Ethics

Issues bordering on ethics have often attracted debate. In the case under review, a widow is seeking a sperm from her deceased husband since she does not want their daughter to be lonely. However, it emerges that the widow had raised the issue although the husband was not of the idea of having a second child. The widow would find comfort in having additional children based on her wish that, from the anticipated vitro-fertilization, twins can be conceived. It should be noted that in this case, various stakeholders, have different interests. For instance, the hospital staff, the daughter, the widow and the deceased person's family are interested parties in the case.

Regarding who has the legal rights to take possession of the husband's sperms, it is clear that the widow has a head start. The widow has a right in regards to what is to be done to the husband's deceased body unless such contravenes any legal provisions. On grounds of morality, the widow would come in for lots of criticism. For instance, for those individuals, whom religion shaped their moral orientations, it would prove a difficult decision to preserve the husband's sperms. Based on religion, the supernatural plans are supreme, and any attempt to subvert them is unacceptable and amoral. However, applying the principle of autonomy leads to various contestations. On the one hand, the widow reserves the right to demand possession of the husband's sperms. On the other hand, the autonomy of the deceased husband should be respected. In this regard, the widow has no moral authority to demand possession of the sperms with the intention of using them for further reproduction. Similarly, using the principle of justice, it would emerge that justice can only prevail if individual wishes are respected. This borders on the notion that conception should be based on an agreement between two parties. Sidelining any persons in the process is against the tenet of justice. However, a dead person has no say in prevailing issues. Based on this assertion, the widow has a right to go ahead with her plan. Possibly, the daughter would benefit if the mother decides to keep the sperms for vitro-fertilization. This view can also be supported based on the assumption that since the husband is deceased, he will not have to endure any pain based on the wife's decision.

Based on the principle of non-malfeasance, persons are obligated not to inflict pain or harm intentionally to other persons. Thus, this principle allows the widow to go ahead with her plans since they do not pose any concern, albeit to the deceased. The medical practitioners should also help the widow to execute her plan. Based on the principle of beneficence, medical practitioners are required not to engage in issues that could harm their patients or healthcare seekers. Thus, they should handle this issue and take an amicable solution.

The focal point of deontological teachings revolves around the absolute adherence to moral duties (Naaman-Zauderer, 2010). In any endeavor, making the right, moral choices is imperative. Therefore, the disputing parties need to understand the moral roles and identify what is correct regarding existing rules and how such rules regulate behavior. Based on the deontological school, observing one’s duties equates to behaving morally. Contrary to this, failing to follow the duties amounts to acting immorally. The deontological position heavily resembles religion as it presumes that obligations, rules and duties are necessary. The hospital, widow and other stakeholders have an obligation to do what is right based on this school of thought. Thus, all interested parties should ensure justice, non-malfeasance, beneficence and autonomy expectations are observed.