Hypothetical: A woman discovers she's pregnant. She takes medication that may harm a fetus, but it hasn't yet. If she stops the medication, she'll suffer permanent health repercussions. Her options are A. Sacrifice her health for a healthy baby, B. Maintain her health for a possibly fucked up baby/dangerous birth, C. Maintain her health and abort the baby. Assume she'd want a healthy baby without risk (if she could).
Which of these are moral, and which are fair? Are any of them both? I'm especially curious what those against abortion think.
This is one of those cases where the more you know, the less compelling these what-ifs become. Any situation in which this is happening will not be vague but specific, so let's plug in some specific variables to try it out. Let's say she's taking lithium. It causes fetal heart defects, primarily. After the heart is formed, the window of danger has passed and if the baby came out alright after that point then what would typically be done is set her up for increased monitoring of the pregnancy with a maternal-fetal medicine specialist while continuing the medication. After delivery, the baby will be carefully evaluated by a pediatrician for any signs of lethargy or other problems and if needed, treated in the special care unit.
Let's say as a different hypothetical that she's found out she is pregnant before the cardiac development window is closed. Again the referrals will happen and depending on her specific medical history they may find the least risky thing to do is to have her keep taking it with monitoring. Otherwise, they may switch her treatment to a medication that is proven to be less risky but also effective for the same disorder. In this case there are several of the anticonvulsant class drugs that could be tried.
This basic script is what will be followed for pretty much any teratogenic drug unless it is something that is truly not that helpful to the woman and could simply be stopped without harming her.
The only real exception to this is some forms of chemotherapy for cancer, the ones that are meant to basically glass any cells in their path. Most other therapies can be continued during pregnancy with special monitoring, or switched to a less risky alternative.
Try deformed and incompatible with life. Why do prolifers always minimize catastrophic fetal defects?
He's going to die. You are also going to die, and so am I. A fairly universal code of ethics is that we should treat others the way we want to be treated. If I had a terminal condition with no hope and I was possibly in pain or scared, this is what I would want (and I think most would want something similar) :
1. Medication that makes the pain go away and helps me rest.
2. No unnecessary medical interventions.
3. Be close to my family and others who love me, every possible minute.
4. My belief system's death rituals to be performed and an appropriate memorial held for my loved ones to grieve.
Why would you rip his head off instead of give him that?
All those things are what are provided with perinatal hospice. The baby is delivered and instead of being rushed to intensive care, his mother and father hold him while he dies. He is given medication for pain and perhaps some milk or sugar water because those things have an analgesic effect on neonates. Grandparents or others who love him surround him and see him off.
What suggests to you that anyone would prefer being stabbed in the face or ripped limb from limb over dying this way?
