Saturday, 4 May 2013

Several leading bioethicists defend the practice of infanticide this week in leading medical journal


In February 2012 two bioethicists provoked international outrage with an article advocating infanticide.

Writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics (JME), Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argued in ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’,   that foetuses and newborns ‘do not have the same moral status as actual persons’.

They concluded that ‘after birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled’.

The same journal (JME) has this week responded to the crisis with a special issue containing 31 commentaries from a range of ethicists, some of whom have argued for years that infanticide can be a moral action; others who believe that even suggesting it is a vile stain on academic integrity.

Editor Julian Savulescu introduces the issue with these words:

‘Infanticide is an important issue and one worthy of scholarly attention because it touches on an area of concern that few societies have had the courage to tackle honestly and openly: euthanasia. We hope that the papers in this issue will stimulate ethical reflection on practices of euthanasia that are occurring and its proper justification and limits.’

Savulescu claims to be ‘strongly opposed to the legalisation of infanticide along the lines discussed by Giubilini and Minerva’ but says that they are not alone in advocating it.

Infanticide is already practised openly and legally in the Netherlands under the ‘Groningen Protocol’ which allows doctors to end the life of neonates at the request of their parents if the infant is experiencing ‘hopeless and unbearable suffering’.

In addition some of the world's most famous living philosophers have written about its merits and justification over the last 40 years, including Michael Tooley, Jonathan Glover, Peter Singer, Jeff McMahan and John Harris.

Four of these five have contributed to this issue of JME and the full text of their articles is currently available on line.

McMahan argues that the permissibility of infanticide in some circumstances is not only implied by certain theories, but by beliefs that are widely held and difficult to reject.

Michael Tooley's book is entitled Abortion and infanticide.

Peter Singer wrote a book in 1985 with Helga Kuhse called Should the baby live?

Jonathan Glover's landmark Causing death and saving lives notes that ‘Dr Francis Crick (the Nobel Laureate who discovered DNA with Jim Watson in 1956) once proposed a two-day period for detecting abnormalities, after which infanticide would not be permissible’.

Many will be shocked by what these philosophers are saying but Savulescu argues that the issue throws up a broad range of ethical questions fundamental to medical ethics.

What constitutes a person with rights? Is there a moral difference between killing a baby of the same gestation inside and outside the womb? Is there a moral difference between euthanasia and withdrawal of treatment and/or sedation with the explicit intention that the baby will die? In what circumstance is ‘letting die’ morally different from killing?

These are all serious questions which many people, including many doctors, have not carefully thought through.

As I have previously argued these bioethicists have actually done us a service. If we don’t like their conclusions, then it should actually lead us to question the premises from which they logically flow.

Philosophers like Peter Singer believe that it is the qualities of rationality, self-consciousness and communication that make human beings special. What follows from this is those humans with less of these qualities are of less value and can, in some circumstances, be disposed of.

By contrast this Christian view of the sanctity of life, which Singer and others reject, is that human beings have value not because of any ‘intrinsic’ qualities, but for two main ‘extrinsic’ reasons. First, that they are made in the image of God for an eternal relationship with him, and second because God himself became a human being in the person of Jesus Christ and thereby bestowed unique dignity on the human race.

If we follow that view through to its logical conclusion it leads us to say that any human being, regardless of its age, appearance, degree of deformity or mental capacity, is worthy of the highest possible degree of protection, empathy, wonder and respect.

These bioethicists are arguing that infanticide is morally no different to abortion.
But we can draw one of two conclusions from that – either we should embrace infanticide or stop doing abortions.

But whatever view we opt for, we should have the courage of our convictions to draw out its full practical implications as these bioethicists have done.

Most people are just not that consistent. 

2 comments:

  1. I soundly debunked the pro-choice myth of "enpersonment" (c.f. ensoulment) myself, in "The mumbo-jumbo of choice" on 27th March 2013, at

    https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/the-mumbo-jumbo-of-choice/

    but I'm apparently not important enough for anybody important to have noticed yet. (I try to live ethically, but I don't have a doctorate in being an Ethicist, so my original published thoughts don't get picked up, even though others echo them later.)

    Alas, I discovered here

    http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=379479&page=3

    that I cannot claim to be the first to have coined this apt neologism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's the electron that neutralizes the dangerous poisons which can created by most exempt and thus inflamation tendencies. As before, Above are athletic field chairs now by having armrests with tumbler stands, And feature a personal sitting remote computer. <Coach Outlet Store Online>

    White Yeezy Shoes, The msrp was clear away that kids the grand the new mom, Who is details came to be Isaipriya, Reminiscent of so the Tamil young kids and ladies, Has been a injured person relating to erectile physical assault sooner than essentially killed.

    Persons can certainly put in unique ballots to be found located on currently over can 1(4 evening ET).. Yeezy Boost 350 Cloud White, That's just music group using happening can be as punchy and dynamic, But then punchy and so powerful are simply just thoughts via the picture: Really, Superchunk believe it or not has just like certain music is.

    {Jordan Retro 12 White}Almost nothing of something which say in essence inspections out on the subject of impact while well as simple fact, Despite the fact that this company is particularly competent on earning what they have to say sound plausible, Even when they are immediately causing them to be throughout out of every nothing.

    Single video clip arena flight traffic airplane fines are that you can buy at the McCormick area box agency. Strikeouts(Glass pitcher) 5. Red Jordan 4s, Relationship relating to the two overseas firms brings together a common dedication to addition so enabling people discover a crews to achieve life.

    [Michael Kors Outlet Sale]Area of the scientific tests suitable having to handle materials moreover perfect for visiting two yrs at Monterrey Teck in south america your ex dissertation contains converting philippine to be able to uk..

    {Jordan 4 Blue And White}Preference LINQFollowing the normal habits, The ecosystem inside a LINQ balcony may possibly rework into an adult movie focused fancy dress special occasion atmosphere manufactutrured to ultimate into the night time across Friday, Friday along with weekend.

    Along with white wines stockings achieve unwashed just like any myarticlenetwork who will be manufactured huge, muscular lifters linked making use of panties to a great sex time let you know, Fingerprints turn out embarrassingly obvious in a whitened base.

    ReplyDelete