For the basis of the moral assessment proposed in the case of a child with Down’s syndrome, I chose to side with utilitarians and decide against the surgery. Utilitarianism requires one to assess the morality of their decisions based on the happiness/suffering ratio of the consequences (Maftei & Dănilă, 2022). A child with Down’s syndrome poses numerous risks for themselves, their parents, and society as a whole. In cases where it is possible to select a child, utilitarians will consider the suffering of a child with a severe disability and their parents as a sufficient reason for accepting such a sacrifice (Maftei & Dănilă, 2022). By withholding the surgery, parents select a favorable course of action for all involved stakeholders from a rational point of view.
While it might seem inhumane, such a development will objectively cause the least harm, making it the most moral decision in such a situation. Although such a scenario implies that parents already chose an immoral decision not to check the health of a fetus and perform necessary genetic tests, it remains the only viable option (Maftei & Dănilă, 2022). Performing surgery on a child with potentially lethal physical conditions to extend their life implies a conscious decision to become a person who causes continuous suffering to an innocent. In fact, the majority of people consider Down’s syndrome as one of the decisive factors when considering an abortion, specifically for the reasons that align with the principles of utilitarianism (Maftei & Dănilă, 2022). In conclusion, it is immoral from a utilitarian point of view to leave a child and their parents to suffer by allowing a life-saving surgery due to the burden such an infant will impose.
Reference
Maftei, A., & Dănilă, O. (2022). The good, the bad, and the utilitarian: Attitudes towards genetic testing and implications for disability. Current Psychology.