First Semester Reflection

            This semester of blogging showed me many of the challenges that came along with viewing the world through an ethical lens, but it also yielded many of the rewards. My choice of blog topic was different from most of my classmates, many of whom chose long-held interests or topics of previous experience. Ethics is not a long-held fascination of mine, but rather a side-interest that I felt this project would allow me to explore.

            My process for each blog piece was standard. First, I determined a topic to write about. Whenever possible, I picked out situations from my own life, but most of my topics came in the form of news articles. After choosing a subject, I identified the ethical angles involved and did a pro/con analysis. This was harder to do when I had my own clear stance on the issue. For example, on the Pillars of Islam post, I had to ethically justify censorship of an educational Islam poster which I strongly believed had every right to exist. Finally, for each scenario I had to figure out what the purpose of examining the situation was in the first place and ended the post on that note.

            Although many of my posts were on news articles, my favorite ones were the situations pulled from my own experiences. Each case was something I had struggled with personally which made them much more fulfilling to talk about than any of the news articles. For example, my post about the Canned Food Drive was extremely personal and allowed me to examine my own choices from an ethical standpoint. It became my favorite because it helped me realize that the compromise I came to over which types of food to buy for the drive was the most ethical solution, and resolved any conflict I felt over having to make such a decision.  Although on a more micro-scale than mall bombings or affirmative action policies, these posts felt more important to me personally.

            Although I was always interested about the topics I wrote about, ethics as a lens in general has turned out to be a challenging theme to blog about for me. I am a straightforward person who likes clear-cut answers and viable results, and I discovered early on that my exploration of ethics was not going to yield either of these things. The nature of ethics is a struggle between right and wrong, and in none of the scenarios I discussed was I able to determine which was which. Every dilemma had valid arguments from every perspective: even the parents who protested the display of an educational Islam poster were ethically justified in not wanting their children exposed to religion in schools. Every post I made started with an ethical dilemma and ended as an ethical dilemma because no clear solution was ever possible. This was frustrating because part of me felt like the work I was doing was fruitless. What was the purpose of examining these scenarios if I couldn't determine the right thing to do in the end? However, I eventually came to understand the value of examining problems without black-and-white solution. I stopped searching for the absolute rights and wrongs and started to question what ethical stances should be prioritized. This shift had a very meaningful impact on my analytical thought process.

            Beyond my own experience with blogging, I also have a great appreciation for the blogs that my classmates have created over this semester. My favorite blog to read has been Jack’s blog about devils advocacy. My favorite post of his was the one he wrote about the use of offensive language in rap music. I resonated strongly with his point that rappers may be “trying to be offensive, making it all the more appropriate. The number one priority is for a speaker to make their message clear and intended. Considering the array of meanings these words have accumulated in 21st century conversation, and their expressive, colorful nature, there should be no reason why we can't accept their places in our vernacular”. Before reading his post, I had resolutely disagreed with the use of such language in music because it seemed crude and unnecessary; his post completely changed my mindset and allowed me to see the complex choices that some rappers were making in being so purposely offensive. His posts consistently challenged my own viewpoints, which is not an easy thing to do and gave me a great respect for his blog.

            Overall, this experience has been very beneficial and I look forward to continuing to examine the world and my own life through this lens next semester. 

Word Count: 748

The Ethics of Life-Support and Pregnancy

Source: nytimes.com
Husband of Marlise Munoz, Eric Munoz

           This week, I’d like to take a look at a situation that comes up frequently in an ethical context—but with a twist. Marlise Munoz was 33 when she collapsed in her kitchen in Fort Worth Texas this past Friday. A blood clot in her lungs put her in the ICU at John Peter Smith and eventually led to a declaration of her brain death. Her family was devastated, but was fully prepared to carry out Munoz’s previously decided wishes to not be kept on life support—that is until the State of Texas stopped them. The doctors informed the family that Munoz was 14 weeks pregnant, and that since Texas law forbids the removal of life-sustaining care from pregnant women, the doctors could not obey the family’s wishes to remove Munoz’s life-support.

            The State of Texas is not alone with its stance on this topic. Thirty-one other states have similar laws restricting physicians’ ability to remove life-sustaining care from terminally-ill pregnant women. The ethical argument is that unlike most life-support cases, which are already controversial, these situations have two lives at stake: the mother’s and the unborn child’s. Texas law is one among the strictest policies in forbiding life-support termination regardless of the stage of pregnancy, but the ethical case still stands. Although cases are few and far between, doctors believe that as long as Munoz is kept alive, the fetus could still develop normally. R. Phillips Heine, Director of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University, says of the case “As far as fetal development, as long as we can control delivery of blood to the fetus and make sure the mother is nutrient-enriched, and as long as the mother's got enough glucose and oxygen, she can serve as a vessel. . . . If they can get to a reasonable gestation, there's potential for a very good outcome”. Ethically, the law claims it is necessary to respect the unborn fetus’ life as an individual person, and that therefore Munoz must be kept alive for the pregnancy.

            However, the other perspective to consider is that maintaining Munoz’s life support goes directly against her own wishes as well as her family’s.  Munoz decided before her accident that she did not want to remain on life-support if she was ever declared brain dead, and her family not only agrees with this wish but also feels strongly about carrying it out on behalf of Munoz. Ethically, they claim it is their decision and that the State of Texas has no right to interfere. Furthermore, they claim that the hospital is misinterpreting the law to be stricter than intended. The law calls forbids the removal of “life-sustaining treatment” from a pregnant patient, which arguably applies to comatose and vegetative patients but not brain-dead patients like Munoz, who is legally already dead. Either way, the family claims that it is unethical to disregard their wishes and prolong their agony over their daughter’s death.

            This story has been gaining publicity quickly over the last few days and is prompting ethical debates among experts all over the country. Texas will likely be receiving a lot of scrutiny for this as the Munoz family continues to fight the life-support law in order to comply with their daughter’s wishes. Life-support is a controversial issue to begin with, but do the specific details of this case (brain-death, patient’s wishes, pregnancy, etc.) make all the difference?