Executive Solution Overview
please reach out to me – ## Ethicscaseanalysisexample.pdf – FamilyNursePractitionerEthicsanalysis.docx **## Ethicscaseanalysisexample.pdf** THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 1 Ethics Case Analysis: The Right to Abortion Student Name Louise Herrington School of Nursing, Baylor University THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 2 …
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
please reach out to me
– ## Ethicscaseanalysisexample.pdf
– FamilyNursePractitionerEthicsanalysis.docx
**## Ethicscaseanalysisexample.pdf**
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 1
Ethics Case Analysis: The Right to Abortion
Student Name
Louise Herrington School of Nursing, Baylor University
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 2
Ethics Case Analysis: The Right to Abortion
The right to abortion has been a topic of controversy and ethical debate since the 1960s
(Svenaeus, 2017). The ethical conflict exists in whether it is morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy.
Both courses of action have moral importance and can be argued either way using ethical principles and
moral theories. One must consider the undesirable outcomes and beliefs of both sides. Throughout this
paper, pro-life and pro-choice will be used as terminology to categorize those who are against abortion
and those who are in support of the right to abortion, respectively. It is important to note that this is not a
black and white issue and there is a spectrum of support and opposition based on the timing and reason
abortion is obtained. However, for the sake of an ethical conflict, the two extreme sides of the gamut will
compose the conversation. On the pro-life side, abortion leads to the death of a person or potential person
(Svenaeus, 2017). Thus, the consequence of abortion is death of human life and potential fetal pain. On
the pro-choice side, making abortions illegal or inaccessible to a pregnant woman takes away her
autonomy and the right to make decisions about her body (Svenaeus, 2017). Without the right to abortion,
pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, as well as pregnancies leading to fetal deaths and maternal
health threats would be forced to term (Tomlinson, 2021). Furthermore, woman denied abortions may
seek unsafe abortion methods leading to potentially life- threatening complications (Baldwin et al., 2022).
Stakeholders
Numerous stakeholders are involved in the debate around the right to an abortion. Women,
medical providers, the healthcare sector, state and federal governments, and religious organizations are all
either affected or hold interest in this controversial subject. Women are the obvious stakeholder involved
in the ethical conflict of abortion rights. Some may sustain their pregnancy due to religious beliefs or
personal values, while others may value their right to choose whether to have a child or not based on a
variety of reasons. Societal norms may impact a woman’s desire to obtain an abortion. For instance, a
pregnant teenager may opt for an abortion due to the fear of judgment from her peers.
Medical providers may be influenced by their professional identity and duty to provide safe
abortions at the request of their patients, despite their own personal feelings. Many healthcare
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 3
professionals view abortions as a part of reproductive healthcare (Rosen, 2020). The healthcare system
may be influenced by the costs associated with abortions versus birth. One study estimated a $21 billion
cost to US taxpayers as a result of unintended pregnancies (Tomlinson, 2021), with the cost of an abortion
only 20% the cost of a birth. Insurance coverage of abortions varies by state and company.
While exceptions exist, religious organizations and those who highly regard their faith tend to
oppose abortion (Bruce, 2020). Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon and Evangelical Protestant religions have
higher opposition to abortion than Jewish, Buddhist, and unaffiliated religions (Bruce, 2020).
State and federal governments are active stakeholders in the case of abortion. These institutions
are responsible for creating laws that dictate accessibility and legality of abortion. Each level of
government is influenced by the ideologies and culture within their constituents. Southern regions of the
United States with more conservative culture are more likely to oppose abortion, leading to those state
governments imposing legal restrictions.
Critical Analysis
Consequentialism, and more specifically, utilitarianism, can be used to both support and oppose
the right to an abortion. Under this theory, the ethically correct action is the one that produces the
maximal balance of positive consequences over negative ones (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). The pro-
life stance argues that the death of the fetus, person or potential person, is innately the ultimate
consequence that outweighs any possible good. To prohibit abortion altogether due to the consequence of
fetal death would fall under rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be used to
support the right to abortion. Circumstances such as rape, incest, fetal anomalies, or maternal health risks
may be justifiable to an act utilitarian to support abortion. In these cases, the benefit of preserving the
woman’s mental and physical health (Casey et al., 2019) can be seen as outweighing the consequence of
losing the fetus, which one may or may not consider a person.
The deontological theory, also known as Kantian theory values human life, reason and duty
(Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Kantian theory is often seen as anti-abortion, for the maxim of abortion
cannot pass the categorical imperative, in which permitting abortion would have to be a universally
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 4
accepted rule. Furthermore, Kantian theory is concerned with one’s duty to themselves. Mayans & Vaca
(2018), explain that a woman’s nature is to produce offspring. Even though the woman does not have a
duty to the fetus, she has a duty to “herself with regard to her fetus” (Mayans & Vaca, 2018, p. 25). At the
same time, Kantian theory can be used to support abortion, as a woman has a duty to protect her health,
body, and autonomy. Lastly, Kant emphasizes the importance of treating each person as an end, rather
than as a means to an end (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Exploiting a pregnant woman or forcing the
continuation of an unwanted pregnancy can be perceived as treating a woman as a means to an end.
Oppositely, abortion can be viewed in a negative light as treating the fetus as a means to an end, in order
for the woman to continue on with her life and ambitions, free of a child.
Virtue ethics focuses on the character traits, or virtues, of the person in a situation of ethical
conflict. This theory helps dictate the correct course of action by relying on what the virtuous person
would do in that circumstance (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Neale (2022) discusses the ways in which
virtue ethics can be perceived to either support or negate abortion. A woman who seeks an abortion may
be viewed under virtue ethics as selfish or heartless for killing their unborn child. Alternatively, that same
woman may not be able to afford or care for a child, in which she can be considered sensible and
compassionate towards the quality of life the fetus would be born into. The healthcare provider choosing
to perform an abortion can possess the virtue of sympathy towards a woman who does not want the child
or evil for conducting the procedure. The healthcare provider who refuses to perform abortions can be
viewed as caring towards life or malicious for refusing reproductive rights to women. Evidently,
considering the various perspectives and characterizations one can make depending on the individual
situation, the ethically correct action surrounding abortion is poorly defined based on virtue ethics alone.
Rights theory can be applied to both the pro-choice and pro-life stances. The woman has the right
to autonomy, bodily integrity, and reproductive choices, including the right to an abortion. One can also
say, however, that under the rights theory, a fetus has rights, including the right to survive and not be
killed. The mother is physically able to make her rights and decisions be voiced, while the fetus cannot.
However, these theories and rights are applicable to human beings. The point at which a fetus develops
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 5
moral status and personhood heavily impacts the application of the rights theory. While pro-life argues
that a fetus attains personhood at the point of fertilization, pro-choice makes this distinction based on
certain stages of development and gestational milestones (Miklavcic & Flaman, 2017).
Respect for autonomy supports the pregnant woman’s right to make decisions about her body and
pregnancy, including termination. If she has the intention to end the pregnancy, understands the extent of
her decision, is not being influenced or coerced, and is competent, the woman should be able to make this
decision for herself under the principle of autonomy (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). However,
autonomy can also be seen from the fetus’s perspective. Abortion does not consider a fetus’s right to
choose. Although, the fetus is physically incapable of making a choice while in the womb.
Abortion inherently will harm the fetus and end its life. This goes against the principle of
beneficence, in which preventing harm is a mainstay. On the other hand, abortion can potentially save the
life of the pregnant woman if their health is at risk due to pregnancy complications. In that case, abortion
is benefiting the woman by saving her life. Additionally, even with abortion restrictions in place, the
incidence of abortion continues, just in an unsafe, unsanitary manner (Casey et al., 2019). When looking
at the principle of utility, a birth is costly compared to an abortion (Tomlinson, 2021). On the other hand,
the mother’s life may be saved, but the fetus would be killed.
Again, inherently, abortion inflicts harm on the fetus, which violates a core obligation of
nonmaleficence and it’s more specific rule to not kill. The matter comes down to a highly debated topic of
whether the fetus feels pain or not and is considered a person or not. If so, killing the fetus is morally
wrong under nonmaleficence standards. Although, Beauchamp and Childress (2019, p. 159), explain that
“harmful actions that involve justifiable setbacks to another’s interests are not wrong.” Thus, pro-choice
can argue that inflicting harm on the fetus is justifiable to protect the interests and rights of the mother.
Under the ethical principle of justice lies six theories. Most applicable to abortion are the
capability theory and well-being theory. The capability theory discusses one’s ability to live with good
health, “without dying prematurely” (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019, p. 279). If the fetus is a person, then
abortion violates the principle of justice by prematurely taking the life of a human. That same theory can
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 6
support abortion, as it states a human should have bodily integrity, including reproductive choices. The
well-being theory begins with the basic premise that justice is concerned with human well-being and
emphasizes the right to health and self-determination. Thus, it can be said that abortion permits justice, as
without this right, a woman cannot control their own life and manage their health if at risk due to
pregnancy. Justice also involves health policy and accessibility. The laws and policies surrounding
abortion are evolving depending on the state and the position of the federal government. In the last
decade, around 500 policies restricting abortions have been implemented across the United States (Redd
et al., 2021). These restrictive abortion policies have proven to disproportionately and negatively affect
the health of Blacks, the uneducated, and vulnerable populations, leading to further health inequities.
Conclusion
The ethically correct course of action is to permit women the right to an abortion. After critical
analysis of these moral guidelines, it can be concluded that abortion follows a majority of the ethical
standards. Both utilitarianism and rights theory portrayed the most convincing argument to support
abortion. Considering the variety of reasons for women to seek an abortion and the unknown sentience of
the fetus, it can be determined that the maximal good of abortion overrules the negative consequences.
Given the inconclusive debate over the personhood of the fetus, the moral theories and ethical principles
must be attributed to the health and desires of the woman who is physically and mentally capable of moral
status. Therefore, the rights theory supports a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted or unsafe
pregnancy. Furthermore, the ethical principles of autonomy and justice were most persuasive in arguing
for the right to abortion. A woman’s right to bodily integrity and reproductive choices were key factors
associated with autonomy and justice. Additionally, the risk for maternal health threats, as an example,
supersede the death of the fetus in applying the rules of beneficence and nonmaleficence to the case of
abortion. While this paper attempts to cover arguments on both sides of the abortion rights debate, it is
important to note that only two extreme sides were acknowledged, when in reality a range exists
including deliberation on gestational limits, health exceptions, etc. In conclusion, when looking to
decipher one correct course of action, free of caveats, the right to abortion is deemed ethical.
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 7
References
Baldwin, A., Johnson, D.M., Broussard, K., Tello-Perez, L.A., Madera, M., Ze-Noah, C., Padron, E., &
Aiken, A. (2022). U.S. abortion care providers’ perspectives on self-managed abortion.
Qualitative Health Research, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221077296
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University
Press.
Bruce, T.C. (2020). Efficacy, distancing, and reconciling: Religion and race in Americans’ abortion
attitudes. Religions, 11(9), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11090475
Casey, S.E., Steven, V.J., Deitch, J., Dumas, E.F., Gallagher, M.C., Martinez, S., Morris, C.N.,
Rafanoharana, R.V., & Wheeler, E. (2019). “You must first save her life”: Community
perceptions towards induced abortion and post-abortion care in North and South Kivu,
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 27(1), 106-117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2019.1571309
Mayans, I., & Vaca, M. (2018). The paternalistic argument against abortion. Hypatia, 33(1), 22-29.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12385
Miklavcic, J.J., & Flaman, P. (2017). Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus. The Linacre
Quarterly, 84(2), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2017.1299896
Neale, A. (2022). Application of virtue ethics to human life and death. Think: Philosophy for Everyone,
21(60), 105-108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175621000373
Redd, S.K., Rice, W.S., Aswani, M.S., Blake, S., Julian, Z., Sen, B., Wingate, M., & Hall, K.S. (2021).
Racial/ethnic and educational inequities in restrictive abortion policy variation and adverse birth
outcomes in the United States. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 1-1139.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07165-x
Rosen, J.D. (2020). June Medical Services v. Russo: A threat to physcians’ standing to challenge abortion
regulations. The New England Journal of Medicine, 383(12), 1101-1103.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2025176
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 8
Svenaeus, F. (2017). Phenomenology of pregnancy and the ethics of abortion. Medicine, Health Care,
and Philosophy, 21(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9786-x
Tomlinson, S.J. (2021). Access denied: The proliferation of American medical abortion laws, 2000-2018.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 60(4), 497-503.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.11.008
**FamilyNursePractitionerEthicsanalysis.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/familynursepractitionerethicsanalysis-docx)
**FamilyNursePractitionerEthicsanalysis.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/familynursepractitionerethicsanalysis-docx)
**## Ethicscaseanalysisexample.pdf**
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 1
Ethics Case Analysis: The Right to Abortion
Student Name
Louise Herrington School of Nursing, Baylor University
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 2
Ethics Case Analysis: The Right to Abortion
The right to abortion has been a topic of controversy and ethical debate since the 1960s
(Svenaeus, 2017). The ethical conflict exists in whether it is morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy.
Both courses of action have moral importance and can be argued either way using ethical principles and
moral theories. One must consider the undesirable outcomes and beliefs of both sides. Throughout this
paper, pro-life and pro-choice will be used as terminology to categorize those who are against abortion
and those who are in support of the right to abortion, respectively. It is important to note that this is not a
black and white issue and there is a spectrum of support and opposition based on the timing and reason
abortion is obtained. However, for the sake of an ethical conflict, the two extreme sides of the gamut will
compose the conversation. On the pro-life side, abortion leads to the death of a person or potential person
(Svenaeus, 2017). Thus, the consequence of abortion is death of human life and potential fetal pain. On
the pro-choice side, making abortions illegal or inaccessible to a pregnant woman takes away her
autonomy and the right to make decisions about her body (Svenaeus, 2017). Without the right to abortion,
pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, as well as pregnancies leading to fetal deaths and maternal
health threats would be forced to term (Tomlinson, 2021). Furthermore, woman denied abortions may
seek unsafe abortion methods leading to potentially life- threatening complications (Baldwin et al., 2022).
Stakeholders
Numerous stakeholders are involved in the debate around the right to an abortion. Women,
medical providers, the healthcare sector, state and federal governments, and religious organizations are all
either affected or hold interest in this controversial subject. Women are the obvious stakeholder involved
in the ethical conflict of abortion rights. Some may sustain their pregnancy due to religious beliefs or
personal values, while others may value their right to choose whether to have a child or not based on a
variety of reasons. Societal norms may impact a woman’s desire to obtain an abortion. For instance, a
pregnant teenager may opt for an abortion due to the fear of judgment from her peers.
Medical providers may be influenced by their professional identity and duty to provide safe
abortions at the request of their patients, despite their own personal feelings. Many healthcare
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 3
professionals view abortions as a part of reproductive healthcare (Rosen, 2020). The healthcare system
may be influenced by the costs associated with abortions versus birth. One study estimated a $21 billion
cost to US taxpayers as a result of unintended pregnancies (Tomlinson, 2021), with the cost of an abortion
only 20% the cost of a birth. Insurance coverage of abortions varies by state and company.
While exceptions exist, religious organizations and those who highly regard their faith tend to
oppose abortion (Bruce, 2020). Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon and Evangelical Protestant religions have
higher opposition to abortion than Jewish, Buddhist, and unaffiliated religions (Bruce, 2020).
State and federal governments are active stakeholders in the case of abortion. These institutions
are responsible for creating laws that dictate accessibility and legality of abortion. Each level of
government is influenced by the ideologies and culture within their constituents. Southern regions of the
United States with more conservative culture are more likely to oppose abortion, leading to those state
governments imposing legal restrictions.
Critical Analysis
Consequentialism, and more specifically, utilitarianism, can be used to both support and oppose
the right to an abortion. Under this theory, the ethically correct action is the one that produces the
maximal balance of positive consequences over negative ones (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). The pro-
life stance argues that the death of the fetus, person or potential person, is innately the ultimate
consequence that outweighs any possible good. To prohibit abortion altogether due to the consequence of
fetal death would fall under rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be used to
support the right to abortion. Circumstances such as rape, incest, fetal anomalies, or maternal health risks
may be justifiable to an act utilitarian to support abortion. In these cases, the benefit of preserving the
woman’s mental and physical health (Casey et al., 2019) can be seen as outweighing the consequence of
losing the fetus, which one may or may not consider a person.
The deontological theory, also known as Kantian theory values human life, reason and duty
(Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Kantian theory is often seen as anti-abortion, for the maxim of abortion
cannot pass the categorical imperative, in which permitting abortion would have to be a universally
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 4
accepted rule. Furthermore, Kantian theory is concerned with one’s duty to themselves. Mayans & Vaca
(2018), explain that a woman’s nature is to produce offspring. Even though the woman does not have a
duty to the fetus, she has a duty to “herself with regard to her fetus” (Mayans & Vaca, 2018, p. 25). At the
same time, Kantian theory can be used to support abortion, as a woman has a duty to protect her health,
body, and autonomy. Lastly, Kant emphasizes the importance of treating each person as an end, rather
than as a means to an end (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Exploiting a pregnant woman or forcing the
continuation of an unwanted pregnancy can be perceived as treating a woman as a means to an end.
Oppositely, abortion can be viewed in a negative light as treating the fetus as a means to an end, in order
for the woman to continue on with her life and ambitions, free of a child.
Virtue ethics focuses on the character traits, or virtues, of the person in a situation of ethical
conflict. This theory helps dictate the correct course of action by relying on what the virtuous person
would do in that circumstance (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Neale (2022) discusses the ways in which
virtue ethics can be perceived to either support or negate abortion. A woman who seeks an abortion may
be viewed under virtue ethics as selfish or heartless for killing their unborn child. Alternatively, that same
woman may not be able to afford or care for a child, in which she can be considered sensible and
compassionate towards the quality of life the fetus would be born into. The healthcare provider choosing
to perform an abortion can possess the virtue of sympathy towards a woman who does not want the child
or evil for conducting the procedure. The healthcare provider who refuses to perform abortions can be
viewed as caring towards life or malicious for refusing reproductive rights to women. Evidently,
considering the various perspectives and characterizations one can make depending on the individual
situation, the ethically correct action surrounding abortion is poorly defined based on virtue ethics alone.
Rights theory can be applied to both the pro-choice and pro-life stances. The woman has the right
to autonomy, bodily integrity, and reproductive choices, including the right to an abortion. One can also
say, however, that under the rights theory, a fetus has rights, including the right to survive and not be
killed. The mother is physically able to make her rights and decisions be voiced, while the fetus cannot.
However, these theories and rights are applicable to human beings. The point at which a fetus develops
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 5
moral status and personhood heavily impacts the application of the rights theory. While pro-life argues
that a fetus attains personhood at the point of fertilization, pro-choice makes this distinction based on
certain stages of development and gestational milestones (Miklavcic & Flaman, 2017).
Respect for autonomy supports the pregnant woman’s right to make decisions about her body and
pregnancy, including termination. If she has the intention to end the pregnancy, understands the extent of
her decision, is not being influenced or coerced, and is competent, the woman should be able to make this
decision for herself under the principle of autonomy (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). However,
autonomy can also be seen from the fetus’s perspective. Abortion does not consider a fetus’s right to
choose. Although, the fetus is physically incapable of making a choice while in the womb.
Abortion inherently will harm the fetus and end its life. This goes against the principle of
beneficence, in which preventing harm is a mainstay. On the other hand, abortion can potentially save the
life of the pregnant woman if their health is at risk due to pregnancy complications. In that case, abortion
is benefiting the woman by saving her life. Additionally, even with abortion restrictions in place, the
incidence of abortion continues, just in an unsafe, unsanitary manner (Casey et al., 2019). When looking
at the principle of utility, a birth is costly compared to an abortion (Tomlinson, 2021). On the other hand,
the mother’s life may be saved, but the fetus would be killed.
Again, inherently, abortion inflicts harm on the fetus, which violates a core obligation of
nonmaleficence and it’s more specific rule to not kill. The matter comes down to a highly debated topic of
whether the fetus feels pain or not and is considered a person or not. If so, killing the fetus is morally
wrong under nonmaleficence standards. Although, Beauchamp and Childress (2019, p. 159), explain that
“harmful actions that involve justifiable setbacks to another’s interests are not wrong.” Thus, pro-choice
can argue that inflicting harm on the fetus is justifiable to protect the interests and rights of the mother.
Under the ethical principle of justice lies six theories. Most applicable to abortion are the
capability theory and well-being theory. The capability theory discusses one’s ability to live with good
health, “without dying prematurely” (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019, p. 279). If the fetus is a person, then
abortion violates the principle of justice by prematurely taking the life of a human. That same theory can
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 6
support abortion, as it states a human should have bodily integrity, including reproductive choices. The
well-being theory begins with the basic premise that justice is concerned with human well-being and
emphasizes the right to health and self-determination. Thus, it can be said that abortion permits justice, as
without this right, a woman cannot control their own life and manage their health if at risk due to
pregnancy. Justice also involves health policy and accessibility. The laws and policies surrounding
abortion are evolving depending on the state and the position of the federal government. In the last
decade, around 500 policies restricting abortions have been implemented across the United States (Redd
et al., 2021). These restrictive abortion policies have proven to disproportionately and negatively affect
the health of Blacks, the uneducated, and vulnerable populations, leading to further health inequities.
Conclusion
The ethically correct course of action is to permit women the right to an abortion. After critical
analysis of these moral guidelines, it can be concluded that abortion follows a majority of the ethical
standards. Both utilitarianism and rights theory portrayed the most convincing argument to support
abortion. Considering the variety of reasons for women to seek an abortion and the unknown sentience of
the fetus, it can be determined that the maximal good of abortion overrules the negative consequences.
Given the inconclusive debate over the personhood of the fetus, the moral theories and ethical principles
must be attributed to the health and desires of the woman who is physically and mentally capable of moral
status. Therefore, the rights theory supports a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted or unsafe
pregnancy. Furthermore, the ethical principles of autonomy and justice were most persuasive in arguing
for the right to abortion. A woman’s right to bodily integrity and reproductive choices were key factors
associated with autonomy and justice. Additionally, the risk for maternal health threats, as an example,
supersede the death of the fetus in applying the rules of beneficence and nonmaleficence to the case of
abortion. While this paper attempts to cover arguments on both sides of the abortion rights debate, it is
important to note that only two extreme sides were acknowledged, when in reality a range exists
including deliberation on gestational limits, health exceptions, etc. In conclusion, when looking to
decipher one correct course of action, free of caveats, the right to abortion is deemed ethical.
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 7
References
Baldwin, A., Johnson, D.M., Broussard, K., Tello-Perez, L.A., Madera, M., Ze-Noah, C., Padron, E., &
Aiken, A. (2022). U.S. abortion care providers’ perspectives on self-managed abortion.
Qualitative Health Research, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221077296
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University
Press.
Bruce, T.C. (2020). Efficacy, distancing, and reconciling: Religion and race in Americans’ abortion
attitudes. Religions, 11(9), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11090475
Casey, S.E., Steven, V.J., Deitch, J., Dumas, E.F., Gallagher, M.C., Martinez, S., Morris, C.N.,
Rafanoharana, R.V., & Wheeler, E. (2019). “You must first save her life”: Community
perceptions towards induced abortion and post-abortion care in North and South Kivu,
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 27(1), 106-117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2019.1571309
Mayans, I., & Vaca, M. (2018). The paternalistic argument against abortion. Hypatia, 33(1), 22-29.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12385
Miklavcic, J.J., & Flaman, P. (2017). Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus. The Linacre
Quarterly, 84(2), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2017.1299896
Neale, A. (2022). Application of virtue ethics to human life and death. Think: Philosophy for Everyone,
21(60), 105-108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175621000373
Redd, S.K., Rice, W.S., Aswani, M.S., Blake, S., Julian, Z., Sen, B., Wingate, M., & Hall, K.S. (2021).
Racial/ethnic and educational inequities in restrictive abortion policy variation and adverse birth
outcomes in the United States. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 1-1139.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07165-x
Rosen, J.D. (2020). June Medical Services v. Russo: A threat to physcians’ standing to challenge abortion
regulations. The New England Journal of Medicine, 383(12), 1101-1103.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2025176
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 8
Svenaeus, F. (2017). Phenomenology of pregnancy and the ethics of abortion. Medicine, Health Care,
and Philosophy, 21(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9786-x
Tomlinson, S.J. (2021). Access denied: The proliferation of American medical abortion laws, 2000-2018.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 60(4), 497-503.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.11.008
**FamilyNursePractitionerEthicsanalysis.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/familynursepractitionerethicsanalysis-docx)
**## Ethicscaseanalysisexample.pdf**
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 1
Ethics Case Analysis: The Right to Abortion
Student Name
Louise Herrington School of Nursing, Baylor University
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 2
Ethics Case Analysis: The Right to Abortion
The right to abortion has been a topic of controversy and ethical debate since the 1960s
(Svenaeus, 2017). The ethical conflict exists in whether it is morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy.
Both courses of action have moral importance and can be argued either way using ethical principles and
moral theories. One must consider the undesirable outcomes and beliefs of both sides. Throughout this
paper, pro-life and pro-choice will be used as terminology to categorize those who are against abortion
and those who are in support of the right to abortion, respectively. It is important to note that this is not a
black and white issue and there is a spectrum of support and opposition based on the timing and reason
abortion is obtained. However, for the sake of an ethical conflict, the two extreme sides of the gamut will
compose the conversation. On the pro-life side, abortion leads to the death of a person or potential person
(Svenaeus, 2017). Thus, the consequence of abortion is death of human life and potential fetal pain. On
the pro-choice side, making abortions illegal or inaccessible to a pregnant woman takes away her
autonomy and the right to make decisions about her body (Svenaeus, 2017). Without the right to abortion,
pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, as well as pregnancies leading to fetal deaths and maternal
health threats would be forced to term (Tomlinson, 2021). Furthermore, woman denied abortions may
seek unsafe abortion methods leading to potentially life- threatening complications (Baldwin et al., 2022).
Stakeholders
Numerous stakeholders are involved in the debate around the right to an abortion. Women,
medical providers, the healthcare sector, state and federal governments, and religious organizations are all
either affected or hold interest in this controversial subject. Women are the obvious stakeholder involved
in the ethical conflict of abortion rights. Some may sustain their pregnancy due to religious beliefs or
personal values, while others may value their right to choose whether to have a child or not based on a
variety of reasons. Societal norms may impact a woman’s desire to obtain an abortion. For instance, a
pregnant teenager may opt for an abortion due to the fear of judgment from her peers.
Medical providers may be influenced by their professional identity and duty to provide safe
abortions at the request of their patients, despite their own personal feelings. Many healthcare
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 3
professionals view abortions as a part of reproductive healthcare (Rosen, 2020). The healthcare system
may be influenced by the costs associated with abortions versus birth. One study estimated a $21 billion
cost to US taxpayers as a result of unintended pregnancies (Tomlinson, 2021), with the cost of an abortion
only 20% the cost of a birth. Insurance coverage of abortions varies by state and company.
While exceptions exist, religious organizations and those who highly regard their faith tend to
oppose abortion (Bruce, 2020). Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon and Evangelical Protestant religions have
higher opposition to abortion than Jewish, Buddhist, and unaffiliated religions (Bruce, 2020).
State and federal governments are active stakeholders in the case of abortion. These institutions
are responsible for creating laws that dictate accessibility and legality of abortion. Each level of
government is influenced by the ideologies and culture within their constituents. Southern regions of the
United States with more conservative culture are more likely to oppose abortion, leading to those state
governments imposing legal restrictions.
Critical Analysis
Consequentialism, and more specifically, utilitarianism, can be used to both support and oppose
the right to an abortion. Under this theory, the ethically correct action is the one that produces the
maximal balance of positive consequences over negative ones (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). The pro-
life stance argues that the death of the fetus, person or potential person, is innately the ultimate
consequence that outweighs any possible good. To prohibit abortion altogether due to the consequence of
fetal death would fall under rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, can be used to
support the right to abortion. Circumstances such as rape, incest, fetal anomalies, or maternal health risks
may be justifiable to an act utilitarian to support abortion. In these cases, the benefit of preserving the
woman’s mental and physical health (Casey et al., 2019) can be seen as outweighing the consequence of
losing the fetus, which one may or may not consider a person.
The deontological theory, also known as Kantian theory values human life, reason and duty
(Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Kantian theory is often seen as anti-abortion, for the maxim of abortion
cannot pass the categorical imperative, in which permitting abortion would have to be a universally
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 4
accepted rule. Furthermore, Kantian theory is concerned with one’s duty to themselves. Mayans & Vaca
(2018), explain that a woman’s nature is to produce offspring. Even though the woman does not have a
duty to the fetus, she has a duty to “herself with regard to her fetus” (Mayans & Vaca, 2018, p. 25). At the
same time, Kantian theory can be used to support abortion, as a woman has a duty to protect her health,
body, and autonomy. Lastly, Kant emphasizes the importance of treating each person as an end, rather
than as a means to an end (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Exploiting a pregnant woman or forcing the
continuation of an unwanted pregnancy can be perceived as treating a woman as a means to an end.
Oppositely, abortion can be viewed in a negative light as treating the fetus as a means to an end, in order
for the woman to continue on with her life and ambitions, free of a child.
Virtue ethics focuses on the character traits, or virtues, of the person in a situation of ethical
conflict. This theory helps dictate the correct course of action by relying on what the virtuous person
would do in that circumstance (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Neale (2022) discusses the ways in which
virtue ethics can be perceived to either support or negate abortion. A woman who seeks an abortion may
be viewed under virtue ethics as selfish or heartless for killing their unborn child. Alternatively, that same
woman may not be able to afford or care for a child, in which she can be considered sensible and
compassionate towards the quality of life the fetus would be born into. The healthcare provider choosing
to perform an abortion can possess the virtue of sympathy towards a woman who does not want the child
or evil for conducting the procedure. The healthcare provider who refuses to perform abortions can be
viewed as caring towards life or malicious for refusing reproductive rights to women. Evidently,
considering the various perspectives and characterizations one can make depending on the individual
situation, the ethically correct action surrounding abortion is poorly defined based on virtue ethics alone.
Rights theory can be applied to both the pro-choice and pro-life stances. The woman has the right
to autonomy, bodily integrity, and reproductive choices, including the right to an abortion. One can also
say, however, that under the rights theory, a fetus has rights, including the right to survive and not be
killed. The mother is physically able to make her rights and decisions be voiced, while the fetus cannot.
However, these theories and rights are applicable to human beings. The point at which a fetus develops
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 5
moral status and personhood heavily impacts the application of the rights theory. While pro-life argues
that a fetus attains personhood at the point of fertilization, pro-choice makes this distinction based on
certain stages of development and gestational milestones (Miklavcic & Flaman, 2017).
Respect for autonomy supports the pregnant woman’s right to make decisions about her body and
pregnancy, including termination. If she has the intention to end the pregnancy, understands the extent of
her decision, is not being influenced or coerced, and is competent, the woman should be able to make this
decision for herself under the principle of autonomy (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). However,
autonomy can also be seen from the fetus’s perspective. Abortion does not consider a fetus’s right to
choose. Although, the fetus is physically incapable of making a choice while in the womb.
Abortion inherently will harm the fetus and end its life. This goes against the principle of
beneficence, in which preventing harm is a mainstay. On the other hand, abortion can potentially save the
life of the pregnant woman if their health is at risk due to pregnancy complications. In that case, abortion
is benefiting the woman by saving her life. Additionally, even with abortion restrictions in place, the
incidence of abortion continues, just in an unsafe, unsanitary manner (Casey et al., 2019). When looking
at the principle of utility, a birth is costly compared to an abortion (Tomlinson, 2021). On the other hand,
the mother’s life may be saved, but the fetus would be killed.
Again, inherently, abortion inflicts harm on the fetus, which violates a core obligation of
nonmaleficence and it’s more specific rule to not kill. The matter comes down to a highly debated topic of
whether the fetus feels pain or not and is considered a person or not. If so, killing the fetus is morally
wrong under nonmaleficence standards. Although, Beauchamp and Childress (2019, p. 159), explain that
“harmful actions that involve justifiable setbacks to another’s interests are not wrong.” Thus, pro-choice
can argue that inflicting harm on the fetus is justifiable to protect the interests and rights of the mother.
Under the ethical principle of justice lies six theories. Most applicable to abortion are the
capability theory and well-being theory. The capability theory discusses one’s ability to live with good
health, “without dying prematurely” (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019, p. 279). If the fetus is a person, then
abortion violates the principle of justice by prematurely taking the life of a human. That same theory can
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 6
support abortion, as it states a human should have bodily integrity, including reproductive choices. The
well-being theory begins with the basic premise that justice is concerned with human well-being and
emphasizes the right to health and self-determination. Thus, it can be said that abortion permits justice, as
without this right, a woman cannot control their own life and manage their health if at risk due to
pregnancy. Justice also involves health policy and accessibility. The laws and policies surrounding
abortion are evolving depending on the state and the position of the federal government. In the last
decade, around 500 policies restricting abortions have been implemented across the United States (Redd
et al., 2021). These restrictive abortion policies have proven to disproportionately and negatively affect
the health of Blacks, the uneducated, and vulnerable populations, leading to further health inequities.
Conclusion
The ethically correct course of action is to permit women the right to an abortion. After critical
analysis of these moral guidelines, it can be concluded that abortion follows a majority of the ethical
standards. Both utilitarianism and rights theory portrayed the most convincing argument to support
abortion. Considering the variety of reasons for women to seek an abortion and the unknown sentience of
the fetus, it can be determined that the maximal good of abortion overrules the negative consequences.
Given the inconclusive debate over the personhood of the fetus, the moral theories and ethical principles
must be attributed to the health and desires of the woman who is physically and mentally capable of moral
status. Therefore, the rights theory supports a woman’s right to terminate an unwanted or unsafe
pregnancy. Furthermore, the ethical principles of autonomy and justice were most persuasive in arguing
for the right to abortion. A woman’s right to bodily integrity and reproductive choices were key factors
associated with autonomy and justice. Additionally, the risk for maternal health threats, as an example,
supersede the death of the fetus in applying the rules of beneficence and nonmaleficence to the case of
abortion. While this paper attempts to cover arguments on both sides of the abortion rights debate, it is
important to note that only two extreme sides were acknowledged, when in reality a range exists
including deliberation on gestational limits, health exceptions, etc. In conclusion, when looking to
decipher one correct course of action, free of caveats, the right to abortion is deemed ethical.
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 7
References
Baldwin, A., Johnson, D.M., Broussard, K., Tello-Perez, L.A., Madera, M., Ze-Noah, C., Padron, E., &
Aiken, A. (2022). U.S. abortion care providers’ perspectives on self-managed abortion.
Qualitative Health Research, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221077296
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University
Press.
Bruce, T.C. (2020). Efficacy, distancing, and reconciling: Religion and race in Americans’ abortion
attitudes. Religions, 11(9), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11090475
Casey, S.E., Steven, V.J., Deitch, J., Dumas, E.F., Gallagher, M.C., Martinez, S., Morris, C.N.,
Rafanoharana, R.V., & Wheeler, E. (2019). “You must first save her life”: Community
perceptions towards induced abortion and post-abortion care in North and South Kivu,
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters, 27(1), 106-117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2019.1571309
Mayans, I., & Vaca, M. (2018). The paternalistic argument against abortion. Hypatia, 33(1), 22-29.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12385
Miklavcic, J.J., & Flaman, P. (2017). Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus. The Linacre
Quarterly, 84(2), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2017.1299896
Neale, A. (2022). Application of virtue ethics to human life and death. Think: Philosophy for Everyone,
21(60), 105-108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175621000373
Redd, S.K., Rice, W.S., Aswani, M.S., Blake, S., Julian, Z., Sen, B., Wingate, M., & Hall, K.S. (2021).
Racial/ethnic and educational inequities in restrictive abortion policy variation and adverse birth
outcomes in the United States. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 1-1139.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07165-x
Rosen, J.D. (2020). June Medical Services v. Russo: A threat to physcians’ standing to challenge abortion
regulations. The New England Journal of Medicine, 383(12), 1101-1103.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2025176
THE RIGHT TO ABORTION 8
Svenaeus, F. (2017). Phenomenology of pregnancy and the ethics of abortion. Medicine, Health Care,
and Philosophy, 21(1), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-017-9786-x
Tomlinson, S.J. (2021). Access denied: The proliferation of American medical abortion laws, 2000-2018.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 60(4), 497-503.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.11.008
**FamilyNursePractitionerEthicsanalysis.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/familynursepractitionerethicsanalysis-docx)
– 1
– 2