Life and death are major areas within moral philosophy. The ethics of assisted reproductive technologies such as IVF, donors and surrogacy, and at the opposite end of the spectrum abortion, euthanasia (active and passive) and assisted suicide, amongst others evoke strong reaction. These issues are not abstract philosophical problems existing in academic journals; these are issues which apply to the everyday world and have direct consequences for human beings.
In order to further my understanding of this veritable minefield, I am reading- 'Rethinking Life and Death' by Peter Singer and 'Causing Death and Saving Lives' by Jonathan Glover. In a future blog post I will give a more detailed review of these books, as I am yet to finish. However, I will share some of what they have to say about our approach to these issues. For anyone interested in bioethics and applied ethics, I would highly recommend these books.
Emotion clouds judgement
Glover argues that emotion often clouds our judgement. Whilst we accept the statement 'killing is wrong', he points out that we find it hard to hold onto this principle when confronted with killing in specific contexts: "Very few people are committed to absolute pacifism. Some support capital punishment. There are several different views about abortion." Another issues he raises is the drawing of boundaries when we talk about killing. When, for example is a war justified? When talking about abortion, it could be argued that it is justified if the baby born will be severely handicapped, but these same people will be "appalled at the suggestion that we should kill grossly abnormal children or babies who have already been born".
Glover attempts to answer the question whether we can formulate general principles to tell us which acts of killing can be classed as right or wrong. He divides the book into two sections: The first part deals with method of argument, the second with moral theories such as the sanctity of life.
Singer too raises the point that such issues cause chaos and confusion. His hypothesis however, is that our long held beliefs, mainly the ethic of the sanctity of life, are under attack, and that we must rethink our traditional ethic in light of the advances in modern technology, where people who are considered brain dead have their bodily functions continuously running by life support machines, for instance. He wishes to introduce a new way of looking at life and death (as yet I cannot say what it is!)
The Sanctity of life under attack
The doctrine of the sanctity of life states that life should always be upheld as it has particular sacredness. Even those who are not religious will argue that there is something special about life and should hence always be preserved. The doctrine is attacked by both authors. Let us first deal with Glover's critique.
Glover: Killing as a direct wrong and the importance of consciousness
If we accept the sanctity of life, we are saying that killing is an intrinsic wrong, that killing is wrong in itself. Glover rejects this, but wishes to say that life is important. How does he reconcile this?
When we talk about killing being wrong, we often talk about direct and side effects. By side effects we can say for instance the grieving of family. Glover is not concerned with that. When we speak of a direct wrong, we talk about the negative effect, i.e. consequence on the person killed. It is this view which Glover wishes to retain. He also tries to set a boundary between life and death.
 |
| Moral Philosopher Jonathan Glover |
An instance where this issue becomes important is how we treat a person in an irreversible coma. Is he/she alive? Still a human being? In investigating such an issue, Glover comes to the conclusion that essentially we are dealing with the importance of consciousness. He asks "Do we value life if unconscious, or do we value life only as a vehicle of consciousness?" He answers that life is a vehicle of consciousness. "Those of us who think that the direct objections to killing have to do with death considered from the standpoint of the person killed will find it natural to regard life as being of value only as a necessary condition of consciousness."
He introduces the concept of a 'Life Worth Living'. Glover doesn't deny that what makes such a life isn't easy to decide. He does however say this "A life worth living has more to it than mere consciousness," which is described as simply consisting of awareness or the having of experiences. When humans have something more than just being aware, then to end such a life is directly wrong.
Such a view can have dangerous consequences, but Glover is not advocating that we exclude certain people, he is saying that we are only trying to judge whether someone's life is so empty and unhappy as to not be worth living. The attempt ("obviously an extremely fallible one") is to see the person's life from there point of view and to see what they get out of it. There is no suggestion that we have the right to start killing people if they don't have a 'life worth living'. The point being made is that if this person has such a life, "this is one reason why it is directly wrong to kill him".
Singer's Critique.
In Peter Singer's view, the traditional ethic "has collapsed". He cites the case of Anthony Bland*, a young man who after the infamous Hillsborough disaster** was left in a persistent vegetative state. On the 4th of February 1993 Britain's highest court allowed doctors to lawfully end his life. According to Singer "we are going through a period of transition in our attitude to the sanctity of human life". Such a problem he says, is bound to cause 'confusion and division'. (In the case of abortion, many who do not agree with abortion may well go the paradoxical extreme of murdering doctors who carry out the procedure!)
 |
| Bioethicist Peter Singer |
The confusion is further caused by the advances of medical technology. We are now able to keep people who are brain-stem dead for decades. The question is, should we always uphold the Sanctity of life, regardless of the quality and nature of that life? Singer answers "that ethic (the Sanctity of Life) is now being brought undone by changes in medical technology with which its inflexible structures simply cannot cope."
The need for a new outlook is cited by certain examples. For instance the "American Medical Association has a policy that says a doctor can ethically withdraw all means of life prolonging medical treatment, including food and water, from a patient in an irreversible coma. Yet the same policy insists that the 'physician should not intentionally cause death'."
In summary, if we hold onto an ethic whose views are inconsistent with the medical advances of today, it is bound to create problems. For this reason we must rethink our views on life and death which can cope with these new issues.
Further information
*Anthony Bland- http://www.spuc.org.uk/about/no-less-human/Bland.pdf
**The Hillsborough disaster- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster
More on the authors: Peter Singer- http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/
Jonathan Glover- http://jonathanglover.co.uk/
No comments:
Post a Comment