You should read the linked blog to understand my response if you're interested in the subject.
"Bad Cripple" here , was commenting on Peter Singer, apparently a loud and clear voice in bioethics who produced some hair-rasing quotes. In the excerpts of the interview Singer basically talks about euthanizing extremely disabled babies instead of subjecting them to a painful and slow death. My response opens from Singer's statement that Doctor's in practice purposely fail to tend to such ill babies. As usual here is my take on the matter:
"and since that’s a very common practice in many hospitals". Common? Common?! Whaaaat?! I've been in hospitals and revalidation centers and in contact with parents of handicapped children for twelve years and never encountered the whiff of the spectre of the shadow of this "widespread" phenomenae.
Singer continues
'So, we said, “Look, the difficult decision is whether you want this infant to live or not."
'So, we said, “Look, the difficult decision is whether you want this infant to live or not."
No, the difficult decision is not whether you want this infant to live or not. What happened to the intermediate stages? We go straight from 'child with short life expectancy' to the only question being to euthanize or not?
The difficult decision is whether the parents will care for the child or not, whether the child will live in the hospital for its entire life.
O! Fellow conspirators unite.
The difficult decision is to understand whether or not killing such a child is economically motivated or that people like Singer are trying to manipulate the discussion to create precedent so that we can as a society deflect the entire ethical issue of economic motivation and put is firmly in the sphere of "it's what's best for the children".
"That should be a decision for the parents and doctors to make on the basis of the fullest possible information about what the condition is."
This sounds clearly like someone who does not know his asystole from a cyst. The fullest possible information is a euphemism for "consensus opinion" is it not? An opinion which will have been made by a committee, such as all such committee's, lacking the presence of a group of parents of extremely disabled children.
The difficult decision is whether the parents will care for the child or not, whether the child will live in the hospital for its entire life.
O! Fellow conspirators unite.
The difficult decision is to understand whether or not killing such a child is economically motivated or that people like Singer are trying to manipulate the discussion to create precedent so that we can as a society deflect the entire ethical issue of economic motivation and put is firmly in the sphere of "it's what's best for the children".
"That should be a decision for the parents and doctors to make on the basis of the fullest possible information about what the condition is."
This sounds clearly like someone who does not know his asystole from a cyst. The fullest possible information is a euphemism for "consensus opinion" is it not? An opinion which will have been made by a committee, such as all such committee's, lacking the presence of a group of parents of extremely disabled children.
"But once you’ve made that decision, it should be permissible to make sure that baby dies swiftly and humanely." So again there are no other decisions, just yes or no to killing. Then to gain the moral high ground at the end of the sentence so that we cannot possibly disagree with the first part of the sentence he states the killing must be humane. Really? Really Doctor? Can't we do it even a little inhumanely?
And he just repeats himself with the last sentence, "If that’s your decision, if your decision is that it’s better that the child should not live. It should be possible to ensure that the child dies swiftly and humanely.”
And he just repeats himself with the last sentence, "If that’s your decision, if your decision is that it’s better that the child should not live. It should be possible to ensure that the child dies swiftly and humanely.”
Just because someone decides that he believes it is best for the child to die does not at all mean that since the option is open we should take it. The very fact that there will actually be people that misuse such an euthanasia law (really? Would someone really do that?) should be enough to bring this concept crashing to the ground. Doesn't he also realize that SO many parents can be swayed if not outright cajoled into decisions with a newborn child by doctor's pushing the new ethos?
The sad reality is that in the Netherlands euthanasia of "terminally ill" children is allowed and sets a precedent which may make all of Singer's proselytizing moot.
My son has been categorized as terminally ill. He is now twelve years old. Each day is a struggle for survival for him. But each day has led to today, twelve years on. I wouldn't have had it any other way and not by happenstance or clerical error has he made it this far but by active decisions along the way which directly influenced his survival. Decisions i made.(can be read here)
Mistakes if there were, surely could have been, are my responsibility, as his father. But how many parents can stand up and counter legions of doctors, specialists and professors and tell them they are wrong? All they have to do is shrug afterwards and it's business as usual. Fortunately i get to live with the outcome of my obstinacy for twelve years and counting.
Wow. Incredible piece. I'm new to your blog, through Claire's, and I look forward to catching up.
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
ReplyDeleteExcellent post. A favourite line..."The difficult decision is to understand whether or not killing such a child is economically motivated or that people like Singer are trying to manipulate the discussion to create precedent so that we can as a society deflect the entire ethical issue of economic motivation and put it firmly in the sphere of "it's what's best for the children"."
ReplyDelete