Week 2 Discussion: Religion And Ethics ✓ Solved

Week 2 Discussion: Religion and Ethics Required Resources: T

Week 2 Discussion: Religion and Ethics Required Resources: Textbook: Chapters 3, 4; Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.).

Scenario: You are a nurse in a hospital. A 12-year-old was brought to the hospital by an ambulance. The parents have just arrived. The child has lost a large amount of blood and requires a transfusion. The parents are members of a religion that believes blood transfusions are immoral. They want to remove the child from the hospital and prevent the transfusion even if it means the death of the child. You must decide whether to participate in providing blood for the child against the parents' wishes.

Questions:

1) What would a divine command ethicist say is the moral thing to do here? Why? Do you agree with divine command ethics? Why or why not?

2) What would a natural law ethicist say is right to do? Do you agree? Why or why not?

3) Given what you said are the right things to do, what would an emotivist say about your positions and judgments? What role does subjectivity play in determining what is ethical?

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

The presented case places a nurse at the intersection of religious conviction, legal duty, and ethical obligation: a 12-year-old needs a blood transfusion to survive while their parents object on religious grounds. This analysis examines three ethical frameworks—divine command theory, natural law ethics, and emotivism—to determine what each perspective would counsel the nurse to do, evaluates those positions, and considers the role of subjectivity in ethical decision-making.

Divine Command Ethics: Expected Judgment and Evaluation

Divine command ethics holds that moral rightness is grounded in God's commands: actions are morally obligatory because God wills them (Adams, 1979). A strict divine command ethicist facing this case would ask which action aligns with God's revealed commands or the authoritative religious interpretation held by the parents. If the parents' religion explicitly forbids blood transfusions as a moral duty, the divine command perspective—when interpreted from the parents' religious framework—would likely counsel obedience to that command, thereby opposing the transfusion (Adams, 1979).

However, not all divine command theorists construe divine commands identically. Some argue that God's commands promote human flourishing and the preservation of life, which could justify the transfusion if the religious prohibition is seen as mistaken or as a human interpretation rather than an absolute divine injunction (Rachels & Rachels, 2019).

Do I agree with divine command ethics? Partially. Divine command theory can offer moral clarity for believers but struggles with pluralism and moral disagreement in pluralistic societies. If the nurse shares the parents' faith and sincerely believes that divine command prohibits transfusion, the nurse faces a moral conflict. In a secular healthcare context, however, relying solely on a particular religious command to justify life-ending inaction is problematic because it privileges one religious interpretation over the child's welfare and broader professional and legal obligations (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

Natural Law Ethics: Expected Judgment and Evaluation

Natural law theory, rooted in Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition and modern formulations (e.g., Finnis, 1980), holds that moral norms are discoverable through reason and aim at human goods such as life and health. A natural law ethicist would emphasize the basic good of preserving life and would typically endorse interventions that save a child's life, such as a blood transfusion, because protecting life is a primary natural good (Finnis, 1980).

Applied to this case, natural law reasoning supports the transfusion as morally required to preserve the child's basic good of life. The parents’ religious objection would not override the child's right to the fundamental good of life; hence the nurse would be morally justified, and perhaps obligated, to participate in life-saving care (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

I agree more strongly with the natural law conclusion in this context because it privileges objective goods—especially life—which align with healthcare duties and societal obligations to protect minors who cannot fully determine long-term interests. Natural law provides a reasoned basis to intervene even against parental refusal when essential goods are at stake (Jonsen, Siegler, & Winslade, 2015).

Emotivism: Response to the Nurse’s Position

Emotivism argues that moral statements primarily express emotional attitudes rather than objective truths (Stevenson, 1944; Ayer, 1936). An emotivist observing the nurse's stance—whether in favor of transfusion or in respect of parental refusal—would characterize the nurse's assertions as expressions of approval or disapproval rather than factual claims about moral properties. For example, saying "The nurse should give the transfusion" translates to "I disapprove of letting the child die; give the transfusion!" (Stevenson, 1944).

Thus, an emotivist would interpret the nurse’s judgments as subjective attitudes shaped by feelings, cultural conditioning, and persuasion rather than objective moral facts. They would emphasize that disagreements between parties are expressions of differing attitudes and that rational ethical debate aims to influence emotions and attitudes rather than discover moral facts (Ayer, 1936).

This perspective highlights the role of subjectivity: cultural, emotional, and religious backgrounds shape moral responses. However, emotivism struggles to justify why legal and professional structures exist to protect children from harmful parental choices—structures that presuppose objective duties (e.g., protecting life) rather than mere emotive preferences (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

Balancing Professional Duty, Child Welfare, and Parental Rights

Healthcare professionals operate within ethical and legal frameworks that often prioritize a child's welfare when parental decisions pose a serious risk (American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics, 1995). Legally, states may override parental refusals when refusal places a child in danger (Prince v. Massachusetts, 1944). Ethically, principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence support life-saving interventions (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

Given the natural law and professional ethics analyses, the morally defensible action for the nurse is to participate in securing the transfusion (or facilitate legal emergency measures) to preserve the child's life. This approach recognizes the moral weight of protecting minors and the nurse's duty of care while acknowledging the emotional and religious dimensions articulated by parents. An emotivist critique would note subjectivity in both positions but would not negate the practical necessity of prioritizing life-saving care in clinical and legal practice (Kuczewski, 2006).

Conclusion

Divine command theory may support the parents’ refusal if interpreted strictly within their faith tradition, but it is less compelling in pluralistic clinical contexts where differing religious commitments conflict with duties to protect children. Natural law ethics and mainstream biomedical ethics converge in favoring intervention to save the child's life. Emotivism underscores the subjective elements of moral dispute but cannot alone determine policy when objective protection of vulnerable persons is required. Practically and ethically, the nurse should act to secure the transfusion in line with professional obligations and legal protections for minors, while communicating compassionately with the parents and pursuing available legal and institutional routes to reconcile conflict (Jonsen et al., 2015; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics, 1995).

References

• Adams, R. M. (1979). A modified divine command theory. Journal of Religious Ethics, 7(1), 28–43.
• Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, truth and logic. Dover Publications.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Clarendon Press.
• Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2015). Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Kuczewski, M. G. (2006). When children refuse recommended medical treatment for religious reasons. HEC Forum, 18(4), 293–305.
• Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).
• Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Stevenson, C. L. (1944). Ethics and language. Yale University Press.
• American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. (1995). Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 95(2), 314–317.