Exam 6: The Dilemma of Impaired Infants

Utilitarians do not consider killing impaired infants to be wrong in itself.

Tristram Engelhardt Jr. believes that we may actually have a moral duty not to treat impaired newborns if such treatment would only prolong a painful life or lead to a painful deat.

In "The 'Ashley Treatment'", Ashley's parent's claim that they had Ashley's uterus removed to prevent menstrual cramps.

Liao, Salvulescu, and Sheehan argue that the surgical removal of the uterus in a case like Ashley's is not justified.

Congenital impairments are inherited and can be passed on.

The natural law position holds that only fully functioning newborns can be considered human persons.

Ethical theories rooted in identity politics draw a bright line between persons and non-persons.

There is currently a cure for Down syndrome.

Engelhardt opposes the passive euthanization of children.

Amniocentesis carries no risks and is considered a routine procedure.

Engelhardt believes that there could be a duty not to treat an impaired infant.

ohn Robertson believes that the high personal and societal costs of treating impaired newborns are sufficient reason to withhold treatment from such newborns.

Kant believed that it would be wrong to will our own deaths.

Engelhardt believes that children are not persons in the full sense.

Dr. Eduard Verhagen supports a policy allowing physicians to euthanize infants under certain condition such as when suffering from hopeless and severe impairments leading only to a life of "agonizing pain."