An Ethical Choice
Is there an idea, concept or belief that is more valuable than a human life? Are ideas, concepts, or beliefs, even considered reality?
Throughout history we have heard of people risking and losing their lives for ideals and principles; but, these were people who were able to rationalise for themselves what the consequences and outcomes might be. What is the proper consideration for us to take with regards to people who are not competent, who may be children, or even infants?
There was a discussion on this very topic at Ash’s place over at Into the Rabbit Hole as to what the community responsibility should be when an eleven year old girl was allowed to die because her parents refused to get her the medical care she needed to live. At what point does a person have a unique presence on this earth and the right to life? In the womb? at birth? at eighteen or twenty-one? If pre-natal abortions can be legalised how about post-natal ones? The threat of post-natal abortions would go a long way in controlling the Anti-Social Behaviour problem with modern teenagers wouldn’t it? *that was sarcasm ok?*
There is a case here in Ireland that will be heard in the court system within the next few days. Parents of unborn twins are trying to prevent medical intervention and blood transfusions, that doctors feel necessary to save the childrens lives, because of their beliefs. In this country, I believe, that the State can intervene and declare the newborns to be Wards of the State because of the sanctity of life provisions within the Constitution and in doing so can approve of any necessary medical treatment regardless of the parents wishes. Would it be morally feasible to have the courts allow the medical staff to treat the infants while they are still in the womb?
Should we as a community take the responsibility to care for each and every life even if it goes against the wishes of the parents?
Hmmm. This is where it gets rather sticky…
My gut instinct is to say that we as humans have the right to follow whatever faith we desire– almost to the extent of parental autonomy and ability to decide for our offspring what is right. Where the problem arises is where do we draw the line between CHOICE and ABUSE?
Perhaps that is where we can begin with this. Where does the line between CHOICE and ABUSE fall? CHOICE, in my mind, is the ability to decide how your life plays out. Abortion IS a form of murder, and in my opinion, a completely valid murder. A parent who has not yet given birth should be able to CHOOSE to not be a parent. ABUSE has significantly more malicious intentions. ABUSE is where a parent _wants_ their child yet intends their child suffering on one level or another.
My opinions come from the theory of evolution, in that the fittest survive. What this term means is that those who have the right “materials” (be it intentions, genetics, natural drives, etc) to reproduce successfully, are the ones who continue to populate our planet. If the “Parent” cannot ensure their offspring’s survival, then, well, that eliminates survival of their gene pool.
It sounds so un-humanistic for me to say that. I’m not trying to be inhumane; it’s just that ultimately (assuming that the innate desire to populate is the greatest drive, which from personal experience, I recognize that it’s NOT), those who have whatever it takes to reproduce successively, are those who will ultimately populate the earth.
Perhaps a purposeful life is not one where we reproduce successfully. Indeed, it doesn’t matter much to us how much we reproduce after our life span is complete.
As far as ethics go, though, I’m not entirely certain WHERE we draw the line. I believe this is exactly the sort of slippery slope I refer to in my post!
Thank you for giving us something to think about!
Comment by Ash — April 24, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Thanks for the comment Ash! Following a faith, or choosing what is right for those in our care, are two great symbols of the freedoms we have in a tolerable society Ash and should be respected by the system with live under. Is it reasonable to suggest that there may be exceptional circumstances under which a majority opinion might intervene? In this politically correct age we live in could it come to pass that we say, “Hold on a minute, forget PC, how about some good old common sense!” when it comes to life and death of the innocents? Maybe it should be the responsibility of society to insure that children survive long enough to make their own choices.
PS: The Court decided that the medical team can use whatever means necessary to keep the twins alive after they have been born. The parents are not going to challenge that decision.
Comment by Cao — April 24, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
This is a very heavy topic. I tend to lean with the courts although i see the parents point of view as well. Great blog topic.
Comment by sogeshirts — April 25, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Thanks for the comment Soge, I didn’t expect to find answers really, each case is different. I am happy for the children in this case though!
Comment by Cao — April 25, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
People like Ash and others seem to think they can speak for God! A life is a life regardless of what it looks like. Its so easy to judge, but to me one thing is clear. This humanity has been desensitized, and is consumed with arrogance. None of you ever will be qualified to judge life over death. And when it comes time for YOU to DIE, if there is a God, the final judgment over you will also not be yours!
Comment by EuroYank — April 25, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Indeed Euro, much of humanity is desensitised and selfish. What role should the community or government play in the preservation of beliefs, if some of these beliefs jeopardize the innocents? In the recent cases of polygamy, honour killings, female circumcision and arranged marriages for child brides? These are all beliefs wrapped up in religious robes, do we have to be Politically Correct and stay mute as a community to these customs?
Comment by Cao — April 25, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Cao good point about religion and here are two posts that answer my view … http://euroyank.blogspot.com/2006/05/america-at-war-islam-critical-review.html
( America At War: Islam A Critical Review) and
http://euroyank.blogspot.com/2006/09/1350-years-of-islamic-wars-against.html
( 1350 Years of Islamic Wars Against the West)
Comment by EuroYank — April 25, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
America At War: Islam A Critical Review
1350 Years of Islamic Wars Against the West
Comment by EuroYank — April 25, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
Great links Euro, thanks for making them clickable!
Comment by Cao — April 25, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
Cao - although I left it in the USA we USED TO believe in the SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE. That is how the Constitution was written, and the LAW decided the morality not the religious belief, and it WAS the LAW that had the final say over RELIGION not the other way around.
Comment by EuroYank — April 25, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Euro, apparently the Irish Constitution is unique in Europe considering that the rights to life for these twins supercedes the parental authority of choice. If the twins were to be born in any other European country the parents wishes to deny treatment would be upheld. In Ash’s post she told us of an 11 year old girl who was denied treatment in the US because of her parents beliefs, why didn’t anyone ask the child if she wished to live?
Comment by Cao — April 26, 2008 @ 12:00 am
Yes I heard of cases like that and others; people in a coma for a long time for example and denying life support. In the military life was always cheap, and everybody was expendable for the good of the whole. In society it seems this is also happening!
Comment by EuroYank — April 26, 2008 @ 12:19 am
Cao - you are becoming quite popular. Maybe I should let my hair down also!
Comment by EuroYank — April 26, 2008 @ 12:54 am
Let your hair down and roll your sleeves up!
Comment by Cao — April 26, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
A more complicated issue involves neither religion nor political correctness but the question of whether the state has the right to decide what is best for the individual or in this case for the child in a parent’s care. With the increasing controversy, though rarely reported, over some kinds of vaccinations , discounting for the moment the religious motivations, should it be alright for parents to decide against a treatment that they consider questionable if experts disagree?
Comment by Shawn Hessinger — April 26, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
Good point Shawn and thanks for bringing that up! Especially since the “experts” disagree on most things, what are caring parents supposed to do these days? Once the “new best thing” was Thalimide (sp?) which was supposed to help but caused birth defects. What else is out there causing trouble? There must be a careful line between the State and individual rights, but I think if we should somtimes err, it should be on the side of life. Thanks for the link!
Comment by Cao — April 26, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
I have been mulling over this blog post for several days now. When it comes to ethical issues two theories emerge, that of Utilitarianism and that of Deontology. Utilitarianism in a nutshell, means the greatest good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is the guiding ethical theory with any large body whether a government or organization (as Euroyank experienced while in service of country). The greatest good for the greatest number is about numbers, odds and statistics. Meanwhile, deontological theory is essentially doing the right thing, because it IS the right thing each and every time. It is founded on universal principles (not exclusive to any one faith or religion) of truthfulness, doing no harm, and justice. So for those individual cases that are not served by utilitarian principles, it would seem that it is charged to us to act when we perceive unfairness or worse. As Cao has said, it must be taken case by case. Sometimes an outcry is required. Demanded even. One cannot be a little bit principled. We are or we aren’t. We can’t be a little truthful or an advocate for the rights of children most of the time. We must keep fighting the good fight. Keep on blogging, Cao! You rock!
Comment by Queen Poobah — April 27, 2008 @ 10:45 am
Thank you QP for the comment and the kind words!
Your theories on the Util’s and the Deon’s is intriguing. In nature of course non-predatory animals usually congregate in herds, flocks, or schools (as in fish) so if attacked there is a fair chance that enough will survive to continue the species. Are humans beyond that mentality yet? It would seem that if the Deon’s make the decisions they would be acceptable to the Util’s unless it would cause harm to the majority. Is the lack of Political Correctness a new standard by which the majority becomes outraged? Do we have to bend to PC even when it goes against common sense or the way the Deon’s see things? I guess the Deon’s will have to keep a close eye on the Util’s!
Comment by Cao — April 27, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Life… though some of my viewpoints may seem a bit ancient in this modern day, I have to say I believe that God is the giver of life. It isn’t only because of my own personal “religious” convictions that I believe this way; on the contrary, I believe science itself points to(and confirms) the very existence of God. Because of that, I don’t feel I’m qualified to make a decision about the death of another. I don’t have the wisdom required to discern particular circumstances individually and mete out that type of judgement - it is FINAL. That’s a scary thought. I only know that it’s my heart’s instinct to PRESERVE life at all cost when I feel it’s in jeopardy to a person or animal. Perhaps that’s just a woman’s emotional response though…
Comment by kimbathewhitelioness — April 28, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
You are right Kimba and I think we all agree!
Comment by Cao — April 28, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
Gosh, every one say the right thing, we are not to decide life or death, commiting that mistake we are digging our grave, God has His plan and that is all. Doctors believe they have the right to do that, or give the right ot the parents ot decide, no matter what, when I went to Medicine University I had to pledge and swear with the hand in my heart one of the things we swear was to give alive, and never death to anyone.
Comment by Shine — May 20, 2008 @ 7:25 am
Thank you Shine, I am glad we are all in agreement with holding life, and not some idea, in the highest regard!
Comment by Cao — May 20, 2008 @ 9:44 am
I’ve read all the posts. It seems to me that everyone is coming at this from the perspective that parents have some devine right, some cultural, legal and inalienable right over their offspring. Children shouldn’t be considered as PROPERTY. We need a licence to drive a car, a boat, an aerooplane, to practice medicine, nursing, engineering and so on and on. Yet any moron can, and often does become a parent. We don’t let drivers and doctors and engineers make daft decisions. Similarly, if applying the principles of ‘the Emperor’s New Clothes’ (ie bloody common sense!) then a blind man can see that preventing a child from receiving traetment is morally wrong. There is a concept in law called something like ‘callous indifference’ - I recently read a case wherein some kids threw a mate into a clay pit, in England I think, then wouldn’t let him out even though their could foresee that this might cause his death. They went to jail. For me, failing to permit protection, care and intervention to a child (I will not use the possesive YOUR children - they are not property) is morally and probably criminally wrong. No-one invested parents with wisdom, infallibility and insight. Any walk around any city will reveal incredibly ill equipped parents. Any community that calls itself civilised must take a collegiate responsibility for ALL it’s citizens. Not the most articulate post, but I hope my main meanings come across.
Comment by Wayne the Aussie in Prague — May 25, 2008 @ 10:31 am
Well said Wayne, I don’t think any of us disagree, when children are in our care there is a resposibility and obligation to protect them, not that they are property but that they are unique individuals who deserve respect from those who are authorised to make decisions for them.
Thanks for the comment!
Comment by Cao — June 4, 2008 @ 9:57 am