Moral Principles and Medical Practice - The Basis of Medical Jurisprudence by Charles Coppens
page 34 of 155 (21%)
page 34 of 155 (21%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
symphysiotomy, all approved by science and the moral law. But we will
suppose an extreme case; namely, the circumstances are so unfavorable for any of these operations--whether owing to want of skill in the Doctors present, or for any other reason--that none can safely be attempted; any of them would be fatal to the mother. In this extreme case of necessity, can the Doctor break the cranium of the living child, or in any way destroy its life with a view to save the mother? If three consulting physicians agree that this is the only way to save her, he will not be molested by the law courts for performing the murderous operation. But will the law of nature and of nature's God approve or allow his conduct? This is the precise question under our consideration. We have seen that the infant, a true human being, has a right to live, as well as its mother. "All men are created equal, and have an equal right to life," declares the first principle of our liberty. The Creator, too, as reason teaches, has a clear right to the child's life; that child may answer a very special purpose of Providence. But whether it will or not, God is the supreme and the only Master of life and death, and He has laid down the strict prohibition, "Thou shalt not kill." Now comes the plea of self-defence against an unjust aggressor. If the child is such, if it _unjustly_ attacks its mother's life, then she can destroy it to save herself, and her physician can aid the innocent against the guilty party. But can it be proved that the infant is an unjust aggressor in the case? There can be no intentional or _formal_ guilt in the little innocent babe. But can we argue that the actual situation of the child is an unjust act, unconsciously done, yet _materially_ unjust, unlawful? Thus, if a madman would rush at me with a sharp sword, evidently intent on killing me, he may be called an unjust |
|