Sanctity of Life vs Social Role Theory

Case: Fetal Abnormality

In the Christian view, human persons are understood as having intrinsic value and dignity because they are made in the image and likeness of God. This view holds that human life is sacred from conception until natural death, a concept often associated with the Sanctity of Life theory (Lockhart et al., 2023). This theory ascribes moral status to all humans regardless of their abilities, condition, or development. It corresponds to the belief in the intrinsic human value and dignity - every human being, regardless of circumstances, has an inherent worth that must be respected and protected.

The case study suggests varying theories of moral status at play: Jessica seems to align with the Sanctity of Life theory. Her belief that "all life is sacred" reflects this theory, suggesting that she may feel morally compelled to continue the pregnancy despite the baby’s condition.

Marco's perspective is not explicitly articulated, but it could align with the Social Role theory, given his concerns about the potential socioeconomic impact of raising a disabled child. This theory attributes moral status based on an individual's role in society or potential contribution to it.

Aunt Maria also adheres to the Sanctity of Life theory, urging Jessica to follow through with the pregnancy and let "God's will" happen, reinforcing the belief in the inherent value of all life.

Dr. Wilson appears to advocate the Quality of Life theory, considering the potential quality of life for the child and the family. His recommendation of abortion as a medically wise choice indicates his belief in prioritizing the potential well-being and future happiness of the individual and the family.

Each theory influences their recommendations:

Jessica, influenced by the Sanctity of Life theory, might lean towards continuing with the pregnancy, respecting the inherent value of the unborn child’s life. Jessica is scared by the news, but her inclination is to support the life growing in the womb. This inclination is backed by her religious belief and what could be called a natural motherly instinct to protect a child.

Marco, perhaps influenced by the Social Role theory, might lean towards an action that he believes will preserve their socioeconomic stability and future prospects. Marco’s primary concern is maintaining a standard of living, which he feels they will not be able to maintain if they have a sick or medically-needy child. Marco is clearly putting his own interests first, seeking socioeconomic status, comfort, and sustainability over the life of the child.

Aunt Maria, guided by the Sanctity of Life theory, advocates for the continuation of the pregnancy, allowing "God's will" to take place. Like Jessica, Maria adopts a more spiritual perspective on the matter, informed by an intense religious belief about the value of life and the importance of accepting whatever God sends to one.

Dr. Wilson, adhering to the Quality of Life theory, recommends abortion, considering it the medically wise choice given the potential quality of life for the child and the family.

If I were to analyze this from a utilitarian standpoint (focusing on achieving the greatest good for the greatest number), it would involve a careful consideration of all factors, including the potential quality of life of the child, the socioeconomic impact on the family, and the emotional and moral implications for Jessica and Marco (Mulgan, 2019). The decision would then be influenced by the course of action that maximizes overall wellbeing and minimizes suffering. That said, it is important to note that every ethical theory has its strengths and limitations, and the final decision should ideally be made through a respectful dialogue considering all perspectives and the unique context of the situation.

In this case it would mean looking at the situation from the three main perspectives—Sanctity of Life, Social Role, and Quality of Life. I would look to see where there is overlap among the three perspectives and see if it were possible to reconcile the views. I think this would be possible, but it would require having an agreed-upon foundation or framework for what is most important or valued. Because Jessica and Maria see life as most important, it would be possible to proceed from there by asking, “Okay, what is the duty of one toward supporting life? What is the responsibility here? Because quality and social standards are all relative, these cannot really be used as fix points of reference, so the question ultimately is, what is the greatest good?” It would appear that the greatest good would be to support the life in the womb and bring it to term in spite of any objections, as life is important at the fundamental level.

The one thing they all have in common is a sense of duty, so the question is duty to what? The doctor believes in duty to quality of life; Marco believes in duty to social security; Jessica and Maria believe in maternal duty. However, they are all there to support Jessica and to serve her needs. Therefore, to serve Jessica, they should serve her in the decision to support the life. Thus, from a duty ethics, or deontological, perspective, moral decisions should be made based on duty or moral rules, regardless of the outcome or consequences (Misselbrook, 2013). This perspective emphasizes the importance of universal principles, such as respect for all human life and the value of honesty. Given her belief that all life is sacred, her sense of duty, from a deontological perspective, might compel her to continue with the pregnancy, irrespective of the potential challenges associated with raising a child with a disability. Marco’s duty as a husband and future father could compel him to support Jessica in her decision, regardless of his personal concerns about the potential socioeconomic impact. His belief in being truthful to Jessica and her right to know could also be seen as a deontological perspective, valuing honesty and respect for her autonomy. From a deontological perspective, her religious convictions, and belief in the sanctity of life, would lead Maria to urge Jessica to continue the pregnancy irrespective of the potential challenges. This aligns with the principle-based approach of duty ethics. Dr. Wilson’s duty should be to save lives, as a medical professional—not to terminate life based on a quality of life value judgment.