Follow an argument through

Usually, as mentioned in the post below, activists in the abortion/stem cell/euthanasia movement do not follow their own argument through to its logical conclusion. They don’t want to face where it goes.

One of the only well-known voices of that movement who does carry on that debate and stick with its Orwellian implications is Princeton professor Peter Singer. As an ethicist, he stands for the ethic of animals having the same rights as humans, and humans only having the rights others give them…until they don’t deserve them anymore. He sees human life as expendable.

It’s interesting that his fellow Princeton professor Robert George — one of the most brilliant pro-life minds in America and an authority on the natural law — has pointed out that Singer’s arguments lead to “such radical conclusions as the endorsement of infanticide on a massive scale.” But also that “Singer is logically consistent.” By his logic, those are the consequences. (Christianity Today article “The Phone Book Test”) 

However, in more recent times, Singer has not applied his ethics as consistently. And now his reasoning breaks down again when you consider what he’s saying in this New York Times op-ed piece. It remarks on a family’s decision to treat their profoundly disabled young daughter with procedures that would, they say, improve her quality of life.

All this is plausible, even if it is also true that the line between improving Ashley’s life and making it easier for her parents to handle her scarcely exists, because anything that makes it possible for Ashley’s parents to involve her in family life is in her interest.

Here, Singer talks about ethics and medical treatment.

In any case, the “best interest” principle is the right test to use, and there is no reason that other parents of children with intellectual disabilities as profound as Ashley’s should not have access to similar treatments, if they will also be in the interest of their children.

This already doesn’t sound like the usual Singer, but he weaves his way into more contradiction of the ‘life has arbitrary value’ ethic.

Finally, there is the issue of treating Ashley with dignity. A Los Angeles Times report on Ashley’s treatment began: “This is about Ashley’s dignity. Everybody examining her case seems to agree at least about that.” Her parents write in their blog that Ashley will have more dignity in a body that is healthier and more suited to her state of development, while their critics see her treatment as a violation of her dignity.

But we should reject the premise 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.

Now that sounds like Singer.

Here’s where things get philosophically interesting. We are always ready to find dignity in human beings, including those whose mental age will never exceed that of an infant, but we don’t attribute dignity to dogs or cats, though they clearly operate at a more advanced mental level than human infants. Just making that comparison provokes outrage in some quarters. But why should dignity always go together with species membership, no matter what the characteristics of the individual may be?

Singer is a big animal rights activist who obviously thinks they rank with humans in rights and whatever dignity he feels they each deserve.

What matters in Ashley’s life is that she should not suffer, and that she should be able to enjoy whatever she is capable of enjoying.

Hold that thought…

Beyond that, she is precious not so much for what she is, but because her parents and siblings love her and care about her. Lofty talk about human dignity should not stand in the way of children like her getting the treatment that is best both for them and their families.

Now, take both of those statements and apply them to Terri Schiavo, who Singer saw as having lost human value because she was profoundly disabled, though she only needed a feeding tube for nutrition and hydration — food and water. She interacted with her family, who wanted only to be allowed to care for her for the rest of her natural life.

Nancy Valko, a friend and colleague who does as much as anybody I know in the field of bioetics and real compassionate medical care, forwarded the Singer article with this note:

The basic-and often lethal-flaw in Singer’s philosophy can be seen in his own words about Ashley: “she is precious not so much for what she is, but because her parents and siblings love her and care about her.”

In other words, any person’s worth (or even life, in the case of disability) depends on how someone else feels about that person. And, ironically, Terri’s parents and siblings also loved and cared about Terri but Singer didn’t find that a persuasive argument to continue feeding her!

And Singer calls his opinion “a convenient truth.” Convenient or inconvenient, truth is truth. And the ethic of life is always consistent.