Peter Singer is an ethicist who teaches at Princeton university here in the USA. In the writings I have read both by Singer and about him he seems to make the defining characteristic of personhood as conciousness. He makes several references to the ability to anticipate pain as the critical attribute in what makes someone a bona fide and worthy person.
As such, young infants and the elderly suffering from dementia are no longer part of the protected class of persons. In Singer's distorted scale of measuring who deserves life, these groups of human's may actually be killed off for failure to anticpate forthcoming pain.
I think Singer errs greatly in his standard of personhood. He in effect says that only those who can consciously and subjectively anticipate a particuliar feeling are human. Singer opens the door to the belief that a subjective perception is the sole determiner of human personhood. This just happens to be Singer's subjective preference regarding what makes up a person. The problem I see with subjectively conscious feelings is that they vary depending on the consciousness and perceptive ability of each human who has them? So, I would ask Professor Singer, which subject's conciousness should serve as the standard for when someone is or is not considered a person?
Who consciousness should we trust? Is it the consciousness of a trained surgeon or the consciousness of young adolescent? Perhaps I need to read more of Singer's writings myself, but I am also puzzled as to what makes consciousness the final determining factor for personhood? Is it because it is Peter Singer's subjectively conscious choice? What about if he himself became demented tomorrow and would be considered no longer a person? Since he may no longer consciously choose to believe in these ethical mores can we discount them, since their author is no longer considered a person?
What goes into determining the constitution of a person is much more complex than subjective perception. In my opinion, limiting personhood to those who can subjectively perceive pain is a far too simplistic and naive belief about an extremely complex issue. In short, Dr. Singer is a bit of simpleton in advocating this narrow position.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
It is your duty to die!
Advocates of legalized assisted suicide are want to point out how each person should have a right to choose the times and places of their deaths. Not for one minute do I acknowledge the truth of this premise! Life is sacred because it has been given to us by our Creator. For the sake of argument, and only for that, let's grant this ghoulish proposition.
The staircase
How long is it before we move from Right to die to Duty to die? This is often called the Slippery slope of assisted suicide. In addition to being a slippery slope it also is a part of the stairway to euthanasia. To reach the top of the Euthanasia staircase you need a first step that acknowledges the right of each person to choose the place and time of their own deaths. Once step one(the right to die when and where you choose) is in place you can then move up the Euthanasia staircase to step two which is it is your duty to die.
In places such as Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, people have been pressured to end their own lives. Proponents of this school of thought argue that health care is in sort supply and there are people who have a greater quality of life waiting for the medical resources. Therefore, the elderly, handicapped, or mentally ill really have a duty to end their lives to make room for those who are more fit and have valuable contributions to make to society. Incidentally, the propaganda films for the Nazi T4 program heralded the death of the handicapped and mentally ill as a good thing for these members of society.
Eliminate Pain, not life
Looking back at our first premise, it is NO ONE's right to choose when and where they die. They certainly can make this choice on their own, but no one should feel it is morally right when they assist someone in ending their own life. Ending suffering and abiding by someones wishes do not suddenly make the moral wrong of murder a proper thing to do. In the Netherlands, where assisted suicide is legal and widely practiced there is very few resources allocated for pain relief. Why work to alleviate people's suffering when you can just as easily kill them? The horrid straw man of end of life suffering is far from a necessary reality. Pain can and is controlled by a number of available treatments. Shouldn't societies be advocating and supporting relief of suffering so people can live out their days with effective pain relief? Is murder or pain relief the more humane endeavor?
The question we all need to ask ourselves is when will it be our turn to be told that it is our duty to die to make way for the supermen of this this world?
The staircase
How long is it before we move from Right to die to Duty to die? This is often called the Slippery slope of assisted suicide. In addition to being a slippery slope it also is a part of the stairway to euthanasia. To reach the top of the Euthanasia staircase you need a first step that acknowledges the right of each person to choose the place and time of their own deaths. Once step one(the right to die when and where you choose) is in place you can then move up the Euthanasia staircase to step two which is it is your duty to die.
In places such as Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, people have been pressured to end their own lives. Proponents of this school of thought argue that health care is in sort supply and there are people who have a greater quality of life waiting for the medical resources. Therefore, the elderly, handicapped, or mentally ill really have a duty to end their lives to make room for those who are more fit and have valuable contributions to make to society. Incidentally, the propaganda films for the Nazi T4 program heralded the death of the handicapped and mentally ill as a good thing for these members of society.
Eliminate Pain, not life
Looking back at our first premise, it is NO ONE's right to choose when and where they die. They certainly can make this choice on their own, but no one should feel it is morally right when they assist someone in ending their own life. Ending suffering and abiding by someones wishes do not suddenly make the moral wrong of murder a proper thing to do. In the Netherlands, where assisted suicide is legal and widely practiced there is very few resources allocated for pain relief. Why work to alleviate people's suffering when you can just as easily kill them? The horrid straw man of end of life suffering is far from a necessary reality. Pain can and is controlled by a number of available treatments. Shouldn't societies be advocating and supporting relief of suffering so people can live out their days with effective pain relief? Is murder or pain relief the more humane endeavor?
The question we all need to ask ourselves is when will it be our turn to be told that it is our duty to die to make way for the supermen of this this world?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
OCOD Begins
The acronym O.C.O.D. stands for Oppose the Culture of Death. The purpose of this blog is to examine issues such as Euthanasia, Infanticide, Assisted Suicide, Eugenics and occasionally abortion. Our focus here is to address primarily the first four or end of life issues. I am opposed to abortion of any type, however, there are ample resources in print or on the web that address this issue from an ethical stand point.
There are very few resources solely dedicated to end of life issues and that is why I started this blog. Up front, let me say that I am unashamedly opposed to the practices mentioned in the first paragraph. In saner times people who advocated such things would have been hung. At Nuremberg several were rightly hung! Today such advocates are hired by prestigious universities such as Princeton to pass on their twisted philosophies of evil. They campaign for high ranking political office and work to legalize the murder of the defenseless.
The term Culture of Death was coined by the courageous Pope John Paul II. It refers to our society's desire to prematurely end the lives of human beings. Actively hastening death is properly called murdering a fellow human being. These pundits of "Good Death' side step this issues by linguistic spin-doctoring. Acts of murder are now boldly mislabelled as "termination, and mercy."
Let's begin my journey of openly and unashamedly opposing this culture of death at every turn and at every opportunity. Hopefully my thoughts will tug at your own conscience and heart and inspire you to join the opposition!
There are very few resources solely dedicated to end of life issues and that is why I started this blog. Up front, let me say that I am unashamedly opposed to the practices mentioned in the first paragraph. In saner times people who advocated such things would have been hung. At Nuremberg several were rightly hung! Today such advocates are hired by prestigious universities such as Princeton to pass on their twisted philosophies of evil. They campaign for high ranking political office and work to legalize the murder of the defenseless.
The term Culture of Death was coined by the courageous Pope John Paul II. It refers to our society's desire to prematurely end the lives of human beings. Actively hastening death is properly called murdering a fellow human being. These pundits of "Good Death' side step this issues by linguistic spin-doctoring. Acts of murder are now boldly mislabelled as "termination, and mercy."
Let's begin my journey of openly and unashamedly opposing this culture of death at every turn and at every opportunity. Hopefully my thoughts will tug at your own conscience and heart and inspire you to join the opposition!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)