Unlike most reasons that are used to support abortion, the prenatal diagnosis of a genetic disease or abnormality is a unique case. It is indisputable that terminating foetuses with Down’s syndrome prevents a life of suffering and pain. Even though the severity of these diseases is not determinable prenatally, Down syndrome is a severe affliction and abortion prevents the harm of rearing such a child to parents.
The predisposition to fatal conditions in childhood, repeated hospitalizations, chronic illnesses and the acquisition of conditions that deny the child an adult independence coupled to the constant demands on effort, time and financial resources justify the ethicality of abortion in such selective cases(Alkeny 2002). Down’s syndrome occurs in approximately one out of every seven hundred and fifty live born children. It is mostly characterized by mental retardation but may also be accompanied with multiple physical abnormalities like heart defects.
Children with Down syndrome are small in stature due to delayed skeletal system maturation, they have poor muscle tone that result to a characteristic facial appearance. More importantly, these children have an incredibly shorter life span(Hartl & Jones 2008). All these factors and disease characteristics affect the parents, the family and the society to certain degrees of vulnerability. The society with its legal structures should not force a woman to give birth to severely handicapped or deformed children into the world.
In the case of Down’s syndrome a conclusive diagnosis has been made through amniocentesis performed as a routine test in prenatal care. In most cases, nurses and councillors assume that the woman will definitely abort the baby due to the results attesting to genetic deformity(Rae 2000). Pro-choice advocates hold the opinion that it is entirely unethical to hold a woman carrying a deformed foetus to term. That such an act is not only insensitive to the innate feelings of the woman but also unfair to the foetus.
According to the themes inherent in relational ethics nurses and counsellors have a responsibility to develop a moral relationship with such mothers who have just received a positive genetic test for Down’s syndrome in line with the environment, mutual respect, embodiment and engagement. Since dialogue forms the basis of relational space and hence the analysis of the ethics of an act, the relationship modelled between a health professional and the mother is usually aimed at the understanding and examination of the morality of life(Butts & Rich 2005).
Under such a circumstance it is not surprising that many nurses and counsellors advice for abortion as such a decision is always based on the true feelings of the mother under such critical circumstances. Abortions done in cases of deformities form a small percentage of the total number of abortions performed yearly. Thus, abortion under such circumstances only supports the right to procure abortion in cases where it has been conclusively determined that the foetus is genetically deformed. At the very best, such abortions do not support the argument that it allows a woman to choose the termination of the foetus as a fundamental right.
Such difficult cases should never be taken as a general rule, in that they do not to any conceivable degree support the right of abortion on demand. To allow human beings to suffer from a genetic disability when it can be prevented is a tragedy in itself and a cause of suffering not only to the person suffering from Down’s syndrome but also to the parents and the family at large. It is no secret that a good percentage of individuals with Down’s syndrome receive suboptimal medical care. The presence of the condition has been used to justify the denial of treatment for sight and hearing problems.
Evidence from a study carried out in the United States and France reveals that there are so many cases of explained deaths of individuals with Down’s syndrome even in cases where malformation is absent(Louhiala 2004). Based on the family burden argument, abortion of children with Down’s syndrome is justified. While there are some families that adapt well, others have great problems making them very vulnerable. This vulnerability is directly linked to the parental attitudes towards the deformed offspring and consequently high societal burden and low quality of life.
As a medical practice, selective abortion, despite its social acceptability, operates within the context of the medical professional code of ethics. Therefore, it is of complete irrelevance to the professionals whether the foetus is a person or the rights it possesses. According to the basic understanding of the ethics of practice, as long as the foetus does not fall within the definition of a legitimate patient, it can not enjoy equal rights to life and protection as the legitimate patient.
This is supports the reasons why foetuses prenatally diagnosed with diseases classified as severe afflictions are deemed unhealthy for the mother(the legitimate patient in this case and selectively aborted). Thus in medical ethics, the foetus has not attained the status of personhood and cannot be definitive of a legitimate patient, cannot enjoy the rights of existence, nor receive the protection of the practice(Monagle & Thomasma 2004). As a result the practice is ethically and morally right.