Medical School Interview - Medical Ethics - Abortion [DEBATE]

Summary

In this MZAG video, Hannah and Oona debate the complexities of abortion, exploring the ethical dimensions of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. They discuss the landmark Roe v. Wade case, the varying legal frameworks in the UK and beyond, and the implications for doctors with moral objections. The conversation underscores the importance of understanding both sides of the argument, especially for medical professionals and students preparing for interviews.

Takeaways

• 😀 The video discusses the topic of abortion from a medical ethics perspective, focusing on the debate between pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints.
• 🤔 The debate is structured around the four pillars of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
• 👩‍⚕️ Hannah argues for pro-choice, emphasizing a woman's right to autonomy over her own body and the potential risks of pregnancy and childbirth.
• 👶 Oona counters with a pro-life stance, questioning the fetus's autonomy and considering it a human being with rights from the moment of conception.
• 🏛️ The video references the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the first trimester in the United States, and its impact on subsequent legal changes.
• 🇬🇧 It also discusses the Abortion Act of 1967 in the UK, which allowed legal abortions under certain conditions and the NHS's role in providing them.
• ⚖️ The ethical debate includes considerations of the potential harm to the fetus and the mother, both physically and mentally, and the concept of 'first do no harm'.
• 💊 The video touches on the issue of self-administered abortions through online-purchased pills, which are illegal and potentially dangerous.
• 🌍 It highlights the variability in abortion laws across different regions, such as the stricter regulations in Northern Ireland compared to other parts of the UK.
• 💸 The economic aspect of abortion is discussed, with arguments about the cost to the healthcare system and the potential for preventative measures to be more cost-effective.
• 🤰 The video concludes with a discussion on the doctor's role and the conscientious objection clause, allowing medical professionals to refuse participation in abortions based on personal beliefs.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video?

The main topic of the video is the debate on abortion, specifically discussing the pros and cons of abortion from medical, ethical, and legal perspectives.

What are the four pillars of medical ethics mentioned in the video?

The four pillars of medical ethics mentioned are autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.

What is the legal case 'Roe vs Wade' discussed in the video, and what was its significance?

The legal case 'Roe vs Wade' was a U.S. Supreme Court judgment in 1973 that made abortions legal for all in the first three months of pregnancy. It established a trimester system in the U.S. and gave women the absolute right to abortion in the first trimester.

What is the 'conscientious objection clause' in the Abortion Act mentioned in the video?

The 'conscientious objection clause' in the Abortion Act permits doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in an abortion if it conflicts with their personal, religious, or moral beliefs, unless it is necessary to prevent the death or grave permanent injury.

How does the video address the issue of a woman's autonomy in the context of abortion?

The video argues that a woman should have the right to decide what happens to her own body, including the decision to have an abortion, which is a key aspect of her autonomy.

What is the counter-argument presented regarding the autonomy of the fetus?

The counter-argument presented is that the fetus, from the moment of conception, is genetically identical to the baby and adult it would become, and therefore has rights and should not have its life ended without a choice.

What are the ethical considerations regarding beneficence and non-maleficence in the context of abortion as discussed in the video?

The ethical considerations include the potential harm caused by performing an abortion, which ends a life, and the potential harm or suffering prevented, such as in cases of life-limiting conditions for the fetus or risks to the mother's health.

How does the video discuss the issue of justice in relation to abortion?

The video discusses justice in terms of gender equality, where allowing women the choice to have an abortion is seen as providing them with the same freedoms as men. It also touches on distributive justice, questioning the allocation of NHS resources towards abortions versus other medical needs.

What is the significance of the 'Abortion Act 1967' in the UK as mentioned in the video?

The 'Abortion Act 1967' in the UK allowed legal abortion on certain grounds and provided for free provision through the NHS, marking a significant change in the legal landscape regarding abortion.

What advice does the video give to medical students regarding their stance on abortion during interviews?

The video advises medical students to present both sides of the arguments on abortion and then weigh them up and pick a side, as this demonstrates a balanced and thoughtful approach to the complex ethical issue.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Introduction to the Abortion Debate

The video begins with an introduction to the topic of abortion, framing it as a critical issue for medical school interviews. The debate is set to cover the medical, ethical, and legal aspects of abortion. The participants are introduced: Andre as the chair, Hannah arguing for pro-choice, and Oona for pro-life. The video aims to help viewers understand the definition of abortion, discuss its pros and cons through the lens of medical ethics, and gain insight into relevant laws. Abortion is defined as the medical termination of pregnancy to prevent the birth of a baby. Hannah starts by arguing for autonomy, emphasizing a woman's right to control her body and the potential risks of pregnancy and childbirth.

05:00

👶 Ethical and Legal Considerations of Abortion

The debate continues with Oona countering the pro-choice stance by raising the question of the fetus's autonomy. She argues that the embryo, from conception, is a human being with rights, thus implying that abortion infringes on those rights. A legal case, Roe vs. Wade, is discussed as a landmark decision that legalized abortion in the first trimester in the U.S. The video then explores the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, with Oona asserting that abortion is the ultimate harm and Hannah arguing that it may sometimes be necessary to prevent suffering. The Abortion Act of 1967 in the UK is also mentioned, allowing abortions under certain conditions. The discussion highlights the complexities of balancing the rights and health of the mother against the life of the fetus.

10:02

💸 Justice and Financial Implications in Abortion Debate

The final part of the debate focuses on the ethical pillar of justice, including gender equality and distributive justice. The conversation considers whether the father should have a say in the decision to abort and the potential for coercion into abortion. The video concludes with a discussion on the financial aspects of abortion, comparing the costs of abortion to the potential expenses of prenatal and postnatal care. It also touches on the conscientious objection clause, allowing medical professionals to refuse participation in abortions. The video wraps up by encouraging viewers to consider both sides of the argument and to be prepared to discuss them in medical school interviews. It ends with a call to action for viewers to engage with the content and subscribe for more admissions-related content.

Keywords

💡Abortion

Abortion refers to the medical process of ending a pregnancy so that it does not result in the birth of a baby. In the video, abortion is the central topic of debate, with discussions focusing on the ethical, legal, and medical aspects surrounding the procedure. The script mentions that 'abortion is the medical process of ending a pregnancy so it doesn't result in the birth of a baby,' highlighting the importance of understanding the definition in the context of the debate.

💡Pro-choice

Pro-choice is a term used to describe the stance that supports a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. In the video, Hannah represents the pro-choice argument, advocating for a woman's autonomy over her own body. The script illustrates this when Hannah states, 'a woman should have the right to decide what happens to her own body,' emphasizing the importance of personal choice in reproductive decisions.

💡Pro-life

Pro-life is a term used to describe the stance that opposes abortion, often on the grounds that the fetus has a right to life from the moment of conception. Oona represents the pro-life argument in the video, questioning the autonomy of the fetus and arguing that it is a human being with rights. The script reflects this viewpoint when Oona says, 'the embryo from the moment of conception is genetically identical to the baby, child and then the adult that they would become,' suggesting that the fetus has inherent rights.

💡Medical Ethics

Medical ethics involves the moral principles that guide the practice of medicine and healthcare. The video discusses four pillars of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. These principles are used to evaluate the ethical considerations of abortion. For instance, the script mentions 'discuss the pros and cons of abortion in relation to the four pillars of medical ethics,' showing how these ethical concepts are central to the debate.

💡Autonomy

Autonomy in medical ethics refers to the principle of respecting an individual's right to make decisions about their own body and health. The video script uses this term when discussing the pro-choice argument, where Hannah argues that 'a woman should have the right to decide what happens to her own body,' highlighting the importance of personal autonomy in the context of abortion.

💡Beneficence and Non-maleficence

Beneficence refers to the obligation to act in the best interest of the patient, promoting their welfare, while non-maleficence is the principle of 'do no harm.' In the video, these concepts are debated in the context of abortion, with arguments presented on both sides regarding the potential harms and benefits. The script illustrates this debate when discussing the potential harm to the fetus by performing an abortion versus the potential harm to the mother by continuing the pregnancy.

💡Justice

Justice in medical ethics involves fair and equitable treatment, including considerations of gender equality and distributive justice. The video touches on this concept when discussing the societal implications of abortion, such as the financial costs to the healthcare system and the rights of the father in the decision-making process. The script mentions 'justice means we should treat all equals, equally,' emphasizing the need for fair treatment in reproductive rights.

💡Roe vs. Wade

Roe vs. Wade is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that made abortion legal across the United States. The video script references this case to illustrate the legal history and implications of abortion rights. The script describes the case, stating 'in 1973 the case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, they ruled that the laws in Texas did infringe a woman's right to privacy,' showing how this case set a precedent for abortion rights.

💡Conscientious Objection

Conscientious objection allows medical professionals to refuse to participate in procedures that conflict with their personal, religious, or moral beliefs. The video discusses this concept in relation to doctors who may morally object to performing abortions. The script explains that 'the Abortion Act has a conscientious objection clause,' allowing doctors to opt out while ensuring patients receive appropriate care.

💡Coercion

Coercion in the context of the video refers to the act of forcing or influencing someone to have an abortion against their will. The script mentions the issue of coercion when discussing potential problems with limiting access to abortion, stating that 'coercion into abortion has been increasingly recognized as a problem,' and some states have introduced anti-coercion legislation to address this concern.

Highlights

The debate video covers the pro-life versus pro-choice debate on abortion, aiming to prepare viewers for medical school interviews.

Abortion is defined as the medical process of ending a pregnancy to prevent the birth of a baby.

Autonomy is discussed as a key pillar of medical ethics, arguing that a woman should have control over her body.

The counterargument raises the question of the fetus's autonomy and its right to life from the moment of conception.

The Roe vs. Wade case of 1973 is highlighted, which legalized first-trimester abortions in the U.S.

The Abortion Act of 1967 in the UK is mentioned, allowing legal abortion on certain grounds and free NHS provision.

The debate touches on beneficence and non-maleficence, discussing the harm caused by performing or not performing an abortion.

The potential suffering of a fetus with a life-limiting condition is considered in the context of abortion.

Mental health implications for the mother, both from carrying an unwanted child and from having an abortion, are discussed.

The UK's Abortion Act of 1976 is mentioned, outlining the legal grounds for abortion.

The issue of gender equality and the father's rights in the abortion decision-making process are debated.

The concept of justice in abortion is explored, including distributive justice and the cost implications for the NHS.

The case of Paton vs. British Pregnancy Advisory Service is discussed, where a husband tried to prevent his wife's abortion.

The video addresses the conscientious objection clause in the Abortion Act, allowing medical staff to refuse participation in abortions.

The importance of presenting both sides of the argument in medical ethics discussions and interviews is emphasized.

The video concludes with a call to action for viewers to engage in the discussion and subscribe for more medical school admissions content.

Transcripts

hello again andre here from the mzag

team

this video in our interview series

covers a hot topic for interviews

pro-life versus pro-choice the debate on

abortion

we'll cover the relevance to medicine

points from both sides

as well as legal points of interest

timestamps in the description below

let's get started

hello and welcome to our debate video on

abortion over the next 15 minutes we

will debate the pros and cons of

abortion to help you prepare for your

medical school interviews

i will be chairing the debate hannah

will be arguing for abortion

also known as the pro-choice argument

and oona will be arguing against

abortion

sometimes called pro-life by the end of

this video you should be able to define

what abortion means

discuss the pros and cons of abortion in

relation to the four pillars of medical

ethics

and have a brief understanding of the

laws surrounding abortion in the uk and

abroad

as well as being able to give real life

examples of cases

i would like to start by defining what

abortion means and abortion is the

medical process of ending a pregnancy so

it doesn't result in the birth of a baby

it's also sometimes known as termination

let's get stuck in then

hannah why are you voting for abortion

today

one in three women in the uk will have

an abortion in their lifetime

so it isn't rare i will talk you through

each pillar of medical ethics but we'll

start with what i think is the most

important

autonomy a woman should have the right

to decide

what happens to her own body imagine if

you woke up one morning

and someone had plugged you into a

machine that for the next nine months

was going to live off you

put you at risk of serious medical

conditions disrupt your education

and relationships and cause you pain at

the end of nine months detaching from

the machine

will be even more dangerous with risk of

bleeding infections and even death

it was estimated in 2015 that 303

000 women would die from complications

relating to pregnancy and childbirth

that year and this isn't a problem

relating to just developing nations

in the us almost 24 mothers still die

for every 100 000

live babies born most people would agree

that every human being has a right to

their own body

the fetus exists within the mother's

body and she should therefore have the

right to decide what happens to it

and to avoid these risks if that's what

she wants to do

let's move on to the cons argument with

una thank you chair

i agree that autonomy is important so

what about the autonomy of the fetus

why should someone else be able to

decide that they can't have a chance at

life

i know there are different views as to

when a fetus becomes a person

some people suggest that this comes

later with the development of the

ability to think

imagine and communicate but i argue that

the embryo from the moment of conception

is genetically identical to the baby

child and then the adult that they would

become

surely it is therefore a human being

with rights i agree that every human

being has

absolute right over his or her body so

under the exact same argument as hannah

proposed

we do not have the right to effectively

kill this human being

without giving them a choice in the

matter good arguments from both sides

there on autonomy i have an interesting

legal case in relation to the rights of

the mother

the case of roe vs wade in 1973. this

was a u.s supreme court judgment

following which abortions were made

legal for all in the first three months

of the pregnancy

in 1969 a 25 year old lady under the

pseudonym jane rowe

filed the case challenging the criminal

abortion laws in texas

at the time this law did not allow

abortion unless the life of the mother

was in danger

even though roe had said she'd been

raped her case was rejected and she was

forced to give birth

four years later in 1973 the case made

it to the u.s supreme court

they ruled that the laws in texas did

infringe a roman's right to privacy

this started a trimester system in the

u.s and gave women the absolute right to

abortion in the first three months of

pregnancy

the laws in the u.s continue to change

however states can now impose some

restriction on abortions

even those in the first three months it

was around the same time just a few

years earlier in 1967

that the abortion act was passed in the

uk allowing legal abortion on some

grounds as well as free provision

through the nhs

this was a really important case

interestingly though the patient

involved whose real name

is norman mccarvey later came out to say

the rape allegation was false

and that she is now a pro-life supporter

who protests against abortion

most every american alive today has

heard of roe vs wade and knows what that

means

but few people know that i was jane rowe

in the case 35 years ago

that legalized abortion on demand hello

i'm norma mccorvey

today as a born-again christian and a

faithful catholic i'm working to reverse

roe

and i'm urgently asking for your help

right now on november 4th we will have

the

last chance in a generation to in a row

one vote

your vote could determine who the next

supreme court justice will be

her attorney however argues that the

rape allegation was not important in the

case

and the ruling still stands whether the

claimant has now swapped sides or not

so what about the next ethical pillars

beneficence and non-maleficence and

justice

non-maleficence is really important here

first do no harm is the maxim we all

work by as doctors

by performing an abortion we end a life

which must

be considered the ultimate harm

therefore in terms of non-maleficence

it is clear that abortion is wrong

saying abortion is wrong is an

overstatement

consider this a fetus with a genetic

illness that we know is going to be born

with a life-limiting condition

we know they will be born and then they

will suffer for days months or even

years before they die

do you really agree that we do less harm

by prolonging life and allowing their

suffering

sometimes it could be in the best

interest of the fetus to prevent

suffering from the start

for the mother as well i've already said

how dangerous pregnancy in childbirth is

but what about her mental health having

to carry deliver

and then choose to either raise or give

up an unwanted child could seriously

damage her mental health

especially if the pregnancy was a

product of rape as initially claimed in

the roe vs wade case

also important to consider are any other

children that

this mother has if she is already

struggling to care for three children at

home

a new baby would place increased stress

on the family and might not be in their

best interests

the concept that a new baby would be

detrimental to the physical or mental

health

of any existing children is actually a

reason a doctor is allowed to perform an

abortion up to 24 weeks in the uk

it is a little simplistic to say that

giving birth can cause multiple harms to

the mother

and thus that she should be allowed to

have an abortion abortion itself carries

its own risks and possible harms for the

mother

there are two ways of carrying out

abortion either by taking out

tablets to induce a miscarriage or by

surgical removal of the pregnancy

both involve risks and potential harm to

the mother

sometimes they can even permanently

damage reproductive organs

this is an avoidable harm as well as

potential physical harm there is a risk

to mental health with abortion

hannah said that carrying an unwanted

child can affect the mental health of a

mother

which is true but so can having an

abortion the royal college of

psychiatrists published a report in 2008

saying that although the current

evidence is inconclusive

some studies have identified a range of

mental disorders following abortion

how would you feel if you had an

abortion and then later regretted your

choice

again i can see their arguments from

both sides of the debate with regards to

beneficence and non-maleficence

hannah you mentioned that sometimes

abortion might be the most

non-maleficent option to prevent

suffering in a fetus with a

life-limiting condition

let's look briefly at what the uk law

says in relation to this

in the uk the abortion act of 1976

permits abortion

at any time during pregnancy if there is

a substantial risk that the fetus would

be seriously handicapped

it is also allowed at any time if

necessary to prevent grave injury to the

physical or mental health of the mother

otherwise abortion is allowed up to 24

weeks if continuing the pregnancy would

involve greater risk to the mental or

physical health of the mother

or any existing children than

terminating the pregnancy would

we've just heard that that being

pregnant is dangerous

therefore this can almost always be

justified

in the uk two doctors are required to

agree the criteria are met before a

woman can proceed with an abortion

it is important to remember that laws on

abortion differ significantly between

countries

so i suggest that you check the laws in

the region that you are applying to

medical school

before your interview as this is a

common ethics topic to be asked about

in nearby northern ireland for example

abortion is illegal unless there is a

serious or

permanent risk to the mother's physical

or mental health

it worries me when i hear that some

areas still do not provide legal

abortions

have you seen in the news about the

increasing number of women buying online

abortion pills

in 2016 375 illegal abortion pills

that had been bought on the internet

were seized by the police

although it's illegal for a woman to

have an abortion in the uk with medical

approval

buying pills to do it yourself is

illegal and dangerous

if barriers to legal abortions are

increased we'll be putting more women at

risk

as more would turn to dangerous

unregulated abortion pills

this brings me on to the justice our

final ethical pillar

justice means we should treat all equals

equally

what about gender equality between men

and women

men can't get pregnant and must never go

through the process of pregnancy and

childbirth

therefore the only way to achieve true

gender equality is to allow women the

same choice and freedom as men

to not be pregnant justice also includes

distributive justice

each abortion costs the nhs on average

600 needy points

in 2010 the department of health

reported spending 118 million of

taxpayers money on abortions

consider that the nhs is already

strapped for cash

i think that the money could be better

spent elsewhere in our busy ine

departments for example

saving lives preventing pregnancies in

the first place with education and

contraception

would be much cheaper and would reduce

the needs for abortion

i'm sure we all agree that preventing

unwanted pregnancies

would be the ideal but once someone is

pregnant if we are talking about money

consider how much more than 680 pounds

each of these pregnancies would cost

they need antenatal care delivery

postnatal care

and perhaps even social care for the

children afterwards if they don't stay

with the mother

that's much more expensive than one

abortion

considering justice and treating equals

as equals do you think that the father

should have a say in whether the

pregnancy can be aborted

in the real case of pat on versus the

british pregnancy advisory service in

1978

a wife was pregnant with her husband's

child and wanted to have an abortion

the procedure had been agreed by two

medical doctors as required but her

husband didn't want it to happen

he applied to the court for an

injunction restraining her from having

an abortion without his consent

does he have a case the baby is

genetically half his

therefore surely yes he should have some

autonomy over what happens

in terms of beneficence if wanted a

child could have a positive effect on

his life

and if we think of normal episodes being

told that the baby will be aborted

against his wishes

could damage his mental health and his

relationship with his wife

or partner regarding justice though i

don't think that the husband has

any legal rights over the pregnancy i

think the opposite here

it is the mother who will have to carry

and deliver the baby so she should be

the one with the autonomy and have the

right to make independent decisions

about what happens to

her own body if the child is not wanted

remaining pregnant could affect her

mental health and want it or not the

pregnancy is also a risk to her physical

health

in terms of justice i agree the husband

does not have any legal rights to say

what happens to the pregnancy at this

time

what happened in this case the judge

agreed with both of you

about the law the husband has no right

to stop or prevent an abortion and did

not have a case here it is also really

important to consider the opposite

scenario when a woman presents

requesting an abortion whether she's

been coerced by a partner

friends or family in the u.s coercion

into abortion has been increasingly

recognized as a problem with some states

introducing anti-coercion legislation

pro-life campaigners argue that limiting

access to abortion will protect women

by reducing coercion which is a form of

domestic violence

una you have been arguing the case

against abortion today

if a doctor who is morally against

abortion sees a patient who is

requesting one

what do they do the abortion act has a

conscientious objection clause

which permits doctors and nurses to

refuse to participate in an abortion

if it conflicts with their personal

religious or moral beliefs

unless it is necessary to prevent the

death or grave permanent injury

the doctor should however refer the

patient on to another doctor for a

second opinion

absolutely if and sure you should speak

to a senior colleague

or a defense union this is always worth

mentioning in any ethics question or

interview

that's unfortunately all we have time

for on this abortion debate

we have covered the definition of

abortion heard from both sides of the

debate on autonomy beneficence

non-maleficence

justice relating to abortion looked

briefly at laws and how they differ

who has a say in whether a woman has an

abortion and what to do as a doctor and

if you have a moral objection

remember when asked for an opinion in an

interview you need to present both sides

of the arguments

and then way up and pick aside just as

both of our volunteers have done to

today

best of luck in your interviews

[Music]

welcome back and thanks for watching do

you have any opinions on this topic

do you have any arguments for or against

that we did not cover that you would

like us to discuss

let us know in the comments below if you

found this video helpful please leave a

like and if you want to see more medical

school admissions content then subscribe

to our channel

we put out new videos every week best of

luck on your admissions

you