a moral obligation to approve surgery. Utilitarianism evaluates consequences and total welfare, offering a flexible framework that may justify withholding treatment if it reduces suffering overall. After assessing both theories, utilitarianism provides the most compelling and context-sensitive approach because it recognizes the importance of well-being, emotional considerations, and real-world factors. It treats the ethical question not as a rigid rule but as a compassionate evaluation of what will minimize suffering and maximize humane outcomes.

References

1. Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
2. Johnson, R. (2020). Kant’s moral philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
3. Kant, I. (1997). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
4. Kant, I. (2002). Duties Toward Others. In Lectures on Ethics.
5. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
6. Sandel, M. (2010). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
7. Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
8. Shaw, W. (2017). Contemporary Ethics. Wiley.
9. Kagan, S. (1998). Normative Ethics. Westview Press.
10. Driver, J. (2014). The History of Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press.