The Divine Command, Natural Law, and Emotivism Ethics in Healthcare
Considering the given scenario, a divine command ethicist would say that removing the child from the hospital and preventing blood transfusion is the moral thing to do. They would argue that if God, in the parents’ religion, forbids blood transfusion, then performing a blood transfusion would be morally wrong and sacrilegious. Nonetheless, I’m afraid I disagree with this position because the conception of morality here seems to provide the wrong reasons for moral principles (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). To elaborate, preventing blood transfusion means the death of the child; however, divine command ethics consider the child’s death morally irrelevant and do not seem to care whether the child lives or dies. Unquestionably, letting the child die is wrong and unreasonable.
A natural law ethicist will likely say that providing blood for the child is the moral thing to do. They would argue that everything has a purpose and that the world lives harmoniously when everything or everyone serves their natural purpose. In this case, caring for the child is natural for the nurse; therefore, by providing blood for the child, the nurse would be serving their purpose. Also, a natural law ethicist might reason that performing a blood transfusion is morally right because it would prevent the death of the child. As such, I would agree with these positions because this perspective of the Natural Law Theory embraces rationality, allowing individuals to decide what is right based on what is supported by the best arguments. It also embraces beneficence, which would allow the nurse to perform a blood transfusion and save the child’s life.
Emotivism claims that ethics primarily concerns feelings or emotions (Isanbor, 2020). Hence, an emotivist would state that saying that providing blood to save the child’s life is morally right is nothing beyond an expression of empathy towards the child and an attempt to influence the parent’s behavior. Accordingly, subjectivity, in this case, involves the nurse’s values, beliefs, and emotions toward all parties. Personal value in saving lives and empathy toward the child can influence the nurse to make a decision supporting blood transfusion. Conversely, compassion for parents will influence the nurse to acknowledge the parent’s distress as they believe blood transfusion is immoral; therefore, the nurse must balance the compassion for parents and the duty to ensure the child’s well-being.
References
Isanbor, P. O. (2020). The ethics of Ayer’s emotivism in a possible moral world. EKPOMA Review, 7(1). https://www.acjol.org/index.php/ekpoma/article/view/1075/1042
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
What would a divine command ethicist say is the moral thing to do here? Why would they say that? Do you agree with the divine command ethics? Why or why not?
The Divine Command, Natural Law, and Emotivism Ethics in Healthcare
Evaluate what a natural law ethicist would say is right to do. Do you agree with them? Why or why not?
Given what you said are the right things to do, what would an emotivist say about your positions and judgments? What role does subjectivity play here in determining what is ethical?