Ethical Trade-Offs Made Throughout Life

Nicholas Kline, Section 6   

 Throughout our lives, we make decisions on various “ethical trade-offs.”  Philosophers, and other people in general, offer their opinion on what is best to do in each situation.  The difficulty arises when there are conflicting views on what is “best” for any given situation.  How does someone choose which path to take to overcome an obstacle?  Individuals must use their personal ethical standards and feelings to determine the best course of action.  This also applies to how people perceive their own lives and the lives of others.

What one person thinks is a “rewarding” life, might be a less-than-ideal life for someone else.  While you can sympathize with others, you cannot necessarily empathize with them.  To sympathize with someone, you acknowledge that they are in a state of distress.  Empathizing with someone involves understanding how they are feeling and taking on their emotions.  To truly empathize with someone, you have to have similar perspectives and experiences that allow you to actually understand what they are going through.  “Honest reflection on our own suffering fosters compassion for others” (LH, ~8).  By examining and analyzing the times when we suffered, we can understand what caused the suffering, which in turn creates a sort of reference memory.  The reference memory creates an ability to reflect on past experiences and our emotions during the experience which allows us to apply this event to current experiences of ourselves or others.  One experience that few people can directly relate to is living with a disability.

The first chapter of Life is Hard references a debate between two people, Harriet McBryde Johnson, born with muscular dystrophy, and Peter Singer who likely does not suffer from any disabilities.  Peter Singer that infants with a condition like Harriet McBryde Johnson’s should be “euthanized” to prevent suffering through their condition (LH, ~22-23).  Johnson was born with muscular dystrophy which shortly into her life, confined her to a wheelchair.  While she is not able to walk like a “normal” person, she still has a good outlook on life.  When asked about her perspective on euthanizing children with conditions like hers, she said “that the presence or absence of a disability doesn’t predict quality of life” (New York Times).  People with or without disabilities are equally likely to have a good quality of life.  It is not about what you can or cannot do, quality of life is determined by what you do within your time on Earth.

Similar to Johnson, my grandfather was constrained to a wheelchair, albeit at a later point in life.  When he was 22 years old, he was involved in a hockey accident that snapped his spine.  He became paralyzed from the neck down.  Since the accident, he had decent control of his arms, but could barely move them.  When he first had his accident, they said that he would only live 10 years if he was lucky.   20 years later, he developed various forms of cancer, and they gave him 6 months to live.  These battles with cancer left him on a ventilator around the clock.  One battle with cancer required the removal of a section of the bowel, which left him with a colostomy bag.  Another required the removal of the bladder, which left him with a urostomy bag.  After a few years and battles with cancer later, he started dialysis, at which point he felt that it was time to sign a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) form, stating that he was allowing a natural death, rather than undergoing CPR.  He, unfortunately, passed away less than a year after starting dialysis.

He lived over 35 years after he had his accident.  Especially toward the end of his life, he might not have been able to play hockey or do many things that “normal” people can do, but he enjoyed every minute that he had on this earth.  Despite his injuries and various medical conditions that developed later in his life, he found his own ways to enjoy what he was able to do.  I am certain that he remembered times when he had fewer restrictions on what he could do, but he didn’t let that stop him from living the life he had to its fullest potential.  There were likely difficulties adapting to the changes in the ways he lived as well, but he persevered through the difficult times when many people would have likely given up.  

Another person who was severely disabled yet still led a great life was Stephen Hawking.  Hawking’s “disease reduced his bodily control to the flexing of a finger and voluntary eye movements but left his mental faculties untouched” (New York Times).  After a bout with pneumonia, Hawking lost his voice and was eventually able to use a computer to talk.  During his bout with pneumonia, Hawking's wife was presented with her own ethical dilemma.  Doctors asked her if Hawking should be taken off of life support (Wired).  She had to make the decision whether she thought it would be better to let Hawking end his suffering or continue treatment in the hope that he could recover from pneumonia.  I would argue that she made a good choice to not lose hope, as he was able to recover, minus his voice, and continue his pursuit of science.  Hawking might not have had the same physical abilities as most people, but he was able to contribute greatly to science and the exploration and understanding of the universe, particularly in reference to black holes.

Harriet McBryde Johnson, my grandfather, and Stephen Hawking shared two things in common.  They each had different disabilities that greatly hindered their physical abilities; however, they did not let their disabilities dictate how they lived their lives.  Had someone like Peter Singer had their way, the three of them would have been euthanized to save them from their suffering.  However, if you were able to ask them, they would likely say that their suffering was minimal.  They adapted to their abilities and still lived their lives how they saw fit.  Peter Singer was primarily referring to infantile disabilities, but he also mentioned euthanizing later in a person’s life.

Regarding infantile disabilities, I feel that everyone deserves the chance to live life how they see fit.  I agree that there are times when it would be more humane to terminate the pregnancy rather than birthing a child into a life that if it lasts, would be of a much lower quality of life.  Something like vital organs are missing, the fetus is not developing as it should, or there is a severe neurological impairment that would greatly hinder life.  

A family friend of mine gave birth to a child with severe heart issues, but they held out hope that surgery on the newborn would save its life.  Sadly, the child only lived about six months after birth, with all that time being in the hospital and undergoing various surgeries and treatments.  Would knowing that there was a chance, no matter how slim, that the baby would be able to live through the surgeries outweigh the chance that the baby would not make it?

Some people would say that it would be better for the baby to not have to go through all of that, just like there are people that would do anything in their power to keep the baby alive.  It comes down to what the parents feel is the right thing to do.  Doctors offer their input about the situation, but the parents decide what they think should happen.

A study in the United Kingdom in 2013 showed that of the pregnancies that were terminated due to fetal anomalies, 40% were for congenital malformations, 37% were for chromosomal abnormalities, 24% were for nervous system disorders, and 18% were for other conditions (Fetal Anomaly).  In these situations, these parents decided that it was better to terminate the pregnancy than to let the child be born into a life that would likely offer major complications.  

Whether it be someone deciding to sign a DNR or someone deciding whether terminating a pregnancy is the right thing to do, almost everything we do could be considered an ethical decision.  People are more than willing to offer their opinion on the situation, but the individual’s experiences and ethical standards will determine what the best option is.  It is all subjective.  What is “right” for one person, might be “wrong” for another.  However, we can do our best each day to live life to its fullest. 

Note: I used the Kindle version of Life is Hard, therefore, the page numbers do not exactly match up to the paper version of the book.  I noticed that the page numbers of the Kindle version are lower than the paper version (Kindle 67 = Paper 78)