Yes

by Melissa Newnham

Created on: July 11, 2011

Ethical questions are always difficult to answer, largely because morality, I hold, is subjective. I have an abhorrence of war, whereas others seem to crave it. That isn’t the issue here. The issue here is whether it is ethical to terminate a pregnancy if the foetus has a genetic defect. As easy as it may be to say, ‘yes, absolutely, it’s horrific’, nobody but those who have experienced that awful moment when they are told something may be wrong with the child they have loved and craved for so long are qualified to judge the ethicality of the matter or not. It is remarkably simple to pass judgement on others for their actions, whilst at the same time, retaining a strange type of superior detachment, a feeling which suggests that we would never make the same decision, therefore, we are better. Simply put, I do not believe that anybody but the parents can decide whether the quality of a child’s life would be impaired as a result of a genetic defect. Yet to ask the question at all, is to suggest that the debate is one that adheres strictly to the maxim of the sanctity of life. I do not believe there is any question as to the VALUE of a foetus’ existence. I am more concerned with the QUALITY of their potential life, and herein, lies the stumbling block. Because those concerned with the sanctity of life have a remarkable propensity for seeing those that suffer and implying that they do not have the right to decide for themselves when they have suffered enough.

The idea that every life has an intrinsic value is one I admire. I hold to it, absolutely. Every life has value, and as such, I think it important to respect the boundaries of life, and understand when it would be kinder, easier and far more compassionate to the foetus, to end the suffering before it begins. If we are to accept that life has value, we must also accept that this value is in no way diminished by a decision to spare it pain. Some genetic disorders cause horrendous pain. They render human beings completely incapable of anything but a vegetative, comatose state and even then, that inaction is not enough to spare them the suffering they may have to contend with. Those who find it morally reprehensible to terminate a pregnancy where the foetus is not viable might suggest that this is precisely the reason that the life should be preserved: the family will love them more, or even, God will save them eventually.

Sometimes love is not enough. And sometimes people don’t believe in God.

As a High School student, I stumbled across the testimony of a religious organisation who contested that to terminate the pregnancy of a foetus, regardless of the potential consequences of inaction in this respect, is an act resembling those carried out by the Nazis during the Final Solution. Not only does this smack of tremendous and offensive ignorance, but it also speaks of a remarkable inability to understand that sparing a child pain might actually be kinder. Nobody is suggesting that we condemn the elderly to death because they ‘serve no useful purpose’. Nobody would begin to suggest that a happy, healthy, lively and bright child who happened to suffer with Down’s Syndrome should be shipped off the Heaven. Nobody is saying that people should be exterminated in their droves because of a matter of ethnic or religious affiliation. These are examples which are remarkably out of proportion with regards to the actual issue at hand and that is, that sometimes it is the lesser of two evils, to prevent a life destined for nothing but pain.

Of course there are caveats. A child who will be born blind or deaf, or indeed, both, is perfectly capable of leading a full and happy life. There is no reason at all why that life should be terminated. Nor should a foetus presenting with Down’s Syndrome be terminated. A child with a disability that would not cause undue and terrible suffering deserves a life, and the opportunity to live that life.

It strikes me that people without the requisite experience are the ones more likely to be voicing their opinions on this matter. Often they are young. Often they have never sat beside the bed of a person so completely overcome with pain, that they are incapable of even the simplest of human functions. I am, admittedly, one of those people. At twenty years old, I have no children and I have never had to make such a heart-wrenching decision as this.  I do not, nor have I ever lived, with an individual with a severe disability. I would never, under any circumstances, suggest that any individual with a severe disability should never have been allowed to live. Rather, I believe that it might be kinder for a foetus destined for a life of continual and perpetual pain, or very little life at all, to be spared their suffering. Do I believe it is ethical to terminate a foetus with a genetic disability? I do not believe it is a matter of ethics, simply put. I believe, in some cases only, it is a matter of necessity.  I believe it is a matter of personal choice and indeed, parental choice and we do not have the right to debate the ethicality of the issue if we cannot accept that parents and that situation deserve only the support of their community, not its condemnation.

Every single life has value. Every single life is important. And it is because of this reason that some people must make incredibly difficult decisions. A valuable human being does not deserve a life of torment. That is a basic and fundamental right.

Learn more about this author, Melissa Newnham.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.