This story about the killing of Dutch babies born with extreme spina bifida is the kind of thing that raises serious fears about the movement for euthanasia:
In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to legalise euthanasia but doctors must follow strict rules.
But
Dutch doctors have reported 22 mercy killings of terminally ill babies since 1997, according to a new study.
None of the doctors involved were charged, although euthanasia for children is illegal in the Netherlands.
Allowing competent adults to make their own choices about termination of life and doing so in the open would lead to greater certainty concerning deaths under medical supervision, as objective standards of evidence of intent were developed. But putting the decisions in the hands of doctors is a different matter altogether. (Of course, the babies in question could not make their own decisions, and no doubt there are complications that are not immediately evident, but this case should cause us to be very worried about allowing doctors to even think that they should be allowed to exercise such powers.)
What about abortion?
I thought this would’ve spawned more attention than this…
I will operate under the assumption that Dr. Palmer and I disagree in some way or many ways on the issue of abortion (I have no idea what he thinks); but I’ll tell you the difference between an adult terminating his or her own life and abortion to me: In one case you are taking your own life, in the other you are terminating the life of another.
As far as the euthanasia is concerned, I think there are striking parallels between the termination of ill children and the abortion of the unborn. Bot presume some earthly power over the life of another. Both tend to devalue life by evaluating the “existence value” of a human being. I suppose I will make a more theistic argument than most–I believe that people have souls and that those souls, being the essence of our being are the seat of human free will (the Thomistic origin of natural rights)–but I don’t think you should terminate a person because you decide their life is not worth living.
It seems wrong for two reasons. First, it violates that person’s autonomy and free will. Second, it creates a culture prone to devalue life.
Come on people, ABORTION! Isn’t this what everyone goes crazy about?
Nacim is pretty adamant about this issue. I’ll write a little note later tonight, but it may disappoint, as it will be mainly about why it’s a hard issue….
The issue of abortion is not, it seems to me, an open and shut one for an advocate of individual rights, for the simple reason that it’s not entirely clear whether there is only one individual whose rights are to be respected, or two.
In a rough and ready way, I’d say that I find it hard to see how a small collection of undifferentiated cells could be said to be accorded or endowed with rights. Use of the “morning after” pill seems a clear exerise of a woman’s rights. At the other end of the spectrum, however, we find what pro-lifers call “partial birth abortion” and pro-choicers call “late term abortion.” From what I have learned of the procedure, if that’s not wrong, it’s hard to know what would be. Yes, it’s relatively rare, but I fail to see how that’s a defense. I do not understand why the pro-choicers cannot acknowledge that it is not a defensible practice in the same way that use of the morning after pill is.
As to where in between we might find the line, I am not sure. But the decision of the Supreme Court in dividing pregnancy into trimesters with different standards of justification for intervention seems at least a reasonable attempt to grapple with a hard problem.
Good point