Technorati Tags: euthanasia, melanie phillips
I always find myself surprised when I agree with anything Melanie Phillips says, but when she's not talking about global warming (or the lack thereof) or anything to do with Islam, Israel, or the so-called "War on Terror" and its offshoots, which is nowadays what she's best known for, I often do. In this case, it's the declaration of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in favour of the "active euthanasia" of severely disabled babies. In the Netherlands, infant euthanasia is allowed "for a range of incurable conditions, including severe spina bifida and the painful skin condition called epidermolysis bullosa".(Is this only the second country where the national Obs & Gynae institution has developed a tendency to defend the indefensible? In France we recently read that their O&G college demanded that Muslims in France accept that "public hospitals are part of a secular state, in which patients must accept being examined by a doctor of the opposite sex" according to the Daily Telegraph, as if a woman should really need a religious reason to insist that a woman do intimate examinations if one is available.)
Quite apart from the usual objections that it violates the principle that human life is sacred and that taking life, other than in self-defence or for other good reasons, is wrong, and that a right to die could become a "duty to die", with the terminally ill feeling under pressure to choose euthanasia in order to spare their loved ones the distress of seeing them suffer or expense of caring for them and to free up that bed they're occupying for someone who can benefit from it, this rearing of the ugly head of euthanasia inspires two fresh objections.
First, as Melanie Phillips pointed out, the "Royal College seems most concerned not by the suffering of such babies but of their parents", and this stance was buttressed in the Sunday Times by the story of Edna Kennedy, the mother of Jonny Kennedy who suffered from the aforementioned EB:
JONNY KENNEDY lived and died in agony. From the moment he was born until his premature death at the age of 36 he was covered with blisters and sores, the result of a rare genetic skin condition called epidermolysis bullosa (EB). The mildest touch caused his skin to bleed and sheer off. When he died of skin cancer on September 26, 2003, his mother Edna, who lives in Newcastle upon Tyne, admitted that her primary reaction to his death was relief, not grief.
Obviously, I do not know anything about Jonny Kennedy that his mother doesn't, or indeed anything other than what I saw in a TV documentary on him a few years ago (it was called The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off - he was 36, for heaven's sake!). However, from that documentary it did not appear that he allowed his life to be dominated by the pain he was in, as severe as that was. But clearly he had enough reason not to kill himself when he was 18, or indeed at any time in the rest of his life. Did he want to die? While he himself said he favoured termination of a pregancy where the baby had his condition, when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer he "felt anger and frustration" and had to be prescribed Prozac.
There is a second concern, however, which is that conditions some of us might think we would rather die than have them often do not have this effect on everyone, or on sufferers. For example, the thought of going blind horrifies many people, but to me the thought of having a severe spinal injury with all that entails (I don't just mean not being able to walk) has that effect and blindness does not, to anything like the same extent. People have, on more than one occasion, instructed doctors to withdraw their feeding and ventilation after becoming tetraplegic. While blindness does not (yet) make a baby a candidate for euthanasia, spina bifida does in the Netherlands and abortions for such reasons as having a cleft palate and other abnormalities do happen in this country. In living memory, children with various deformities and abnormalities were placed in institutions; some of the victims of the thalidomide affair recall being in an institution where they were addressed by numbers, not their names.
Is such a person's life worth living? Perhaps you might ask them, something you cannot do when the person is a baby and has never known anything else. Whatever discomforts someone suffers, it is still possible for them to live happy and fulfilling lives if they are given the chance. Given the advance of medicine, more and more of these conditions can be cured or ameliorated, and if such is not the case when a child is born, it may become so during their lifetime. Even if not, it is for nobody to decide that someone else's life is or is not worth living; it is a recipe for people to make such decisions for reasons unconnected to the patient's welfare, such as what burden they might be on society or their family. Civilisation largely won the long battle against eugenics, in which "experts", and legislators under their influence, decreed that certain people were to be prevented from marrying or having children on such grounds; this "son of eugenics" has the same potential for evil, and demands murder, not merely unjust sterilisations and impediments to marriages. It must be defeated as well.
That's funny. When you're not talking about those very subjects you disagree with Mel P on, I very often agree with you.
In the case of severely disabled babies there is no need for active euthanasia: "Thou shalt not kill, but needst not strive/Officiously to keep alive." Of course, some people may feel that active intervention is more merciful than allowing god to fulfil his painful plan for the person concerned. A friiend who worked in a hospital for children said that with anencephalic babies they always had at least two nurses on duty- one on their own might help to hasten the inevitable. Don't know if that still applies.
"Even if not, it is for nobody to decide that someone else's life is or is not worth living"
Or worth keeping? It's an interesting example of natural hypocrisy that the people who are most enthusiastic about the death penalty for criminal offences are most opposed to abortion or euthanasia and vice-versa.
I try to read this statement several ways, but it still doesn't make sense.
It's an interesting example of natural hypocrisy that the people who are most enthusiastic about the death penalty for criminal offences are most opposed to abortion or euthanasia and vice-versa.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean?
It would seem to me that a criminal offense is a bit different from being born with some form of illness...or not being a foetus. Is there a criminal code for the latter too?
By this Thersites is referring to the divide between conservatives and liberals over what could be thought of as "life issues."
Conservatives are generally in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes, while they don't believe in allowing abortion-on-demand or euthenasia for the elderly or terminally ill.
Liberals, on the other hand, favor abortion and euthenasia, but frequently oppose the death penalty. In other words, both sides favor "death" in some form; the only difference is in the timing.
A true "pro-life" position, without Thersites' "hypocrisy," then would say "no" to abortion, euthenasia *and* the death penalty, but neither American political party (at least) can't get that far in their thinking.
Islam generally favors the conservative position. I don't believe that it is hypocrisy for one to oppose abortion and euthenasia while supporting the death penalty. It *is* better, however, to err on the side of caution when imposing the death sentence. Far too many innocent have been thrown in jail for various crimes, as DNA evidence has shown again and again.
Have you been doing a course in ESP. JD?
I'd put the various aspects- abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and the death penalty separately and I'd make further divisions within them, but you have summed up the general divisions admirably.
A true "pro-life" position, without Thersites' "hypocrisy," then would say "no" to abortion, euthenasia and the death penalty, but neither American political party (at least) can't get that far in their thinking
And what would be the opposite of the "pro-life" position.
What would a pro-death position sound like?
Perhaps, yes to abortion, euthenasia and the death penalty.
Doesn't make sense.
"Perhaps, yes to abortion, euthenasia and the death penalty.
Doesn't make sense."
Definitely, not perhaps. Why doesn't it make sense? It is logically consistent in a way that most peoples' attitude isn't; in some peoples' opinion criminality is a form of illness.
It is logically consistent in a way that most peoples' attitude isn't; in some peoples' opinion criminality is a form of illness.
Talk about logical inconsistency. hmm...a world where crime is illness...yet it is a crime. Whoa!
Heavy intellectual stuff.
Salama.
What is a crime is a matter of legal definition- criminality is not. What is the difference between being born with spina bifida and being born with a tendency to commit crimes? Read Samuel Butler's Erewhon for a not entirely serious further discussion.
I would back euthanasia if pRickler were in the hospital. Does a pillow on the face count?
Spina bifida and born with a "tendency" to commit crimes eh thersites? Been smoking the funny cigarettes again have you?
I would back euthanasia if pRickler were in the hospital. Does a pillow on the face count?
The usual reasoned argument from DrM.
Read Crime as Destiny by Johannes Lange, Dr Mabuse. Which certificate factory did you buy your doctorate from?
Thersites wrote: "Have you been doing a course in ESP. JD?"
No, I was just describing typical American politics. ;)
"Read Crime as Destiny by Johannes Lange"
From the title it sounds like a book based on a poor knowledge of genetics. Most scientists reject the notion that people are born with behavioural tendencies that the person cannot avert - born to be homeless, born to be alcoholic, born to be a republic etc. See "Lifelines" by Steven Rose if you want.
Hereditary behavioural tendencies are not inadvertabilities but probabilities. Lange's hypothetical explanations are outdated. His data are not.
What is a crime is a matter of legal definition- criminality is not. What is the difference between being born with spina bifida and being born with a tendency to commit crimes?
I want to try and look at this from a Religious perspective... please don't laugh at my explanation if it sounds childish!!!
I think it is important to always have an alternative view other than the secular one these days. We can't all be forced to think in the same way...
Anyway
A crime is something that a mukallaf person does to harm his/her own best interest, literally to harm himself.
Sorry, not a plain definition. Perhaps someone can put it in better words.
The idea, basically is that you cannot commit a crime against someone else, you don't even have such power. You may think you do (yet another crime!), but you can only harm yourself.
....this is because our actions have Eternal consequences that relates back to us, not to anyone else.
Of course, for those who do not believe in the Eternal stuffs, Hereafter,etc they don't have to worry about this definition of crime. They can do whatever they want as long as they can get away with it temporally, since it is not going to harm them in anyway, it would only harm "others". If they say, it harms their conscience, I don't understand that - what are they conscious of?.
The starting definition however raises a question:
Why is crime defined in such a way that it relates one individual's right to another's - contratry to what we have defined above...?
This relational definition of crime exists as a Profound Mercy from God, to protect the individual person from harming himself (not so much to prevent you from harming others - your not harming others is just a Merciful knock-over effect, but both are simultaneously true). You could still commit a crime even if you live alone in the desert, i.e. you could do something that is against your best interest, even with your mind, with what you believe, ...with your feelings (in terms of indulgence), etc. We are not talking about punishement here btw, what punishment fits what crime is something else.
So, yes.. besides harming oneself - there are other reasons why crime definition is relational e.g prevent harm to others, to ensure social stability, justice, economic stability, to nurture civilisation, induce love etc, ...however ultimately it is so that you don't harm yourself, yet all the other reasons are also True.
Because if you cause social havoc, injustices, etc, you really don't harm anyone in the Eternal timescale, you only harm yourself. In fact, temporally you don't harm anyone but yourself, it just depends on how you perceive time.
Coming back to your assertion, that
What is a crime is a matter of legal definition...
No, not really... but perhaps you could expand on what you mean by "legal definition"
It is matter of individual *inspiration* subject to confirmation by Teachings received through Prophets (e.g Abraham, Noah, Solomon, Moses, Noah, Jesus, Muhammad - peace be upon them all).
Other than that is going to be quite "batil" and problematic. What would be a reliable basis of promoting peace, love, social stability, etc (as opposed to crime) if not by ensuring individual stakeholdership? i.e. that everyone feels that they have a direct stake in the peace. Only religion teaches this. Others enslave you to ideas.
So....
What is the difference between being born with spina bifida and being born with a tendency to commit crimes
No difference in the sense of what is required, both require treatment or management.
Given the above discussion, the appropriate treatment can be (any) *inspiration* (be it from human endeavour, experiment, social experience, etc) as long as it is in agreement or confirmed by Teachings received through Prophets (e.g Abraham, Noah, Solomon, Moses, Noah, Jesus, Muhammad - peace be upon them all).
If someone were to come up with an *inspiration* such as asserting that the life of a patient with spina bifida should be mercifully taken, where this is at odds with Religious Guidance... Then, they commit a crime against their ownself, and the patient also commits a crime against his/her self if he/she gives consent.
You can put the guy with tendency to commit crime in the same equation, you get the gist.
"What is the difference between being born with spina bifida and being born with a tendency to commit crimes
No difference in the sense of what is required, both require treatment or management."
Then it is equally logical to "treat" both as illnesses or to "manage" both as socially undesirable offences.
In fact, in inslam aren't both a matter of god's will anyway, so there is no difference between them- or health and not being a criminal?
Then it is equally logical to "treat" both as illnesses or to "manage" both as socially undesirable offences.
It may be...- but for a believer - the treatment of the crime must not be at odds with Teachings received through Prophets.
According to religion, punishments are legislated to treat criminal (illnesses), whilst medicines are legislated to treat biological (illnesses). In essence, the right treatment has to be prescribed by a qualified Doctor.
And who could be more qualified than the one who created it?
In fact, in inslam aren't both a matter of god's will anyway..
Yes.
, so there is no difference between them- or health and not being a criminal?
The Ruling of God concerning them is different.
No difference in that they (like everything) have to be treated according to His Rulings - as received through Prophets.
"No difference in that they (like everything) have to be treated according to His Rulings - as received through Prophets."
Most people don't accept that so we will base our behaviour on entirely different principles that a belief that we must obey god's orders.
Most people don't accept that so we will base our behaviour on entirely different principles than a belief that we must obey god's orders.
Sure, this is the beauty of free will, tendency not only to commit crime - but to do anything.
But which (different) principles are these - besides the one we learn from Religion???
You only learn one principle from religion? Well, yes, I suppose "orders is orders" is only one principle.
A variety of different ones- utilitarianism, individualism, realism in their various forms are obvious bases. The most important thing is to recognise that there is no such thing as absolute good and that the best we can hope to do is minimise the harm we do.
For you pRickler, always the best, pillow that is. As for thersites, I doubt the poor fellow has had an independent thought in ages.