Question

A married couple, both addicted to drugs, are unable to care for their infant daughter. She is taken from them by court order and placed in a foster home. The years pass. She comes to regard her foster parents as her real parents. They love her as they would their own daughter. When the child is 9 years old, her natural parents, rehabilitated from drugs, begin court action to regain custody. The case is decided in their favor. The child is returned to them, against her will. Does ethics support the law in this case? Discuss.

Answer 1

I believe that during this case, Care-based ethics supported the law, however solely in favor of the birth parents. As a sympathetic person and as a parent I will solely imagine the unhappiness, guilt and helplessness these parents had to travel through. Being passionate about medication isn't sort of a light-weight switch that you just will activate and off. once the oldsters lost their female offspring true gave them the motivation and strength to alter their lives and take a look at and obtain their daughter back.

My approach to discussing this dilemma is in 2 ways that, Ends-Based thinking wont to solve drawback by viewing the angle that elicit the best sensible, and Care-Based thinking that chiefly depends on the golden rule that says do no harm or “Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you solving the dilemma. My important assessment of the moral dilemma bestowed indicates that Care-Based thinking supports the law in favor of the biological parent during this explicitcase.Though at the point one could question the court’s call, however from Care primarily based perspective, and as a parent I will imagine the emotional tremor the biological parents had to endure. this can be to not overlook the elemental queries that loom over this case like, who could be a parent within the u. s.. The one who raises the kid or the one who gave birth to the child?

Clearly, either side have the correct to the child’s custody. however one cannot deny the actual fact that a family that need charge is already in crisis and unneeded to mention, a family that's in crisis desires adequate support to form the family robust once more. I don't suppose that the task of the foster folks is merely to salvage a toddler from his or her parents. i feel the additional moral mean sought to be serving to to revive
the family once more.

Also, I don't suppose if any foster parent was to be within the position of the biological folks can think the court’s call is unethical during this case. If that's true, then why not do to others what you'd have them do to you. Ends-Based: it's true that the foster parent have took the kid to their home, loved her, and possibly took care of her as their own kid. One could even check out the actual fact that the court dominated against the foster child’s can and say, that's unethical. however it doesn't look sensible in the slightest degree to the biological parents and their kid if the court had dominated otherwise. i'm expression this as a result of the biological parents could brood over the denying of their child’s custody and fall into their white plague once more. This new development could cause additional issues to the family and therefore the nation in many ways. one in every of such issues is unproductive live.

Thanks, hope you will appreciate.