Should parents be allowed to euthanize severely disabled infants? That question sparked an emotional debate in Concord today at an appearance by bioethicist Peter Singer. NHPR?s Trish Anderton reports.
PROTESTERS PICKETED THE CONFERENCE, AND FLIERS DISTRIBUTED INSIDE THE MEETING ROOM ENCOURAGED THE AUDIENCE TO TURN ITS BACK WHEN SINGER SPOKE. BUT THE CROWD OF 300 OR SO GAVE THE PRINCETON PROFESSOR A POLITE, IF RESERVED, ROUND OF APPLAUSE. SINGER TAKES THE PROVOCATIVE POSITION THAT PARENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO EUTHANIZE SOME BABIES IN THEIR FIRST WEEKS OF LIFE. HE BASES THAT VIEW ON THE IDEA THAT NEWBORNS DO NOT HAVE WHAT HE CALLED THE AWARENESS OF THEIR EXISTENCE OVER TIME THAT SEPARATES HUMANS FROM MOST ANIMALS.
I think it develops sometime over the first year of life. So I don?t think newborn infants have the same right to life that older children or adults have.
THEREFORE, SINGER ARGUED, IF PARENTS DECIDE RAISING THEIR DISABLED INFANT WOULD CAUSE TOO MUCH SUFFERING TO THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILD, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO EUTHANIZE THAT INFANT. IF THAT SOUNDS CRUEL, SINGER SAID, THE IDEA CAME OUT OF AN IMPULSE OF COMPASSION. TWENTY YEARS AGO AS CO-DIRECTOR OF AN ETHICS INSTITUTE IN HIS NATIVE MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA, SINGER TALKED WITH THE DIRECTOR OF A NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT. THE DOCTOR TOLD HIM INFANTS WITH SEVERE SPINA BIFIDA WERE SEDATED AND ALLOWED TO DIE WITHOUT TREATMENT. SINGER AND HIS PARTNER FELT THAT WAS UNETHICAL.
The result was a slow drawn out death, often painful for the infant// certainly distressing and painful for parents.// so we felt if you decided an infant should not survive you ought to be able to ensure that infant dies quikcly and humanely. And to be blunt about it, that means killing the infant.
SINGER SAID HE?S NOT TRYING TO GIVE SOCIETY CARTE BLANCHE TO KILL. BUT HE DREW FEW CLEAR LINES ABOUT WHICH INFANTS DESERVE TO LIVE AND WHICH DO NOT. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF DOWN?S SYNDROME, WHICH CAUSES RETARDATION BUT NOT PHYICAL PAIN, HE SAID PARENTS WHO DIDN?T WANT A DOWN?S SYNDROME CHILD WOULD BE WRONG TO KILL HIM OR HER ? IF THERE WERE ADOPTIVE PARENTS WILLING TO RAISE THE CHILD. IN GENERAL, SINGER DEPICTED A DISABLED INFANT?S RIGHT TO LIFE AS A GRAY AREA
To say that a human being doenst have a right to life doesn?t mean its okay to kill it. Just as the fact that I don?t think any chicken has a right to life means that if you see a chicken having a good life out in the barnyard that it?s a matter of indifference whether you kill it. You should let it live its life if you can.
SINGER ADMITTED HIS STRONG BELIEF IN ANIMAL RIGHTS INFLUENCES HIS VIEWS ON INFANTS. IF SOCIETY DECIDED IT WAS WRONG TO KILL ANIMALS, HE SAID, IT WOULD UNDERMINE HIS ARGUMENT THAT IT?S RIGHT TO KILL SOME INFANTS. SINGER?S CO-PANELIST, BIOETHICIST ADRIENNE ASCH, CALLED SINGER?S ARGUMENT SIMPLE PREJUDICE.
It is taking one characteristic and making it defining and ruling out all the other characteristics that child will have.
ASCH SAID A LOT OF WHAT SINGER CALLS THE SUFFERING OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND THEIR FAMILIES IS NOT CAUSED BY THE DISABILITY ITSELF .. IT?S CAUSED BY INJUSTICE.
Lets make sure its acceptable and natural to be a person with a disability as without. That?s the society we need.
THE AUDIENCE PEPPERED SINGER WITH QUESTIONS. MANY FEARED HIS THINKING WOULD LEAD SOCIETY DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE. WHAT ABOUT MINORITY BABIES, THEY ASKED, OR OTHERS WHO MIGHT BE VIEWED AS UNDESIRABLE? WHAT ABOUT ADULTS WHO BECOME SEVERELY DISABLED? ONE MAN SAID SINGER?S THINKING SEEMED TO LEAD TO NAZISM. BY THE END OF THE SESSION SINGER DIDN?T APPEAR TO HAVE SWAYED MANY MINDS. CAROL NADEAU, WHO WRITES A COLUMN ON DISABILITY ISSUES FOR THE UNION LEADER, SAID SHE CERTAINLY WASN?T CONVINCED. NADEAU SAID SINGER?S THEORY OVERLOOKS THE RICHNESS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE.
Sometimes having a disability teaches you that in a way, you develop more sensitivity, a sense of humor, you learn to laugh at yourself and be more comfortable, and teach others in the same way.
BUT MANY SAID THEY APPRECIATED THE CHANCE TO HEAR SINGER?S VIEWS FIRSTHAND. BOB MCLEAN IS A CASE MANAGER FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES. HE HAS RELATIVES WHO WENT THROUGH THE WRENCHING EXPERIENCE OF DECIDING TO WITHHOLD TREATMENT FROM A SEVERELY DISABLED INFANT. MCLEAN SAYS HE COMPLETELY DISAGREES WITH SINGER, BUT THE ETHICIST WASN?T AS BAD AS HE EXPECTED.
I thought he might be some kind of a monster but he?s a very intelligent guy. I?m glad I came to listen to him. He?s very articulate.
ANOTHER WOMAN SAID SHE CAME AWAY MORE FRIGHTENED. IT?S A SCARY WORLD, SHE SAID, WHEN YOU CAN GO TO A MEETING AND TALK ABOUT WHO DESERVES TO LIVE AND WHO SHOULD BE KILLED. FOR NHPR I?M
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo