Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples
Human beings, over time, have associated the nature of the human person with the nature of a creator, or a higher being, connected spiritually. However, scientism is common today, attempting to explain the origin of the human being, reasons for existence, and the nature of a person. This leads to multiple theories, including evolution theory, that provide assertions regarding the source of life (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Nonetheless, the belief in a higher being is still stronger through religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other cultures. This paper seeks to discuss the Christian perception of the nature of the human being and assess a case study on fetal abnormality (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Christian View of the Nature of Human Persons and Compatible Theory of Moral Status
Per the Christian worldview, the nature of the human person includes morality, the soul, rationality, free will, creativity, and fallenness. The Bible teaches about eternity, where the soul lives after the physical body dies. Like many other religions, the belief in life after death pushes Christians to be morally upright and righteous because only those who manage to do what God expects of them are promised life after death. The soul is immortal, and only human beings possess one as the spiritual element that connects them to God, provided in Jeremiah 1:5 as an element of human existence even before birth (Perkins, 2021) (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
God connects and communicates to human beings through the soul; thus, Christians are expected to feed the soul by reading and practicing the Bible. Humans have the aspect of morality, described as a requirement to do what is right in God’s eyes and per Christian teachings. Christians understand right from wrong through Biblical teachings, including commandments and laws guiding human judgment, behavior, and action (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Humans are the only creation that can tell right from wrong, justifying their dominance over other creations. Additionally, Christians have free will to choose how to live and select alternatives between right and wrong. Free will is God given to allow humans to make their own decisions and be cautious of what they do (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Moreover, humans are rational beings designed by God, implying that they have reasoning in their decisions and judgments. Humans can understand scenarios and make weighted decisions and actions based on the consequences, employing their knowledge, experience, and conscience (Clarke, 2023). God created human beings as creative beings, giving them dominion over other creations, including naming and caring for them.
Furthermore, human beings possess the aspect of fallenness, or the original sin, in the Bible. Human beings are born with the original sin Adam and Eve committed after their disobedience. This sin was brought to earth, creating a separation between human beings and God (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
The Christian understanding and perception of the nature of the human being is consistent with virtue ethics theory, which postulates that people act per their moral character (Doukas et al., 2022). Thus, people would act and decide in ways they perceive have good consequences. Virtuous people’s character traits are ideal, and Christianity presents Jesus Christ as the most virtuous being who lived purely and was sinless.
Christians work hard to emulate Jesus’ life, actions, relationship with people, and decisions in challenging and tempting situations (Clarke, 2023). This theory portrays the inherent human value and dignity by asserting that individuals with virtuous traits are more likely to choose and act right because they recognize intrinsic value and dignity, respect other people, and acknowledge their worth (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Determination of Moral Status
The case study on fetal abnormality shows how different worldviews and moral beliefs influence people’s decisions. Jessica, Marco, Maria, and Dr. Wilson have varying viewpoints and moral perceptions. Dr. Wilson employs scientism and medical knowledge, which places little value on the inherent value and dignity of the fetus and more weight on the consequences of giving birth to a child with abnormality. The doctor adopts utilitarianism theory, asserting that the right decisions and actions lead to happiness (Vearrier & Henderson, 2021) (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Marco also uses the utilitarianism theory to determine the fetus’ moral status. Marco believes the consequences of giving birth to a child with abnormality would be enormous, placing little worth and consideration for the fetus’ life. Marcos is more concerned about the socioeconomic challenges of raising a child with an abnormality rather than the life of the fetus. Per the theory, the doctor and Marco assess the situation and select the decisions promoting quality and a happy life or which maximizes utility (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Aunt Maria employs the virtue ethics theory to determine the fetus’s moral status. Aunt Maria places more weight on intrinsic human dignity and worth. She views the fetus’s life as more essential than the socioeconomic concerns of raising a child with a disability. Aunt Maria is also a Christian, borrowing from Christin’s perception of human nature, which asserts that life is sacred and should be protected (Doukas et al., 2022) (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Jessica is indecisive, and her perspectives vary. She adopts utilitarianism and virtue ethics to determine the fetus’s moral status. She reasons that giving birth and raising the child would be straining and compromise their socioeconomic status, implying aspects of utilitarian theory. Also, Jessica believes in sacred life and that it is worth protecting. She contemplates keeping her child, demonstrating aspects of virtue ethics theory (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Recommendation for Action
In this case, the doctor’s adoption of scientism and utilitarianism influences his recommendation for action because he recommends abortion as the right decision. Similarly, Marco’s adoption of the utilitarianism theory influences his recommendation for action because he also agrees with the doctor that abortion would be the right decision. Marco seeks to live a quality and happy life, and raising a child with abnormalities would compromise their social and financial plans. In this case, abortion is a utilitarian choice because it would mean Jessica and Marco will not have to sacrifice additional time, money, and effort to raise a child with a disability (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Aunt Maria’s adoption of virtue ethics theory influences her recommendation for action as she urges Jessica to keep the child. She believes abortion is wrong and does not respect human life, and Jessica should give birth to her child and leave the rest to God. Both utilitarianism and virtue ethics theories inform Jessica’s recommendation for action, leaving her torn between aborting and keeping the child. The theories are conflicting because both arguments are convincing, leaving Jessica undecisive (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Personal Response to Case Study
Dr. Wilson’s scans show that the child will potentially be disabled, but the doctor is not certain of the outcomes. However, the doctor’s medical knowledge provides that the child has a higher likelihood of being disabled and developing Down’s Syndrome. Despite the potential outcomes, my moral beliefs and character about human life and respect for every person, irrespective of their status, align with virtue ethics theory. I understand that raising a child with a disability would be straining economically and socially (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
However, promoting abortion in every instance a fetus is determined to develop a disability potentially implies the life of those born with a disability is insignificant and lacks worth. There are people already living with disability, including Down’s Syndrome, and showing them that it is okay to abort if the fetus is likely to be disabled implies that they are a burden for other people and their lives is less worthy than those without disabilities (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Living with a disability does not mean being useless because most have unique talents and abilities to share with the world. Conclusively, those with disability have the same inherent worth and dignity as those without, and partaking in abortions due to scans indicating potential disability disregards life (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Every person has inherent value and dignity irrespective of status, ethnicity, nationality, race, age, gender, physical attributes, and abilities. Christians place worth on life, believing it is sacred and worth protecting. Therefore, in this case, the infant’s life is worth saving regardless of the potential disability. Every human being is unique and has a purpose in life. Thus, denying them a chance to live and fulfill their purpose is unjust and wrong per the Christian worldview and virtue ethics theory (Fetal Abnormality Paper-Nursing Paper Examples).
Clarke S. (2023). The sanctity of life is a sacred value. Bioethics, 37(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13094
Doukas, D. J., Ozar, D. T., Darragh, M., de Groot, J. M., Carter, B. S., & Stout, N. (2022). Virtue and care ethics & humanism in medical education: a scoping review. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-03051-6
Perkins I. (2021). Human Flourishing in Christ: A Journey of Hope in the Christian Community. The Linacre Quarterly, 88(2), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0024363920920409
Vearlier, L., & Henderson, C. M. (2021). Utilitarian Principlism as a Framework for Crisis Healthcare Ethics. HEC forum: an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals’ ethical and legal issues, 33(1-2), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-020-09431-7