A Sham Expertise

An OB-Gyne doctor, a former senator, a priest and a movie star have been invited for a TV talk show to discuss and tackle the issue of abortion. The discussion centered on what should be the best decision to take if a mother was found to be pregnant but was discovered to have a heart condition that aggravated the pregnancy. The mother is three (3)months pregnant and has consulted for the first time an OBGyne. This is the OB-Gyne in the TV talk show. She said that the condition of the mother indicates termination of pregnancy for better medial management. The former senator unabashedly told the host that in this case, the best decision was to really terminate the pregnancy while the baby was still very young in the womb. The priest echoing the former guests said that in this case one could use the principle of double-effect so much so that even if we decide to terminate the pregnancy, such procedure would be ethically valid and defensible. The movie star, without second thoughts spoke out that since there was a right to freedom, she could exercise it for what was good in the situation. For me, she asserted, since the case is rather a dilemma, I would favor the life of the mother more than the baby.

1. What is the common denominator in the opinions demonstrated by the guests in the TV Talk Show? Justify.

2. Were the answers of the guests all ethically tenable? Why?

3. In your opinion, what could be the best ethical decision that can be made in the case being discussed by the TV guests? Why?

4. What should have been done by the TV channel before guests are interviewed as the ones above, in order to avoid exposing the public to unethical pronouncements?

Question no. 1:

What is the common denominator in the opinions demonstrated by the guests in the TV Talk Show? Justify.

Answer:

All the TV talk show guests were in agreement to terminate the pregnancy, each with their own reasons, such as to better manage the mothers medical condition, that the baby was still very young, using the principle of double-effect and claim to the right to freedom.The aim of all is focused on safeguarding the life of the mother, in varying views though. The OB-Gyne wanted to save the mother because having the baby, hurdles medical management. The senator agreed with the former since it is still in the ontological level, and in the same manner, the movie star agreed in the assisted expulsion of the baby, for she believed that the mother is entitled of this right. The priest echoed what the other guests have said, and wanted to mask the will of terminating the pregnancy by using the principle of double effect to make it as an ethically valid and defensible move.

Question no. 2: Answer: No.

Were the answers of the guests all ethically tenable? Why?

For the OB-Gyne doctor: The case may suggest a risky pregnancy due to a medical condition that if left untreated, could endanger both the life of the mother and that of the baby. But we have to bear in mind that life is valuable and cannot be sacrificed for any reason. Direct intention of killing the baby is not plausibly moral and is always ethically wrong as this breaches the principle of human dignity and inviolability of life. For the former senator: Young as it may, living in a womb as it was, still, from the ontological level, the fetus possesses what truly characterizes a human being. Thus, as a human being, he too is entitled of right and dignity. For the movie star: theres no such thing as absolute dominion over everything, nor in a single thing, like what the principle of stewardship states. Everyone must enjoy freedom to its fullest, but freedom has its limits when it adversely affects others right to exercise their own. Freedom never includes the right to destroy an innocent human life. The

destruction of an innocent life is a violation of the principle of motherhood and an assault to the dignity of human life which regards the womb as a sanctuary of life. For the priest: Sounds confusing, since the case given states that there was an echoing done with regards to the plan of terminating the pregnancy. The suggestion of the priest was to use the principle of double-effect so much so that even if there will be decision to terminate pregnancy, it would be ethically valid and defensible. The question should not revolve around the choice between the baby and the mother, but rather should be focused on saving both lives if this is still possible. And above all, at all cost, by all means, there should never be a point to make a decision to terminate the pregnancy. Abortion would just be really ethically valid and defensible, if it occurred accidentally or indirectly willed and not directly intended.

Question no. 3:

In your opinion, what could be the best ethical decision that can be made in the case being discussed by the TV guests? Why?

Answer:

To seek other treatment alternatives for the mothers heart condition without terminating the pregnancy. It was not stated that the pregnancy aggravates the heart condition but it was the heart condition that affects the pregnancy. Therefore terminating the pregnancy will not alleviate or correct the mothers heart condition.After doing all possible means at all cost and the condition was found to have failed, the principle of double-effect can be invoked as a reasonable basis for the acceptance of an otherwise necessary evil but meeting the four requisite conditions.

Question no. 4:

What should have been done by the TV channel before guests are interviewed as the ones above, in order to avoid exposing the public to unethical pronouncements?

Answer:

Mass media have always been a perpetual source of misinformation. TV talk shows, in particular, generate a plethora of opinions that may lead to the miseducation of the viewers. Such problem is, sadly, not the concern of most TV talk shows. Sensitive topics such as the one described in this study should be handled carefully. If the avoidance of

unethical pronouncements is a major concern of a certain discussion, the guests should have been chosen more wisely. The TV channel could have just included experts in the field whose words would be of great value regarding the issue. The guests could have been oriented about the topic to be discussed and reminded of the probable repercussions of what they are going to say especially to the intended audience. The goal should not be an opinionated discussion but rather an educative one. In mass media, there is a thin line between education and entertainment. This is the reason why the media should be more responsible of what they are showing to the public. Media today is already considered as one of the most powerful means in influencing the minds and perceptions of the viewing public. Airing such, and as tolerated by channel operators would make it seem like it is the right thing, and it is the current trend, which will be then readily absorbed by the viewers, and put into practice, believing that it is right and within the current flow. Every country has established a movie and television review board to guide TV channels in their ethical operation. And it is the responsibility of the network to adhere to them. If in case (if any) the board has failed to include it, its about time that the TV channel has to coin and implement ethical guidelines in airing delicate issues. As with the case, there should have been a prior meeting between the host/s, guests and the management, and should have decided, whether the scheduled showing of unethical pronouncements, is within the moral standards of network airing, or at least within the ethical perspectives accepted by the viewing public.