CAS PH 251 Lecture Notes - Lecture 16: Fiduciary, Nonperson, Reproductive Rights
2 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
The Non-Identity Problem and Wrongful Handicaps:
Cases
• Case 1: A woman with a certain medical condition could get pregnant now and have a
child with moderate cognitive retardation or she could take a safe medication for one
month and then get pregnant and have a cognitively normal child. She decides she cannot
wait so she gets pregnant right away and has a child with moderate cognitive disabilities.
• Case 2: Same as case 1 except that the condition is discovered after she has become
pregnant and she must take a safe medication to prevent cognitive retardation in her
developing child, however, she chooses not to take the medication and ends up having a
child with moderate cognitive disabilities.
• Case 3: Same as cases 1 & 2 except that the medication must be provided to a born infant
but the woman chooses not to provide it so the infant becomes cognitively disabled as a
result.
Question: What does commonsense morality have to say about these cases?
• The woman has the ability to safely take away a disability but chooses not to by
knowingly declining treatment for a treatable condition
o There is a moral issue with the fact that the child is harmed by a decision or lack
of it
• There is a fiduciary duty between parents and children (similar to one held between
doctors and their patients) that comes with certain responsibilities to protect the latter
(similar to rules and regulations regarding medical malpractice, informed consent,
euthanasia, etc.)
o Additionally, the child is left at the mercy of the parents to avoid harms
• This scenario is an example of passive harm, in which the child is harmed indirectly in
the future
o This type of harm should be viewed the same way as one of active harm (ex: a
mother who consumers drugs/alcohol while pregnant which can lead to deficits)
because the infant has been harmed in some way
Question: Why does case 1 have a different moral structure than cases 2 & 3 (see person-
affecting v. non-person affecting ethical principles)?
• Identity v. Non-Identity Problem – If a child can be born without a disability, in reality,
the would not have been born (a child without a disability would have instead been born
rather than one with a disability), so thus the child with a disability cannot complain
about being born
o The only way to have avoided that disability would have been to have waited
during the time period
o This is similar to the Non-Identity Argument made by Brock for cloning
• Different Scenarios:
o Case 1 differs from cases 2 & 3 only if you think there would have been a
different child with a different identity born
o Case 1 would be the same as cases 2 & 3 if you do not believe that there would
have been a different child with a different identity born
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
