Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics

Social and Ethical Issues in Relation to Abortion

Patricia Duffy^* Department of Social Work and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom
^*Correspondence: Patricia Duffy, Department of Social Work and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom, Email:

Received: 17-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. JCRB-22-18442; Editor assigned: 19-Aug-2022, Pre QC No. JCRB-22-18442 (PQ); Reviewed: 05-Sep-2022, QC No. JCRB-22-18442; Revised: 13-Sep-2022, Manuscript No. JCRB-22-18442 (R); Published: 22-Sep-2022, DOI: 10.35248/2155-9627.22.13.437

Description

One of the most divisive topics in the world today is abortion. When attempting to determine what the appropriate course of action is for an unintended pregnancy, people frequently turn to the law. An antagonistic connection between the mother and her unborn child may develop if the rights of the foetus are taken into account. The four guiding principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, justice, and respect for patient autonomy are frequently invoked in bioethical arguments against abortion. These guidelines were initially produced for use in human subject research. They are crucial guides in complex medical issues for many doctors and ethicists today.

Patient autonomy

Respect for autonomy is enshrined in laws governing informed consent, which protect patient’s right to know the medical options available and make an informed voluntary decision. Some bioethicists believe that respect for autonomy provides strong support for the right to choose abortion, contending that the state should not interfere if a pregnant person wants to end their pregnancy. One version of this viewpoint holds that the principle of autonomy means that an individual owns their body and should have the freedom to determine what occurs inside of and to it.

The validity of respecting people's autonomy is not necessarily contested by those opposed to abortion, but they may disagree on how to apply this value. Some people consider the mother and the foetus to be two patients while a woman is pregnant.

Social and Ethical Issues Regarding Abortion

Generally adults say abortion is morally permissible in all situations; while approximately a quarter suggest it is morally accepted most of the time. Relatively few hold a strict moral position on abortion. Another one in five people do not see abortion as a moral issue. Regarding this issue, political party and religious affiliation show significant variance. It is possible to argue that a pregnant woman has a right to be treated as two people, not to compromise her interests or autonomy but rather to strengthen them. Simply put, one may state that a pregnant woman has the right to request extra care and treatment for both herself and her foetus given the additional requirements that pregnancy brings. The pregnant woman may theoretically represent the unborn child and have the sole power to speak up for it and decide what happens to it. However, the translation of the concept of two patients into legal terms is problematic because foetal rights proponents have used this concept not to improve care for pregnant women but rather as a cover for coercive state intervention that forces pregnant women into a conflictual relationship with their fetuses.

Beneficence and non-malfeasance

The ethical principle of do no harm prohibits purposeful harm or injury to a patient. It requires risk-reduced, medically competent care. The duty to benefit patients is frequently combined with the beneficent concept of non-maleficence. These principles stress doing more good than harm to abortion restrictions because pregnant women who face obstacles to abortion frequently turn to unsafe procedures, which are a major contributor to preventable maternal deaths and morbidities globally.