One is surprised how often those who have ulterior intentions create improbable scenarios and myths in order to introduce some imagined right at the expense of some other human being or society. One case in hand is the argument for the use of frozen embryos to be used in IVF. Considering the increasing number of divorce and separation cases, there are often disputes as to whom the frozen embryos belong to and what could be done with them and by whom. With frozen ova, this issue is not ever present as the ova always belong to the woman.
Those who want to introduce abortion often bring up two scenarios which, in their opinion, is justified because of the right of the woman to do what she wants with her own body. The first case is pregnancy after rape and the second is an in utero developing baby's threat to the mother's life. Let us examine these two cases in some depth.
In the case of rape resulting in pregnancy, one has to consider the rights of the mother to do what she wishes with her own body and the right of the innocent human developing inside her to life. Hierarchically, the latter right is of a higher magnitude than the former and therefore the right to carry out an abortion in this case is never justified. If the mother does not wish to raise the child single-handedly, she may give it up for adoption after birth. Pregnancy resulting from rape can also be prevented if the woman involved has not yet ovulated by taking the contraceptive pill, which in this case is ethically justified.
In the case of the threat of the baby to the mother's health scenario, let me start that with the advent of modern obstetric monitoring practice this is very highly improbable. Things are dealt with at an early stage before they become an issue with the proper treatment. But let us suppose for argument's sake that a mother comes in with a problem pregnancy that may cause a threat to her life, maybe someone who never attended antenatal clinic. What is the doctor to do in this case? First of all, even in these cases, many conditions are treatable. Today labour can eventually be induced or a caesarean section carried out if the life of either the mother, or the baby, or both is at risk. When this is done after 23 to 24 weeks of pregnancy, the risk is minimal to the mother although there are higher chances of foetal death the less mature the child is. Nowadays, with modern equipment, it is usually possible to save the life of a 23- to 24-week-old foetus. The issue arises if the foetus is less than 23 weeks old. What happens then? Obviously the patient is monitored and one tries to wait until 23 weeks to deliver the child. What if one cannot wait? What do we do in the case of ectopic pregnancy and of uterine (womb) cancer which cannot wait? The answer is easy for doctors. One removes the pregnancy surgically together with the diseased organ, it being the fallopian tube or the uterus containing the pregnancy. This is not considered a direct killing of the foetus but an indirect one and is therefore morally and legally acceptable. This is because of the principle of double effect, which allows one to proceed where there is an act which has both a good effect on one person and a bad effect on another human being. For double effect to be validly used, one needs to make sure that four conditions are present. These conditions are 1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. 2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary. 3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. 4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to proportionately compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. Only if all conditions are fulfilled, can one proceed to act. Even if one condition is absent, and the necessary conditions to have double effect are not met, then one cannot proceed to act. Such a case is where there is intent to carry out a direct killing!
In the case of an ectopic pregnancy and uterine cancer, which spreads much faster during pregnancy than when non-pregnant, one cannot wait; all the conditions of double effect are in place so one can proceed. In the rare case of a pregnancy which is earlier than 23 weeks and there is a threat to the life of the mother, then induction of labour or if necessary a c-section would also constitute a fair action as there is no intention to carry out any direct killing of the child. The child is delivered by a medical/surgical procedure and is given a fair chance to live; it may also probably die but there was never any intention or act compliant with direct murder!
In the well-known case of Jodie and Mary, the conjoined twins, which ended up with their separation (otherwise they both would have died), and the survival of Jodie and the death of Mary there were interesting debates. The answer was obvious to all those who wanted to see. Lord Justice Robert Walker who sat with two others in judgement in the Court of Appeal on 22nd September 2000 had this to say: "In conclusion, the bone fide exercise by a doctor of his clinical judgement must be a complete negation of the guilty mind which is an essential ingredient of the criminal offence... [of murder]. But in the wholly exceptional case of these conjoined twins the doctors would perform a positive act of invasive surgery for... well-intentioned purposes. The surgery would plainly be in Jodie's best interests and, in my judgement, it would be in the best interests of Mary also, since for the twins to remain alive and conjoined in the way they are would be to deprive them of bodily integrity which is the right of each of them. The proposed operation would not be unlawful. It would bring about Mary's death as a foreseen and inevitable consequence which is intended and necessary to save Jodie's life. But Mary's death would not be the purpose or intention of the surgery and she would die because her body, on its own, is not and has never been viable. I would therefore dismiss this appeal."
It is therefore obvious today that this idealised scenario where the open windows of abortion are justified, with the excuse of the defence of the threatened pregnant mother's life, is just a myth of very mixed up and uninformed minds!
[email protected]