The Ethics of Medical Homicide and MutilationO'Malley, Austin
Religion
The Ethics of Medical Homicide and Mutilation
O'Malley, Austin
Medical ethics
Therapeutic abortion, as has been said, is never permissible, under
any circumstances, if the child is not viable. In certain conditions,
say, when a uterine tumor clearly threatens the life of the pregnant
woman, or if in extrauterine gestation there is a rupture of the
tube, an operation may be permissible, or even obligatory, which has
for its direct end the removal of the tumor or the stopping of the
hemorrhage. If such a removal or ligation, under these conditions,
indirectly causes the abortion of the inviable fetus, or its death
from a lack of blood, these indirect effects may be reluctantly
permitted. They are cases of an equally immediate double effect,
one good and one evil, where all the requirements are fulfilled.
A _direct_ abortion of an inviable fetus, however, is never licit
even to save the mother's life, and in abortion the killing is
_direct_ because it is used as a means to an end. In a ruptured
ectopic gestation the primary effect of the physical operation is
to ligate the torn arteries to save the woman's life here and now;
the secondary effect is the permitted death of the fetus from the
shutting off of the blood supply. In the abortion of a premature
fetus the primary effect of the operation is to separate the placenta
from the uterus, to cut off the child's blood supply, and as a direct
consequence of this act, which is essentially evil, the woman's life
is saved. The original act in this abortion is evil, and evil may not
be done even if good follows. Even in self-defence against an unjust
aggressor one may not kill a man to save his own life--he tries to
save his own life and reluctantly permits the death of the aggressor.
In a killing in self-defence there are two distinct effects; in
abortion there is only one effect, and the killing is a means to this
one effect. That you may kill an irresponsible insane man who is
attacking your life, or the life of one entrusted to your care, is no
reason that you may attack a fetus in the womb. There is no parity.
The insane man is a materially unjust aggressor; the fetus is not an
aggressor at all. The mother placed it where it is; and if any one is
an aggressor, she is. In the abortion you directly kill the fetus and
indirectly save the woman's life, and this indirection uses the death
of the fetus as a means to the end of saving the woman's life. In
killing the insane aggressor you directly save the life of yourself
or your ward, and reluctantly permit the death of the aggressor. The
proofs of the essential immorality of direct homicide have already
been established in the general chapter on Homicide.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account