This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Youssef Jalloul Medical ethics 442 In the argument of considering whether to treat a defective infant, I believe that Robertson makes for a better argument than Engelhardt in that he believes infants are persons and deserve to be treated like ones. Engelhardt states that It is reasonable to speak of a duty not to treat an impaired infant when this will only prolong a painful life or would only lead to a painful death. (Pp.646 Engelhardt) What the author is trying to say is that why put the person through a life of miserable pain while the final outcome is going to be an excruciating pain and why should we prolong the treatments if all it does is prolong the pain. He calls this the injury of continued existence, (Pp.646 Engelhardt) he makes the claim on the legal notion of a Wrongful life. Engelhardt also mentions that It is reasonable to speak of a duty to not to treat a small child when such treatment will only prolong a painful life or would in any event lead to a...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/01/2008 for the course PHIL 442 taught by Professor Baumgaurtin during the Spring '08 term at University of Michigan.
- Spring '08