|
|
|
Jewish World Review March 22, 2005 / 11 Adar II, 5765 The ethics of infant euthanasia By Kathryn Lopez
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
"Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a
person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University, penned this
chillingly cold line in his book "Practical Ethics" (Cambridge
University Press, 1993).
In case you're not freezing yet: Singer explains that, "Newborn human
babies have no sense of their own existence over time." Hence, they're
disposable.
Infant euthanasia (Have you ever imagined seeing those two words
together?) is the practice Singer is discussing. And don't confuse it
with abortion. We're talking out-of-the-womb, mom-has-delivered,
right-here-with-you-and-me babies. Where's it happening? In Europe and
the Netherlands, specifically — although word of it is slowly
spreading. In Holland, the Associated Press reports that "at least five
newborn mercy killings occur for every one reported."
"Mercy" is the keyword. Learning that your newborn has a fatal or
potentially fatal illness must be an indescribably painful experience
for a parent. But consider the added anguish of a doctor talking you
into being "merciful" by ending your child's life.
And what determines merciful, anyway? That term is a bit vague in this
context, as is most of the language advocating infant euthanasia.
Writing in "The New England Journal of Medicine," two doctors from the
University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands confessed that
"it is difficult to define" who, among infants, can or should be
eliminated. Babies, obviously, can't tell you their pain is unbearable,
so it becomes incumbent on "parents and medical experts" to determine
what "hopeless" means.
"Hopeless" is another term for the infant-euthanasia glossary.
At the moment, the "mercy killing" of infants isn't officially legal —
even in the Netherlands. It's just happening. But the Groningen doctors
seem to believe that if they can present guidelines by which doctors can
break the law uniformly — the presumption being that they be
professional about their killing — that a law allowing such killing
will follow.
The larger framework is already there in Holland: "Adult" euthanasia is
legal in the Netherlands, including for some teenagers without parental
consent. Voluntary euthanasia there is not restricted to the terminally
ill; if your desire to die is "rational," you've got a green light.
(It's not an attitude confined to the Dutch: In a 2001 interview,
right-to-die activist Philip Nitschke told me that suicide facilitation
should be available "to anyone who wants it, including the depressed,
the elderly bereaved, (and) the troubled teen.")
Just think about that. Life can seem pretty hopeless in high school
pretty darn often when you're struggling in French and the captain of
the football team doesn't know you exist. If the United States had a law
like the one in the Netherlands, lines of the pimple-faced dejected
would wrap around the killing clinics.
The Dutch way is a clear example of a slippery slope at work. First
"adult" euthanasia is embraced (which was decriminalized in a pattern
clearly familiar to the Groningen doctors are outlining), then infant
euthanasia.
Christine Rosen, the author of "Preaching Eugenics" (Oxford University
Press, 2004), a book on America's experience with euthanasia, says that,
"The Netherlands' embrace of euthanasia has been a gradual process aided
by the growing acceptance (in a much more secular Europe) that some life
is 'unworthy of life.'" Indeed, Europe is doing just that. According to
the Associated Press, 73 percent of French doctors have admitted to
using drugs to end an infant's life, with between 2 and 4 percent of
doctors in the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany and Sweden
confessing the same.
Here in the United States, infant euthanasia remains under the radar.
But it's no new thing. There was the case of the Bollinger Baby in 1915,
when a Chicago doctor permitted an infant, who could have lived with
surgery, to die. According to Rosen, Dr. Harry J. Haiselden "later
admitted that he had allowed the death of many other 'defective'
babies." He even made a propaganda film, "The Black Stork," to promote
euthanasia and infant euthanasia.
Could Peter Singer be, or be grooming, the next Harry Haiselden? Wesley
Smith, author of "A Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World," points out
that Singer is a tenured professor at one of our most prestigious
universities "because of his advocacy" — school administrators knew
exactly who they were hiring at the time. And there he is, "preparing
the intellectual ground" for infant euthanasia right in New Jersey.
Smith warns, "If we invite the vampire of euthanasia into our midst, we
will fall off of the same vertical cliff as has Holland."
Mercifully, we're still a good way from vampires and cliffs on the issue
of infant euthanasia. But a few more winks and nods at the "mercy
killing" of newborns and it will be time to watch our necks and look out
below.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment by clicking here.
03/15/05: W really is for women © 2005, Newspaper Enterprise Assn. |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
