Medical School Interview - Medical Ethics - Abortion [DEBATE]
Summary
TLDRIn 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
- π The video discusses the topic of abortion from a medical ethics perspective, focusing on the debate between pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints.
- π€ The debate is structured around the four pillars of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.
- π©ββοΈ Hannah argues for pro-choice, emphasizing a woman's right to autonomy over her own body and the potential risks of pregnancy and childbirth.
- πΆ 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.
- ποΈ 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.
- π¬π§ 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.
- βοΈ 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'.
- π The video touches on the issue of self-administered abortions through online-purchased pills, which are illegal and potentially dangerous.
- π 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.
- πΈ 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.
- π€° 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
π€ 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.
πΆ 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.
πΈ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
π‘Abortion
π‘Pro-choice
π‘Pro-life
π‘Medical Ethics
π‘Autonomy
π‘Beneficence and Non-maleficence
π‘Justice
π‘Roe vs. Wade
π‘Conscientious Objection
π‘Coercion
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
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)