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."

[kosta50]

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

That is 100% accurate! Along with mercy and compassion.

[kosta50]

You are not only asking me to judge, but to judge a saint!

Love does not refuse; Love does not reject. If Saint Rafqa asked God from her heart to permit her to suffer so she can share in the suffering of Jesus, I am not surprized that her wish was answered.

God is impassionate. Our sufferings neither please nor displease Him.

I am not sure I understand why she even underwent treatment if she knew that her ailmenti was due to her wish. But that is not mine to answer.

However, this is a completely different topic. The topic of the posted article is about suffeirng infants and whether we should let them suffer. Since they can't make that decision, we as Christians must guide ourselves by mercy and compassion.

God is our Comforter. If we try to be in His image, we should provide comfort, not pain. Senlsless suffering of an infant is not pedagogical, for it will neither change anything for the better, nor did the infant do anything to warrant it.

[TAdams8591]

I had this debate years ago with several people. Their concern was not normal vs. extraordinary means, it was for them quality of life. And in fact I debated this with someone this very day.

Essentially then in their minds if a person doesn't pass the "quality of life standard," it is morally justifiable to euthanize them whether or not they are on life support that is extraordinary or none at all.

One can see this reflected in the arguments of ordinary people today.

Interesting post. Thank you.

[NYer]

Yes, this is a very interesting argument. Sadly, today, were one to abort the unborn puppies of a pregnant dog, the courts would more than likely rule the action as animal cruelty.

You read the initial thread but missed my Post #15

[NYer]

You are not only asking me to judge, but to judge a saint!

Not really. God is that judge.

I was addressing the concept you raised of suffering as evil. Kolokotronis made an astute observation insofar as St. Rafqa, noting the Latin 'influence' on the Maronite Church, which he presumes led to and justified Rafqa's personal mortification.

Rafqa is one of many catholic saints who sincerely requested a share in Christ's Passion through personal suffering. There are far too many for me to recall their names, much less the justifications submitted for this purpose. The Church ensures that these were not self-inflicted but requested. I do recall the story of one saint (name eludes me) who asked our Lord for personal suffering to repay the sins of her father (or was it her step father?). She was not only granted this request, but was rewarded with the gratification of knowing that her suffering had released him from Purgatory.

Aha! Here is the distinct difference that separates us! Purgatory. Perhaps this is why the Orthodox Churches shy away from purgative suffering?

As to some of the other Maronite saints, my personal favorite is St. Charbel. True story ... several weeks ago, a family in Cleveland OH were told by their OB/GYN that the child the wife was carrying had severe cardiac defects and they advised her to abort the child. Before acting on their advice, she telephoned a Maronite priest in CA. He counseled the couple that it would be better to give birth to the child, have it baptized into the Church and allow God to choose the proper moment to bring it home than to kill it in the womb.

They heeded the advice of the Maronite priest. The wife delivered a boy and had it baptized in the hospital, immediately after birth. They named the child, Charbel, and asked for this saint's intervention in saving the life of their son. Word went out to the Maronite communities and prayers were requested for this baby boy.

The child was immediately put on life support and doctors expected that he would not survive for long. Now, two weeks later, we are advised that a medical team was assembled to perform surgery on Baby Charbel. Missing valves and ventricles were constructed from what little his heart had to offer.

The operation was declared a success and Baby Charbel is now off of life support, breathing on his own and the doctors have given him a good prognosis.

Surely, all of this 'suffering' is meritorious. Please remember Baby Charbel in your prayers. He is not out of the woods just yet but his life is a far cry from an abortion.

Father of Truth

(The Last Prayer of Saint Charbel before he died)

 

Father of truth,

Here is your Son,

The sacrifice in which you are well pleased.

Accept him for he died for me.

So through him I shall be pardoned.

Here is the offering.

Take it from my hands

And so I shall be reconciled with you.

Remember not the sins that I have committed

In front of your Majesty.

Here is the blood which flowered on Golgotha

For my salvation and prays for me.

Out of consideration for this,

Accept my supplication.

I have committed many sins

But your mercy is great.

If you put them in the balance,

Your goodness will have more weight

Than the most mighty mountains.

Look not upon my sins,

But rather on what is offered for them,

For the offering and the sacrifice

Are even greater than the offences.

Because I have sinned,

Your beloved bore the nails and the spear.

His sufferings are enough to satisfy you.

By them I shall live.

Glory be to the Father who sent His Son for us.

Adoration be to the Son who has freed us and ensured our salvation.

Blessed be he who by his love has given life to all.

To him be the glory.

 

from the Maronite Liturgy.

[Kolokotronis]

"Aha! Here is the distinct difference that separates us! Purgatory. Perhaps this is why the Orthodox Churches shy away from purgative suffering?"

Well, while the concept of purgatory does separate us, Kosta was right. Orthodox writers hold that God's love shines on all, the good and the evil. He does not desire suffering to happen to anyone. A Fallen World creates suffering and disaster. It is sometimes posited that God allows, as Kosta points out, pedagogical suffering, but that is not what you describe St. Rafqa as undergoing I don't think. And in any event, pedagogical suffering is not purgative suffering. It is also said that God might allow a disaster to occur to prevent the further spread of an evil. But even this is love and not a punishment.

At base, the desire to "share in the Passion of Christ" is foreign to Orthodoxy. I was reminded today of the life of St. Polycarp whose feast we call celebrated this week. In the full story of his life it is related that during the persecutions of the Christians, various Christians were seized with a great desire for martyrdom, to suffer death for the Faith. They gathered together and went to the arena or wherever it was the executions were taking place and announced they wished to suffer, Instead they found themselves apostatizing by worshiping the Emperor. This didn't happen because they chickened out at the last moment but because, as the biographer points out, it is wrong in God's eyes to seek out suffering and death which amounts to a rejection of God's Love. Let me add, however, that our reaction to the pain and suffering which in life will find us without any effort on our part, can be a great help or hindrance to our theosis.

In my own opinion, I think the Western embrace of ideas like seeking to experience the Passion and Sufferings of Christ stem from the West's view of mankind after the Fall and the vaguely pagan notion that God demands some sort of tribute from each of us for the forgiveness of our sins.

[kosta50]

Not really. God is that judge

God is Love and Love can only give blessings. To those who hate Him, His blessings are poison. To those who love Him, His blessings are life.

God is not the author of hell. Those who go to hell are not there because of God.

[kosta50]

Wonderfully worded. I have nothing to add to your post, Kolo. I just want to offer a couple of ideas of what suffering accomplishes: suffering allows us to forgive those who persecute us, or to be able to say "Thy Will be done!" with peace; it allows us to foresake the earthly and embrace the heavenly; it allows us to pray for those who trouble us; it allows us to be Christ-like!

The idea that suffering is what God demands from us in order to "repay" Him our debts for sin, that is a portrait of an angry and insulted God, which is alien to Eastern Christianity.

[eleni121]

If Singer were just another kook getting his few minutes of fame from the media, he would be soon ignored...and gone back to the land down under.

Unfortunately, his views are honored and transmitted to future generations of gullible and self hating.

[Got a right to Life? . . Huh?]

Unfortunately, Singer is typical of the liberal professors teaching today in most of our institutions of "higher learning." The interview was a pretty shocking example of where moral relativism and secularism can lead the "intellectual" mind.

Conservatives have made some headway into the liberal media domination. K-12 education has the handicaps of being a government monopoly and union run. Something must be done to right the leftist imbalance at our universities and the monopoly in K-12 education. We can not continue to allow liberal education institutions to mold the political and moral ethics of our citizens.

[NYer]

Thank you both for your insight. I still have much to learn from the East. ('Lives of the Desert Fathers'has been shipped and should be here soon!)

The idea that suffering is what God demands from us in order to "repay" Him our debts for sin, that is a portrait of an angry and insulted God, which is alien to Eastern Christianity.

This notion is a bit skewed. I have never been taught that God demands suffering. Rather, it is the concept of an individual 'offering' suffering up for their own transgressions or those of others.

[Kolokotronis]

"I have never been taught that God demands suffering. Rather, it is the concept of an individual 'offering' suffering up for their own transgressions or those of others."

To the extent that one can "offer up" personal, un-sought out suffering in an effort to become more like God, I suppose this is OK. But for Orthodoxy, this isn't any kind of atonement idea. We repent of our sins and pray for those who are evil to us because those are ways in which we become more like God. Some Orthodox writers posit that at the Final Judgment it is not our sins or even our good deeds which are weighed out in the balance, but rather how much we have become like Christ during our lives. This is because, to paraphrase +Athanasius in De Incarnatione, "God became man so that man could become like God."

[kosta50]

I have never been taught that God demands suffering. Rather, it is the concept of an individual 'offering' suffering up for their own transgressions or those of others

The whole concept of Purgatory is based precisely on the idea that God demands punishment to His "satisfaction." This notion is driven by the somewhat pagan understanding of God's Justice -- one that is driven by Necessity to which even God is not immune. It implies that those who end in hell are there because of God.

God is Love, and Love is merciful and compassionate -- to the righteous and the unrighteous. If God were kind to some and unkind to others, God couldn't be unchanging and eternally the same.

The iniquities of mankind are forgiven through repentance. Those who do not repent in this lifetime cannot be saved. God applies the same expectations on us. Remember, unless we forgive we cannot be forgiven. And if someone repents, we must forgive (Luke 17:3-4).

[Jeff Blogworthy]

ping - save