Life or Death - A Conversation With Peter Singer

National Catholic Register ^ | February 24, 2005 | ROBERT BRENNAN

[NYer]

When talking to Prof. Peter Singer, you don’t get the impression that you’re talking to a monster. His views on what constitutes an ethical life might be diametrically opposed to 2,000 years of Catholic moral teaching and might even be construed as monstrous as seen through a God-centered view of the universe, but Peter Singer the person is intelligent, affable, complex and serious.

For years he has held one of the most prestigious positions in academia as an ethics professor at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Born in Australia, Singer has written and taught extensively on the topic of ethics. If his views frighten Catholics, we should know that he is respected elsewhere. He has been credited with helping found the modern "animal rights" movement with his book Animal Liberation.

My objective in interviewing Singer was not to engage him in some kind of ethical warfare, because I disagree so strongly with so many of his premises — as I suspect the vast majority of our readers do. But I believe it is important for us to know how people who disagree with us think and how they have come to their conclusions.

Some of what you are about to read might shock you. It might anger you. But read on with a seriousness of purpose. Singer is not merely a fringe figure. His views might not be completely mainstream, but his position in one of the most important academic institutions in the world makes it imperative that we pay attention to what he has to say.

At the end of 2004, the Groningen Academic Hospital in the Netherlands announced a new medical protocol whereby infants who are deemed to be suffering too much and/or stricken with severe disabilities may be administered lethal doses of sedatives to bring about their demise. Known as the Groningen Protocol, this new development in the world of euthanasia was the impetus for the following interview with Dr. Peter Singer, the holder of the bioethics chair at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values.

According to the Groningen Protocol, deformed or suffering newborn infants are euthanized by doctors at the direction of parents. Does this reflect a position you have been promoting?

Well, I think it’s something I’ve been suggesting can be defended in certain circumstances, so I think it’s a smaller step than many people think beyond what already happens in hospitals not only in the Netherlands but also in the United States, and, in fact, in Catholic hospitals as well.

That is, decisions are taken in hospitals to assess the condition of infants with serious problems to discuss those issues with parents and, in some cases, to withdraw life support even though the infant could live perhaps indefinitely, but on the basis of the decision that this infant’s quality of life is going to be very poor and it’s therefore not best to keep that infant alive. So I think it’s a smaller step than many people realize, when you think about what is already going on and what in fact most people, including Catholic theologians, are prepared to accept.

This protocol allows human beings to be killed by the acts of the doctor. How can you equate that with the Catholic teaching of not using heroic or extraordinary means to support life in certain situations?

I wouldn’t exactly equate it, but I would say there is not a really morally significant difference. It’s possible to distinguish these things with the use of fine arguments of what are ordinary and what are extraordinary means or measures.

But I think in substance, morally speaking, there is no significant difference in both cases.

How are they morally the same?

We have an assessment of an infant’s condition, we have consultation, we have a decision that it is better that life should not continue. Then we have steps taken that have the result that the infant dies. I think whether this is done by withdrawing extraordinary means of life support or whether this is done by active euthanasia is not really the crucial issue. The crucial issue is always the decision whether the infant’s quality of life is so poor it is better it should not live.

Do you have any thoughts as to why movements such as the Groningen Protocol have their starts in places such as the Netherlands?

Yes. Well, certainly I do think it’s better to be open about this. I think there’s an enormous amount of hypocrisy that goes on in terms of people who talk about the sanctity of human life and criticize those who support active euthanasia but are in fact supporting actions that have a similar effect. Perhaps in the United States, for political reasons or something like that, people have not talked openly about this because they don’t want to confront those who support the sanctity of life.

There’s a certain tendency, I think, to pay lip service to it, to say one thing and do another, in the United States. I think the Dutch have a lower tolerance for that. They actually are a little more blunt, a little more direct. … So it’s all up there right in front for critics to get into and attack. And what goes on in the United States and other countries is much more difficult to discover.

You separate the species part of human beings from the personhood of humans through standards such as being able to plan for the future, having an understanding of one’s environment and having a pronounced sense of self-awareness — that is why you have the position that newborn infants do not possess a complete personhood.

Yes. I’m looking for what it is that might make a morally significant distinction between beings who have the fullest right to life, if you want to put it that way, from those who don’t have such a serious right to life. I don’t think that distinction can be just whether you happen to be a member of the species Homo sapiens or not, irrespective of the characteristics or capacities that you might have. I think there’s something wrong with assuming that every member of the species Homo sapiens is somehow a more morally significant being than every member of every other species.

Obviously this is a premise on which the Catholic Church would seriously disagree with you.

If you look at the Catholic tradition, of course. If you believe every human being has an immortal soul and no non-human animal has an immortal soul you would differ from my views on that.

Are there conditions such as severe mental illness where you can see involuntary euthanasia as an ethical choice?

Well, I mean we have to make sure we’re talking about a case where there is no capacity to make an informed judgment, a considered judgment, and there is no previous statement of the person’s wishes or intentions, then clearly if someone is suffering greatly and there is no hope of recovery, I think any human person would say we shouldn’t keep this patient alive.

Do you find yourself more of a lightning rod of controversy when you give lectures?

It certainly happens that a lot of people take objections to what I say, but that’s the nature of philosophy. It goes back to Socrates; the role of the philosopher is to stimulate people to think critically about assumptions they normally take for granted. I think if I wasn’t doing that I wouldn’t be doing my job properly.

How much do you think your way of looking at things will gain ground? Does that depend on the universities?

It’s partly education, but it’s also partly that there are developments in technology that force us to be clearer about our values in some of these questions we’ve been talking about, like the sanctity of life and the treatment of newborn infants and things that we’re forced to re-examine because technology opens new possibilities to us. … For example, severely disabled infants used to just die anyway, whatever anyone did, because we didn’t have the medical means to keep them alive very long, so there was no real moral issue there.

We could all say yes, every life is precious, but tragically we can’t save these lives. Now we’ve got the means to save them and we have to ask the question, "Do we want to save them?"

Suffering, and the possible good that can be wrought from it, is a cornerstone of Catholic teaching. Would it be fair to say you reject that premise altogether?

If you go to the dentist, that dentist might hurt you, but you get a relieved pain in the long run. So yes, sometimes we have to go through a certain amount of suffering for a greater good.

But it seems to me that the Catholic view of suffering as a good in itself more or less is one they need to come up with because otherwise it’s difficult to believe that a God could have created a world with so much suffering in it. In fact, I think even with that view, it’s very difficult to believe that because there is a lot of suffering animals go through that is presumably not redemptive for them in the way that Catholics believe suffering is redemptive for humans. To me, it’s still a bit of a mystery that anyone can really believe that this world was created by a God who was both omnipotent and benevolent.

But putting that aside, I would say Catholics who hold this view of suffering in connection with the topics we’ve been talking about like euthanasia should be free to choose to suffer to the very end, but they shouldn’t impose those beliefs on others. If other people want to avail themselves to voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide or write living wills that they would like their life ended if they were no longer capable of making decisions like that about themselves, then I think it’s wrong for Catholics to stand in the way of people who don’t share their religious beliefs and who don’t share their views about the positive aspects of suffering.

 

I would like to thank Professor Singer for taking the time out of his holiday to speak to me by phone from his home in Melbourne, Australia.

As a note of clarification, it is important to understand that Professor Singer does not limit his withholding personhood from only disabled infants as the following quote from page 225 of his book Writings on an Ethical Life makes abundantly clear:

"In the modern era of liberal abortion laws, most of those not opposed to abortion have drawn a sharp line at birth. If, as I have argued, that line does not mark a sudden change in the status of the fetus, then there appears to be only two possibilities: oppose abortion or allow infanticide."

With all due respect to Professor Singer, I must answer that quote with one I found within the body of work of G.K. Chesterton:

"MAN is an exception, whatever else he is. If he is not the image of God, then he is a disease of the dust. If it is not true that a divine being fell, then we can only say that one of the animals went entirely off its head."

[MarMema]

ping, try this.

[MarMema]

Of course you know his ideas are nothing new. They've been with us since recorded history. ***Pleased to meet you, won't you guess my name?***

Thank you so much, George Soros, forerunner to the antichrist.

[MarMema]

Worth a ping, I believe.

[NYer]

We recognize that those who suffer are blessed, but we should not aid in sensless suffering. The idolatry of suffering is not what our Lord taught. He suffered for us because He chose to. Letting any living creature suffer is unmerciful and cruel.

Glad you enjoyed this post!

A question, though, in keeping with the above comment. Where do you stand on those who choose to suffer, in order to have a share in the suffering of Christ? In other words, how does your comment sit with those individuals who go so far as to ask our Lord for pain and suffering, for precisely the purpose of sharing in His Passion?

[Ohioan from Florida]

Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!

[PhilDragoo]

Excellent explication of Singer v. Life.

We await the 800 number and link to the online petition whereby we may vote for Singer's postnatal abortion.

It becomes soon apparent with Singer that there is no absolute vis-a-vis "right to life"; that with him (and his Morlockians) it is discretionary, whim, "because I say so".

This arbitrary use of homicide is the mark of the monster, viz. Hitler.

Pshaw to all his pretense as inheritor of Socrates' tradition; his is the philosophy of the Dictator of the High Chair.

Because I say so.

Let him put his body where his mouth is.

We shall take a vote on Whether Singer.

Professor, the results are in; here is your hemlock. Salud.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks - (gack!). Ping to self for later pingout!

[tuckrdout]

Thanks for the ping, but I will not even read this. I have already heard Singers ideas about animals and babies. He is one sick puppy!

[hocndoc]

Pray for Peter Singer and all those who are influenced by him and who, because they "think" this and "feel" that, kill our brothers and sisters, our children.


Dualism is laughable. If personhood is an aquired characteristic of a member of our species, then individual preferences, arbitrary judgement and the powers that make the difference between the life and death of each of us. We have historical and current examples that whenever the definition of human being is limited to less than all members of the species, the infringement of the right to life of more and more results. We end up with holocaust, with the Tuskeegee experiments and deaths of children in hospitals. The Netherlands proves that, literally, no one is safe once the State abandons its duty to protect life.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - L'Chaim

[kosta50]

Where do you stand on those who choose to suffer, in order to have a share in the suffering of Christ?

The question is does God want us to suffer? The Bible says that God is "kind to the unthankful and the evil" (Luke 6:35)and not just to the good and greatly. Love does not wish evil on enyone. Yet, God allows "pedagogical punishments" (Kalomiros, the River of Fire) as means of correction in this life (permitting change in a changing world). For "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Rom 5:20)

Does that means that we we should cause someone to suffer? Does that mean that we should cause suffering on us? Is self-violence any less of a sin then violence against someone else? Did our Lord even ask us to suffer or let suffer?

Certainly His suffering for us is a different story. His suffering was salvific. He did it because He could save the world.

If suffering were what the Lord wants, then we should make everyone suffer, including ourselves? But our bodies and lives are not ours to abuse and destroy; for we have no right to keep either, but are required to return the body and the soul. Those who inflict self-suffering and self-mutilation are not pleasing God.

So, while we may look with greater acceptance on those who choose to suffer, as far as the Christian Heart goes causing unnecessary suffering to those who can't help themselves is cruel and unmerciful.

[MarMema]

I am so glad to see you here.

[MarMema]

Given an honorary chair at Princeton and now teaches ethics, I believe. To lots of pre-med students, no doubt.

[kosta50]

greatly=grateful (the spellchecker does some funny things)

[Kolokotronis]

In addition to kosta's remarks, we ought also to understand that as a general proposition, Orthodoxy looks more to the joy and glory of the Resurrection than to the Passion. I don't know of any Orthodox writer who proclaims some value in suffering "as Christ suffered", though there are saints who carry the appellation "passion bearer" so undoubtedly there must be some value in what NYer proposes. That said, the Orthodox Fathers talk about "dying to the self" in order to advance in theosis. Part of the process is self-denial, but this, while perhaps a type of suffering, is always accompanied by intense prayer and is merely a difficult means to an end and not an end in itself.

[NYer]

Love does not wish evil on enyone

Suffering = evil? I understand your argument; it makes perfect sense. However, there are many catholic saints who specifically asked our Lord for a share in His suffering, while on earth. One that comes to mind is

Saint Rafqa

She was drawn to religious life and entered the Convent of Our Lady of Deliverance in Bikfaya in 1860.

On the first Sunday of October 1885, she entered the monastery church and began to pray, asking Jesus to permit her to experience some of the suffering He endured during His passion. Her prayer was immediately answered. Unbearable pains began in her head and moved to her eyes.

Her superior insisted that she undergo medical treatment. After all local attempts to cure her had failed, she was sent to Beirut for treatment. Passing by St. John-Mark's Church in Byblos, her companions learned that an American doctor was traveling in the area. Contacted, he agreed to perform surgery on the afflicted eye. St. Rafqa refused anesthesia. In the course of the surgery, her eye became completely detached. Within a short time, the disease struck the left eye.

For the next 12 years she continued to experience intense pain in her head. Throughout this period, as before, she remained patient and uncomplaining, praying in thanksgiving for the gift of sharing in Jesus' suffering.

When the Lebanese Maronite Order decided to build the monastery of St. Joseph al Dahr in Jrabta, Batroun, in 1897, six nuns, led by Mother Ursula Doumit, were sent to the new monastery. Rafqa was among them.

In 1899, she lost the sight in her left eye. With this a new stage of her suffering began, intensified by the dislocation of her clavicle and her right hip and leg. Her vertebrae were visible through her skin.

Her face was spared and remained shining to the end. Her hands stayed intact; and she used them to knit socks and make clothing. She thanked God for the use of her hands while also thanking Him for permitting her a share in His Son's suffering.

Preparing for death, she called upon the Mother of God and St. Joseph. Finally, on March 23, 1914, after a life of prayer and service, and years of unbearable pain, she rested in peace. She was buried in the monastery cemetery.

On July 10, 1927, her body was transferred to a shrine in the corner of the monastery chapel. The case for her beatification was introduced on December 23, 1925, and canonical investigation of her life began on May 16, 1926.

Pope John Paul II declared her: Venerable on February 11, 1982; Beatified on November 17, 1985; a role model in the adoration of the Eucharist during the Jubilee Year 2000. She was canonized on Jun 10, 2001..

St Rafqa was devoted to the  SHOULDER WOUND OF JESUS
(the 6th Wound)

---

St. Rafqa's Tomb
St. Joseph's Monastery, Jrabta, Batroun

[Kolokotronis]

I think your story of St. Rafqa demonstrates one of the persistent differences between Orthodox Christian theology and that of the Latin theology influenced Churches.

[Mr. Silverback]

If the monsters all looked like monsters, Satan would never get any work done...

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.