How I would evaluate the situation if I were a part of the ethics board
If I were a part of the ethics counsel, I would analyze this case based on autonomy and beneficence. Autonomy holds that a physician should respect the rights of the patient and present all treatment options so that the patient can make an informed decision (Brody and Colloca, 2013). In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Harrelson, the inheritance of two FGFR3 genes would lead to adverse impacts such as stillbirth while inheritance of one gene would result in dwarfism (Veatch, Haddad, and English, 2010). However, there is a chance that one child in four will not inherit the gene. Evidently, only the inheritance of two copies would have adverse impacts on the fetus. Thus, the obstetrician should respect the decision of Mr. and Mrs. Harrelson if they already know the options available. On the other hand, beneficence insists that physicians should take positive actions to help their patient (Brody and Colloca, 2013). Ideally, the obstetrician should act in the best interest of the couple. According to the case study, Mrs. Harrelson is carrying her first pregnancy, and there is a chance of giving birth to a normal or dwarf child. If complications do not occur during the pregnancy or after birth, the obstetrician should advise the couple to keep the fetus. Hence, if the fetus inherits one or does not inherit any copies, elective abortion should not be done.
My decision in this situation
I will only perform an elective abortion if the fetus bears two copies of the gene. My decision is based on the fact that the couple has a chance to have a child whether normal or dwarf. Importantly, the decision will help me practice beneficence.
References
Brody, H., & Colloca, L. (2013). Patient autonomy and provider beneficence are compatible. Hastings Center Report, 43(6), 6–6
Veatch, R. M., Haddad, A.M., & English, D.C. (2010). Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford.
