Peter Singer Supports "Ashley's Treatment"
Of course he does, and of course, he is allowed to do so in the New York Times. You see, although he doesn't say it in this article explicitly, to Peter Singer, Ashley is not a person. That means that if it serves her parents' "interests," they had every right to give her "Ashley's Treatment." But unstated in Singer's article, is that it would also support their killing her and allowing her to be used in medical experiments--so long as these actions did not cause her to suffer.
Singer claims that arguments supporting her "dignity" are misguided. He knows, of course, that the term is used to denote intrinsic moral worth. We can't have that. So, he misconstrues the term into something different, the concept of acting or appearing dignified: "But we should reject the premise [innate dignity] of this debate. As a parent and grandparent, I find 3-month-old babies adorable, but not dignified. Nor do I believe that getting bigger and older, while remaining at the same mental level, would do anything to change that."
Notice also that Singer calls Ashley a "what" and not a "who": After the riff denying even the concept of Ashley having intrinsic dignity because she is human, he writes: "She is precious not so much for what she is, but because her parents and siblings love her and care about her." He could say the same thing about a favorite house plant.
Peter Singer's denial of the importance of being human opens the door to terrible oppression and killing against the weak and vulnerable. We hearken to his sterile utilitarianism at the distinct peril of the most weak and vulnerable among us.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:45 AM
35 Comments
35 Comments:
Vile, just vile.
Of course it's no surprise that Singer would support this. But people seem to have departed from a lot of their usual "party loyalties" on this matter. And in the case of the Christian Medical and Dental Association, departed from their senses. A spokesperson for *that* organization basically shrugged off any ethical issues related to this matter when interviewed by Agape Press.
Fortunately, the CMDA appears to have put themselves out alone in terms of Christian commentators. Joni Erikson Tada has been a blunt critic of "Ashley's Treatment" and the Christian L'Arch Community has also expressed deep concerns about what this mean if it becomes a trend.
And, as you've noted, Art Caplan did a fair imitation of a disability rights advocate when he slammed the ethics committee for sanctioning this assault on "Ashley X."
"She is precious not so much for what she is, but because her parents and siblings love her and care about her."
Terri Schiavo was precious to her parents and siblings, but they were nuts to want to keep the state from dehydrating her to death - according to Singer.
What does this guy smoke?
Before you all sit in judgement about our children, why don't you try wearing a diaper for one whole month that can be changed by ANYONE except you ...instead of using the toilet.
Carry a seventy pound sack of pototoes around for one whole month.
Utilitarianism is the ethical refuge of the sociopath
I believe there are laws against people treating their childen in any way they please. Abuse is abuse, regardless of what some ethics committee might have said.
elisabeth's mom: Please recall that if you have a child like Ashley, that Singer would permit him or her to be killed as a human non person. Beyond that, whether it is proper to give such children non therapeutic and potentially dangerous surgeries, such as a hysterectomy, is very much worth debating precisely because such children are so intrinsicly important. Beyond that is the issue of whether Ashley was used as an experiment, given that the doctors wrote that the results are speculative since it is untested.
Peter Singer is not the friend of people with profound develpmental or cognitive disabilities.
elisabeth's mom said...
Before you all sit in judgement about our children, why don't you try wearing a diaper for one whole month that can be changed by ANYONE except you ...instead of using the toilet.
Carry a seventy pound sack of pototoes around for one whole month.
You wait a month before changing a diaper?
What is this fixation on such things anyway? It's body function. Big deal. I've changed the diapers of infants and of very old people and I never got offended over it.
Why do people equate their own value with where they evacuate or how they eat? It's asinine.
Elisabeth's Mom:
One of my nephews is so severely autistic he's unable to communicate verbally. He cannot function without supervision. At thirteen he is barely toilet trained and became violent whenever he became frustrated. My sister endured his violent streaks, but because she is a single mother and becuase she has a much younger son at home as well, she was forced to find an alternative home for her oldest boy, to prevent him from hurting the baby.
My father is 70 and is slowly recovering from cancer surgery. He has to wear a colostomy bag for the rest of his life. I'm his youngest daughter, and I spend most of my time at home tending to him - feeding, cleaning, helping him in and out of bed.
Carry a seventy pound sack of potatos for a month? I carry around a man who is 6'6" and outweighs me by a goodly amount! And I would do it every freakin' day, just as my sister endured until it became impossible for her to work alone with her boys. And I wouldn't change anything about any of them!
Some folks think that because my fahter has to rely on a household of women to take care of him now that he's lost his dignity, but he hasn't. He's still my father, still commands respect because he deserves it, and still is the one I turn to when I haven't got the strength to handle stress.
So you're suggesting that becuase Ashley X is a physical burden for her family, they have the right to mutliate her without permission?
You can scream that we're sitting in judgment about your children, but I'm there with my father, and I'll tell you something, I would NEVER put him through that kind of crap because I love him, I respect him as my father, and I respect him as a human being. So don't get all high and mighty, sweetheart. Some of us have to put up with at least as much as you do.
And since I know how close I came to losing my father, I wouldn't trade a moment of this for all the comforts of the world!
Deep Toad:
I'm with you. People put emphasis on the stupidest things.
Gregory L. Ford:
Vile, but more than that, twisted and inhumane. How can a guy talk about his own kids and grandkids in such a fashion? Did he even bond to his children? Or do you suppose he's holding on to his indifferent pose because he's invested so much in it that he's not willing to break character in front of the world, even though he feels differently? I mean, look at how much he shelled out on his mother (may she rest in peace). Do you think he'd do the same if one of his children had been born retarded? Or would he have stuck to his guns and treated the kid as an animal?
I was in a documentary about Singer. I criticized his personhood theory and then the filmakers cut to Singer with his kids on a veranda. He looks at them and says something to the effect, "I am convinced now more than ever that when my children were infants they were not persons." I found that incredibly chilling. He told his own kids that at one time he considered them disposable.
"Peter Singer: A Dangerous Mind" produced, I think, by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation
"Peter Singer: A Dangerous Mind
I'll look it up. No promise I won't sick up.
I would like to know what drives some people to strip the humanity out of other people.
T E Fine
You and your dad. Major props, dude.
Deep Toad:
(((curtsies)))
I don't even pretend to be a saint - just look at my posts on this blog and you'll see what a wicked little snitch I am. I just feel very strongly about all this because I don't ever want anyone telling me that my father's life isn't worth living, or that things should be done to him that really *would* be undignified to him, just to improve my comforts. That's not fair.
To All the Martyrs out There in Martyr Land,
Why isn't it "mutilation" when we carve up our kids backs to put rods or mini bridges to correct scoliosis or break jaws to correct the alignment in their bites or tubes for ears or artificial knee joints? Nobody ever died directly from scoliosis or back injury or misalined jaws or ear infection or weak knees. Sure, it's painful and life altering but nobody ever questions a parent about "barbaric" procedures to make corrections through surgery because this is what we expect from the medical profession.
Like Ashley's parents, I've been discussing with several pediatricians about finding a way to help Elisabeth bypass her some of her gender-related biological functions and finding a drug that will slow her growth. I can't imagine Elisabeth missing out on our annual backpacking adventures up the mountains when she reaches her maturation point in height or weight. I can't imagine her lying on the floor or in a wheelchair as an adult because she's too heavy to lift or transport into kyak or canoe or horse. I can't imagine her going through life without having the same opportunties of her siblings and peers. It would kill her to be restricted to a wheelchair or in supine position all her life.
I don't understand why is everyone against using medical breakthroughs for people if it will enhance their quality of life? As for using these same procedures so that parents can better assist their child, I don't see anything wrong here either. Go ahead and talk about what is "ethical" and what is "dignity" after wearing a diaper instead of using a toilet for one whole month relying on everyone else except yourself to change it. Go ahead and talk about what is "ethical" and what is "dignity" after tightly binding your body in a burlap bag having to rely on others to take care of you.
It's easy when they are young, but what about when our kids are 30? It's not like we're experimenting on our kids. People are blowing this "ethics" and "dignity" out of proportion and shoving their value systems and religion down our throats so much that they are actually interfering with progress. Most of the time, our kids are invisible to people. It is only when their disability becomes the focus that they are visible to others. And most times, what people see is what we dont' want them to see -- on object of pity.
Instead of people looking at our kid's emerging abilities, the focus is alway what they can't do which is often times used as the basis for planning their life instead of letting the parents and advocates having control. Develop a plan for kids based on what they can't do? This makes sense? Do we tell kids they can't play baseball because when they are 4 they can't hit a ball with a bat? No, we invent something called a T-ball to help them grow an ability.
Here's my analogy. Let's say typical children are like apples growing on limbs from trees and our children are like carrots. The common need is light, nutrients, and water. The conflict arises for the carrot because the tree blocks out the light and zaps the water and nuturients. We wouldn't cut down the tree or let the carrots die from neglect, would we? But when the people who care for the apple trees try to tell the carrot growers what to do, this is wrong. We need to work together instead of working against each other.
Ms. High and Mighty, Hell yes!!! And you think you've made it to the top of the mountain?
"Peter Singer is not the friend of people with profound develpmental or cognitive disabilities."
The role of bio-ethics is not to be our best friend or to take sides or make one size fits all decisions. Clearly, somebody has gotten a hold of some information here and using it out of context.
Elizabeth'smon: She is not an owned being. She is a disabled child. It seems to me that using untested procedures on disable children, giving them non therapeutic surgeries, no matter how well motivated, goes in the wrong direction. Is it worth risking their lives and health over?
Dear Martyer Mama:
"I can't imagine Elisabeth missing out on our annual backpacking adventures up the mountains when she reaches her maturation point in height or weight. I can't imagine her lying on the floor or in a wheelchair as an adult because she's too heavy to lift or transport into kyak or canoe or horse. I can't imagine her going through life without having the same opportunties of her siblings and peers. It would kill her to be restricted to a wheelchair or in supine position all her life."
Really? It didn't kill Christopher Reeve, who continued his acting career after losing all mobility from the neck down. It didn't kill my father, who can no longer walk without constant assistance. Oh, wait, right, he's 70 and therefore, since he's "lived his life," it doesn't matter as much that he needs a wheelchair now.
Nevermind that his prognosis is so good that he has (God please be willing) at least another twenty years with us, and in that twenty years I won't be able to go shooting with him like I used to, or to go to the mall, or do so many things that we used to physically do.
Not being able to go shooting or swimming or shopping with him like I used to hasn't hindered our relationship. Is he a burden because we can't go out anymore? No. We just changed the way we do things. We play computer games together. We watch old movies and shop online. I help him with his therapy exercizes.
"It's easy when they are young, but what about when our kids are 30? It's not like we're experimenting on our kids. People are blowing this "ethics" and "dignity" out of proportion and shoving their value systems and religion down our throats so much that they are actually interfering with progress."
Try it when the guy is seventy, and stands head and shoulders taller than you, and can't sit up in bed without help. Ethics and dignity being blown out of proportion?
You have a right to your beliefs, but don't assume that those of us who oppose you are talking without being there. There are days it would be AWESOME if my father weren't heavier and taller than me, if I could maneouver him easily into his wheelchair, if I could push him around without struggling.
And I say it again - I wouldn't demean him by suggesting he's not worth something if he's not convinent to me, not for all the comforts on the earth.
Your biggest assumption, and what offended me enough to make me write all this, is that only people with kids who don't rank among the temporarily able-bodied (that's you and me, the folks who right now can run and jump but will eventually fall apart as entrophy kicks into high gear) will understand you and anyone who doesn't sympathize is doing so because archaic religions say it's bad.
My mother is Jewish, hon, and a Reform one at that, and very pro-transhumanism, pro-choice, and pro-feminism, and she would not consider putting my father through anything that he did not expressly request; and if he were not able to make a decision due to coma or dementia, she still would not alter him, because the man she loves deserves to be treated like a human. ...it's one of the few things that she and I always agree on.
So religion has nothing to do with it. It's this - if you start making "pillow angels" out of every kid that's hard to take care of, how far will you go? Where does it end?
Stop assuming that you're the only one in the world who understands the frustrations of caring for someone who is too much of a physical challenge for you to handle. I do it daily, and so do a lot of other people, and a lot of us are opposed to you because of our feelings for the people we love.
Once you come to terms with that and stop trying to make a martyr of yourself, then I will listen to your complaints reasonably. There are any number of people on this website that I disagree with whom I admire, respect, and like quite a lot, even though they have some pretty violent opposition to my viewpoint, but none of them have ever pulled the "poor poor pitiful me" routine.
"Stop assuming that you're the only one in the world who understands the frustrations of caring for someone who is too much of a physical challenge for you to handle. I do it daily, and so do a lot of other people, and a lot of us are opposed to you because of our feelings for the people we love"
It is a compliment that I am acknowledged for being the only one who knows what my daughter's needs are. Thank you. As for the reference made about Mr. Reeves, in his case his spinal injury did not impair his cognition ability.
"Your biggest assumption, and what offended me enough to make me write all this, is that only people with kids who don't rank among the temporarily able-bodied (that's you and me, the folks who right now can run and jump but will eventually fall apart as entrophy kicks into high gear) will understand you and anyone who doesn't sympathize is doing so because archaic religions say it's bad."
Your belief systemm values, philosophies should have no bearing on the decisions I make on my child's behalf.
"You have a right to your beliefs, but don't assume that those of us who oppose you are talking without being there. There are days it would be AWESOME if my father weren't heavier and taller than me, if I could maneouver him easily into his wheelchair, if I could push him around without struggling.
And I say it again - I wouldn't demean him by suggesting he's not worth something if he's not convinent to me, not for all the comforts on the earth."
My child's emerging gross and fine motor abilities are impeded when she is left in the wheelchair or on the floor. Being left in a wheelchair or on the floor actually impedes her development. She becomes fixated on stroking her tongue.
When I use a typical child development chart, she would be charted at 3 months "mentally," but "physically," she is about 1 and half.
Correcting scoliosis or whatnot isn't just mutilation because, as you say, it corrects a condition; whereas the Ashley Treatment is mutilation because it is directed at preventing ordinary human development. If I stick a needle through my cheek because I think it'll be an interesting experience that might improve my quality of life by virtue of its interest, it's still mutilation; if I do so in the process of stitching up a wound, it's surgery.
Which thought leads me to the phrase "quality of life." I do not doubt that people want their children to have the best lives possible, but when they decide that they must mutilate their children's bodies, I wonder what they think their children are. Are we not our bodies? There are people who believe that their lives will be improved if they could just have their legs amputated; they are of the conviction that their quality of life will be improved by having this mutilating surgery. Yet most doctors would advise them to get psychiatric care. So, too, in the case of the Ashley Treatment: the parents may insist that their child's "quality of life" will be improved or maintained, but because the parents exercise an unseemly, absolute control over their child's existence, they can decide to allow treatments the most doctors would not allow people to have done to themselves. At bottom, the control of one human being over another should not be so great. The phrase "quality of life" has always allowed great injustice to be done, in the guise of compassion. It's an excuse, not an explanation.
"preventing ordinary human development."
I disagree. There is nothing ordinary about missing part of the brain as in my daughter's case.
Applying a rule but allowing no exception isn't fair to her or other affected the same way.
I fail to see how removing a uterus directly treats a deficiency or injury of the brain.
That is: while breaking a jaw (and then resetting it!) may directly correct its misalignment, removing the uterus of child with a mental disablity does not treat that child's disability.
No human being has the right to violate another's bodily integrity, regardless of purported good intentions. Good intentions are abstract and subjective; the body is real, concrete, and taking away parts of it to suit your ideas of what should be can only ever be wrong.
" ... taking away parts of it to suit your ideas of what should be can only ever be wrong ..."
When schools and public places begin to provide adequate facilities for our children when they need to be changed or bathed in the instance of a young menstuating female then I can address your statement.
When schools and public place begin to go beyond ADA compliance by making buildings, sidewalks, parks accessible for all without ever having to rely on other people to carry our kids or their wheelchairs then I will address your statement.
When our families and children's options aren't restricted to "handicapped" route or zone or area then I'll even by you beer.
I have a brother with a profound physical disability. He and the family have had to fight, fight, and fight so more to get him his rights (mostly in the area of education). Disability rights means just that: fighting the world that would disregard the disabled or otherwise treat them as less than full human beings. I cannot see how "Ashley's treatment" is anything but a step backwards, to the days of sterilizing idiots (as they were then called) for their own good.
I'll take that beer -- one of these days.
Gregory ... Yes, it is a struggle for our family and friends. These same issues were addressed many years ago by John Hockenberry. Do you remember that book "Moving Violations?" Pearl Buck left a picture perfect snapshot of Americana in the 50s ...
When our society refuses to acknowledge the challenges our family friends continue to face in areas of accessability, mobility, and education even in light of ADA, IDEA, FAPE, what other choices do we have?
This is why I think this whole thing has less to do with Ashley and more about the restrictions that have been placed on our family and friends.
Thanks for listening ..
Referring to: "Utilitarianism is the ethical refuge of the sociopath".
Utilitarianism states that happiness is good, and suffering is no good. What we do to promote happiness is good, and what we do to promote suffering is no good. Sociopathy? Really now.
Referring the rest of the thread: you guys seem so full of empathy for fellow human beings. Why then do you oppose research on therapies and, yes, enhancements that could make them happier?
My impression is that you care a lot for your abstract concept of "human dignity", but not enough for actual human beings.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I care enough for my fellow human beings to know that while suffering is a physical evil, the drive to eradicate it at all costs leads directly to greater, moral evils (mutilation, sterilization, murder/euthanasia). Always has, always will. Though physical evils are not necessarily corrosive of the essential dignity of the individual, moral evils always attack it.
"Tenderness leads to the gas chamber!" -- Walker Percy
And "Anyone who really wanted to get rid of suffering would have to get rid of love before anything else, because there can be no love without suffering, because it always demands an element of self-sacrifice, because, given temperamental differences and the drama of situations, it will always bring with it renunciation and pain." -- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)
Giu: Welcome back. Yes, you are wrong. Those of us opposing utilitarian approaches care about ALL human beings, regardless of their capacities and capabilities. Utilitarianism only values some. Utilitarianism is great, if you are on the side deemed to cause or experience happiness. But pretty rough if you are deemed a cause of suffering or unhappiness.
"Why do people equate their own value with where they evacuate or how they eat? It's asinine."
It is difficult for me to not become emotional about this discussion so sometimes I rant and vent.
The point I was trying to make and unfortunately did not come out was how basic body functions can limit our options about going places because of inadequate changing facilities or inaccessible areas.
I have no issues about using a wheelchair for my daughter. I don't even care about lifting it in the car and I really don't have any issues lifting her now.
But we are already living the navigation wheelchair nightmare and finding many places we would like to take our daughter cannot accomodate her needs even with ADA in place.
As she is getting older, her field of options are getting smaller. I wish I could share with you the host of letters I've written to schools, stadiums, parks, grocery stores, museums, pools, suggesting how they could better accomodate children with special needs.
What I get in return is "we are sorry that you did not see the handicapped area designed to meet your child's needs."
I know I am not the only person who sees these same physical barriers because I run into to other people who experience the same frustration.
Then there are the emotional barries we have to hurdle, too. Doesn't this make sense to anyone on this blog?
The fact is, most people are bigots: they don't really think of the disabled as being fully human. This goes for the physically as well as cognitively disabled people. The barriers run deep; most people aren't willing to examine them.
That said, I'd rather work at making the rest of the world accommodate the disabled than the other way 'round.
It makes sense to me, Elizabeth's mom.
I suggest that people who are interested check out Elizabeth's mom's blog. She's been dealing with this issue so long that she's talking a kind of shorthand that most of us should thank God we don't understand.
And saying that, I'm not saying that Elizabeth's mom should not or does not thank God for Elizabeth. I'm sure she does, every day.
In reply to Gregory's statement: "Though physical evils are not necessarily corrosive of the essential dignity of the individual, moral evils always attack it". I don't think you mean that, but please consider that similar statements could be (and sadly have been) used to justify torturing and murdering those that one considers "morally evil" (whataver that means).
The sentence of Mr. Ratzinger that you quote is also, I believe, very questionable to say the least.
Post a Comment
<< Home