Yet There Is Method In It

The subject of teaching Britishness in schools has taken a fresh twist with claims that patriotism should be taught as a “controversial issue”. BBC

AC1

The Pope recently voiced concerns on certain areas of biotechnological research.

As people grapple with the moral questions that arise from the advances in the bio-medical field, the Holy Father offered two “fundamental criteria for moral discernment.” The criteria are: “unconditional respect for the human being as a person, from conception to natural death; and respect for the origin of the transmission of human life through the acts of the spouses”. Pope Benedict XVI

I find it hard to dissect many of the Popes statements due to their arbitrary reasoning. However, I find them speciesist, an appeal to tradition and assuming universal natural right to life is workable.

Also I find the idea of a “natural” time of death curious when we often artificially extend and sometimes shorten lives using medicine. Who can say when is the natural time of death?

Another annoyance are religious groups that want to impose their views, for example on abortion on non-believers. Isn’t it enough for them to live virtuously (by their own standard) and well away from politics?

Perhaps they should listen to this observation made back in the 1830s:

‘In France’, he [Alexis de Tocqueville] said, ‘I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions’, but in America they walked hand in hand.

[... American] religious leaders were careful never to get involved with party politics. They knew that politics is of its essence divisive. And if religion got too involved with politics, it too would become divisive. Dr Jonathan Sacks

For “big” governments, we still need to make value judgments so religion and the state cannot easily be separated. Who should have the final say in contentious issues? Another option is to have “small” government, for example libertarianism.

Back to bio-ethics, we may want to debate the possibility of artificial human same-sex reproduction. The New Scientist has an interesting article on that possibility (subscription required – sorry).

Science seems to broaden human possibilities. Perhaps the larger issue is if someone gave us near infinite power, what is morality? “But pray tell me, my brethren, if the goal of humanity be still lacking, is there not also still lacking–humanity itself?”

Anti Citizen One

This week a debate took place in the House of Lords concerning the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Being debated at this particular stage was an amendment by Baroness Masham to eliminate disability as a reasonable grounds for abortion. Baroness Meacher spoke out against the amendment citing the case of two children she knows with cerebral palsy, she concluded that “It would be in their best interests to have been aborted.”

Baroness Tonge, who is known for her advocacy of Voluntary Euthanasia spoke out in slightly different terms against the amdendment. Aware it would seem that to talk of killing the disabled is not politically sound, she attempted to redefine the term (albeit it a manner that sounded eerily familiar to any student of 20th century history).

“… we were not talking here about disabled human beings, but about some grossly abnormal human beings; many of those whom I have seen bear little resemblance to human beings.”

Now I dont think it prudent to get into an elongated debate on this blog concerning abortion or euthanasia, as they are issues fraught with difficulty and constantly loaded with emotional bias. And although I personally oppose both I am aware that this confirms primarily my own philosophy concerning what makes somebody a “human” being, and what sort of dignity, respect or rights ought to be attached to that being.

But the phraeseology and tone in which some of the politicians have spoken is worrisome to me. I am reminded of the words of Cardinal Von Galen at this time, a remarkable man who publicly spoke out against Nazism, particularly their euthanasia and anti-jewish pogroms. He was such a high profile figure within Germany that his dissent was never silenced and the worst sanction he suffered was house arrest from 1941 onwards. On the issue of what makes a “human” being, and what sort of respect or dignity we should attach to them he said:

“If it is once accepted that people have the right to kill ‘unproductive’ fellow humans–and even if initially it only affects the poor defenseless mentally ill – then as a matter of principle murder is permitted for all unproductive people, in other words for the incurably sick, the people who have become invalids through labor and war, for us all when we become old, frail and therefore unproductive.

Then, it is only necessary for some secret edict to order that the method developed for the mentally ill should be extended to other ‘unproductive’ people, that it should be applied to those suffering from incurable lung disease, to the elderly who are frail or invalids, to the severely disabled soldiers. Then none of our lives will be safe any more. Some commission can put us on the list of the ‘unproductive,’ who in their opinion have become worthless life. And no police force will protect us and no court will investigate our murder and give the murderer the punishment he deserves.

Who will be able to trust his doctor any more?”

Chilling words, and appropriate for us still.