Reasoning about a Contemporary Ethical Issue
After reading Barry Yeoman’s “surgical strike” for about three times, I found myself having an ethical debate all by myself. The ethical dilemma in this article poses the question “is it immoral or ethically wrong to give drug addicts $200 in exchange for them to be sterilized or undergo long-term contraception?” In my opinion, this question is rather a tough one and ought to undergo thorough consideration.
The society are stakeholders in this dilemma due to the fact that the two most important stakeholders; the unborn children of these drug addicts and the drug addicts themselves are part of the society at large. The society would be affected by the actions of these drug addicts and their decisions as well. The unborn children are the helpless ones who are going to most likely suffer the consequences of these addict’s aversive ways. Be it being born with drugs in their systems already or born knowing that they are children of drug addicts or not being born at all. From my perspective, I see it as a win-lose situation for the society, drug addicts, and the unborn children of these drug addicts. Everybody wins and everybody loses all at the same time. My reason being that the society wins because when a drug addict is sterilized, the burden of having a child born with drugs in his or her system who may later become a drug addict themselves and a nuisance to the society at large decreases. But, the society loses because they lose the opportunity to reproduce again which is a fortunate and great thing. On the other hand, they win because they have avoided giving birth to kids they will be unable to properly care for. Lastly, it is a win situation for the kids because they won’t be born with the possibility of having drugs in their system and also live life knowing that they are children of drug addicts. But, at the same time, these unborn kids lose because they deserve to be born...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document