From his FAQ at Princeton University:
Q. You have been quoted as saying: “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” Is that quote accurate?
A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term “person” to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection – but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.
Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?
A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that’s a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.
Q. Elderly people with dementia, or people who have been injured in accidents, may also have no sense of the future. Can they also be killed?
A. When a human being once had a sense of the future, but has now lost it, we should be guided by what he or she would have wanted to happen in these circumstances. So if someone would not have wanted to be kept alive after losing their awareness of their future, we may be justified in ending their life; but if they would not have wanted to be killed under these circumstances, that is an important reason why we should not do so.
Q. What about voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide?
A. I support law reform to allow people to decide to end their lives, if they are terminally or incurably ill. This is permitted in the Netherlands, and now in Belgium too. Why should we not be able to decide for ourselves, in consultation with doctors, when our quality of life has fallen to the point where we would prefer not to go on living?
Q. What should I read to learn more?
A. You might like to start with one of the two collections of my work in print, Writings on an Ethical Life, or Unsanctifying Human Life. After that, your choice should depend on what particular issues most interest you. For my views about animals, see Animal Liberation. The fullest statement of my critique of the traditional doctrine of the sanctity of human life is in Rethinking Life and Death, and the most elaborated philosophical elaboration of my views is Practical Ethics.
These books are in many libraries. They can also be ordered from bookstores, or from online retailers like Amazon and Barnes and Noble.
Of note:
Peter Singer has a special place in my heart. At the time he wrote Animal Liberation, he was a professor of philosophy in Australia. I read his book, and it changed my life…. and the life of millions of people who could never look at animals’ suffering and consciousness in the same way agani.
I hosted a conference in 1981 at which he spoke. He autographed a book for me.
I was so pleased when Princeton hired him. Here’s the link to his home page at the Princeton.edu site.
Very brief snippets from the rest of his FAQ:
A. Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. …
You have said that it is wrong to spend money on luxuries for ourselves when we could give the money to organizations working to help the world’s poorest people in developing countries. But shouldn’t we think of the poor in our own country first?
A. We should give where it will do the most good. There is no sound moral reason for favoring those who happen to live within the borders of our own country. Sometimes, just because they are closer to us and living within the same political system, they may be the people we can most effectively help. More often they will not be. If we live in a rich nation like the U.S.A., our money will go much further, and help more people, if we send it to an organization working in developing nations. About a sixth of the world’s population survives on the purchasing power equivalent of less than $US1 per day. For a more detailed statement of my views on this topic, see `The Singer Solution to World Poverty’ at the New York Times and chapter 5 of One World.
Q. Are you living a simple life and giving most of your income to the poor?
A. I’m not living as luxurious a life as I could afford to, but I admit that I indulge my own desires more than I should. I give about 20% of what I earn to NGO’s, mostly to organizations helping the poor to live a better life. I don’t claim that this is as much as I should give. Since I started giving, about thirty years ago, I’ve gradually increased the amount I give, and I’m continuing to do so.
Q. To what organizations do you give?
A. I give mostly to members of the Oxfam International group. In the U.S.A. that means Oxfam America.
Q. How is keeping these people alive going to help, in the long run, when the basic problem is that the world has too many people?
A. It’s not so clear that the problem really is too many people, rather than that some people have a lot more than they need, and others not enough. But that’s a large question that I won’t go into here. …
Thank you for the opportunity and the format, Susan.
“Defective” sums it up for a few parents who have to fight people who use Singer’s words and “human ethics” to deny our students the right not only to labled student but to be labled a person.
It’s one thing to counter him on his own quotes – it’s another to read how he is when approached with those adults who are able to confront him with his ideas.
a set of descriptive words that are deemed appropriate for children with serious problems, especially in their bodily formation or brain function?
I don’t want to offend anyone by using the wrong vocabulary. And I am not familiar with what words are deemed offensive. Obviously the word ‘defect’ is a pretty harsh word, but I don’t know a ready alternative that I should use in its stead.
Personally, I hate the use of “retard”… but that’s not usually used in a diagnostic, ethical or philosphical settings 🙂
But “defective”… most of what I can’t tolerate of Singer’s issues is the devalueing of someone who has a cognitive, neurological disability.
I hear “disabled”, “challenged”, “brain damaged/injured” but I rarely heard “defective” untill Singer came onto the disability rights scene.
feelings about this. I take it from some of your comments that you have a child with neurological difficulties. I am sorry that your child is challenged in that way.
We all wish for perfect children, but the truth is that no one is perfect and some of us cannot even have children.
The use of the word ‘defective’ is pretty harsh. Yet, ‘birth defects’ is still the most commonly used description for, shall we say: ‘malformations’?
It’s hard to talk about this topic without making it sound like one is passing judgement on a person who has difficulties.
But I agree that using ‘defective’ makes a person sound like a product. And denying personhood to people with cognitive difficulties is obnoxious, and wrong.
never has been never will be. 🙂
To suggest that somehow some way one child will have a better future than another based on disabilities is very misleading of Singer.
Some extremeley “normal” able bodies, able brained people grow to have dark futures. Look at Jenna and NotJenna Bush. There father is completely incapable of “looking to the future” and doesn’t bring much “happiness” to society.
My son is autistic. His challenge is mostly the school’s inability to keep up with him 🙂 and the strange “laws” called “the norms of society” and social standards.
But passing judgement is exactly what Singer does.
Soon it won’t must be people living with Down’s Syndrome or CP. Who’s next?
do have any suspicion that any of your child’s vaccinations may have caused his/her autism?
I know there has been a lot of debate about this topic. Is it mercury in some of the vaccines? Something like that. I know Soj is very suspicious of vaccinations.
He’s 12. James Bond fan. Film snob and computer guru. And lover of my pizaa and garlic bread. 🙂
Thermasil. I have my sincere suspicions. Not just vaccinations but the environment. I wrote elsewhere of the conditions in military housing in Ignacio, Marin Co. California. Lead paint so thick you could draw in it. Asbestos tile floors. When the military came over to fix a broken tile – they came in pairs in hazmat suits and wouldn’t talk inside. They had breathing aparatus on. The housing was deemed unfit to shelter livestock let alone homeless people (it was being closed due to base closure and the county was trying to figure out what to do with the mess)
Not good enough to shelter livestock but good enough for Uncle Sam’s babies.
Bush just dropped the mercury poisoning standards.
area in a University insists that the word “person”
comes first. So it is never ‘a disabled person,’ it is
a person or a baby with disabilities, or developmental
impairments.
Thanks for the diary Susan. I must read the book. Saw
Dr. Singer interviewed and was totally impressed with him.
Sorry – mass typos – agendas and homework time here. Panic time as I want to discuss this with you Susan – not to alter your views or anything but to let you know where I’m coming from.
first – clear the typo:
I meant when he’s confronted by a DISABLED adult.
I know that some of the articles I’ve read have been from NDY – and they were non-political – up untill Schiavo case. I’ve backed off as I needed an advocacy group that wasn’t “right wing”. So much has change this year.
However, Ragged Edge magazine has had many run ins with Singer.
Singer says that my son is not a person. Why? Because he’s defective? He was asked about autism – since it’s a disability that isn’t usually known at birth – usually takes up untill age three for diagnosis. So his reply was the 28 days for parents to decide to kill their “defective” newborn.
I also have a dear dear friend who loved his animals rights work up untill she read “Heavy Petting”. She at first that it was a conspiracy to do away with his animal rights efforts.
We really need verbatim quotes before we can go further.
And it HAS to be remembered that the attacks on Singer — wherein the spin began about his views on infants, etc. — BEGAN as a result of extremely well-financed campaigns against him by anti-animal rights groups.
The big factory farm corporations and their PR people began this.
In other words, they’ve done a Swift Boat number on Singer, and look at how well their campaign has worked.
feeling a lot of mixed feelings about Singer.
I don’t accept his criteria for a person. If his criteria is that a person is only a person when they are aware of the future, and that it is okay to kill a baby because they lack this awareness, I just have to disagree.
First of all, I think he is wrong that babies can’t anticipate the future or take some limited actions to protect themselves. They have an instict to live and they do have some limited temporal awareness.
But, on the other hand, I agree with him on his larger point. If a child is born with very serious defects, especially affecting the brain, and there is no hope for them to improve, or ever become an aware conscious human being, then it should be permissable for the parents to let them die. And if they are capable of feeling pain, letting them die of starvation may not be the most merciful way for that to happen.
But the reason for this being morally permissable for me is not because they are not aware. It is because they never will be aware, and that is a distinction he is not making.
For parents that make a different decision, and feel like a such a severely disabled child should live and be cared for, I support their decision completely.
Sorry about that – my center scroller was still attached when I scrolled down.
Some of the main issues that are disturbing. I’m not affiliated with the below site- it just had tons of the quotes and pages from his book. (sorry homework time)
http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202122825648
His stated reason, rather, is that such children have diminished prospects of eventually enjoying an adequate “quality of life”, in his words, and to allow them to live would take away resources from what Singer calls “normal” children. He therefore advocates killing “disabled” infants, if the parents so choose, and replacing them with “normal” ones. The terminology of “replacement” is Singer’s own; his philosophy “treats infants as replaceable”, in his words (Practical Ethics p. 186).
Down syndrome, once again a genetically based condition, gets the most attention in Singer’s recent work. His 1994 book Rethinking Life & Death, whose aim is to articulate “a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not” (p. 112), recapitulates the arguments in favor of selective infanticide outlined above. There he endorses the view that “it is ethical that a child suffering from Down’s syndrome…should not survive” (p. 123) because “the quality of life of someone with Down syndrome [is] below the standard at which medical treatment to sustain the life of an infant becomes obligatory” (p. 111; in Singer’s terms “treatment to sustain life” doesn’t refer merely to surgical intervention but to simple feeding as well). This “quality of life” reasoning is sometimes cast in more colorful terms; in Should the Baby Live? Singer quotes, entirely approvingly, the grandmother of a Down syndrome child: “Had the poor little mongol been allowed to die, as he so easily could, my daughter might have had one or two healthy children in his place” (p. 66). Singer goes on to suggest lethal injection “in the case of a Down syndrome baby with no other defect” (p. 73).
This contrast between “mongols” and “healthy” people – a crucial dichotomy for Singer – is entirely spurious (we might also note that Singer fails to question or challenge the term “mongol”, an obsolete and pejorative designation for people with Down syndrome). There is nothing “unhealthy” about people with Down syndrome.
Why, then, does Singer argue that infants born with this condition can justly be killed? Because they are “abnormal” and do not have “good prospects” (Rethinking p. 214). This notion of “prospects” runs like a mantra through Singer’s discussion of Down syndrome children: “the future prospects of life may be so bleak” (211), “the prospects are clouded” (213), and so forth. But what sort of prospects does he have in mind? On p. 213 of Rethinking he lists several activities which a person with Down syndrome will supposedly never be capable of: “to play the guitar, to develop an appreciation of science fiction, to learn a foreign language, to chat with us about the latest Woody Allen movie, or to be a respectable athlete, basketballer or tennis player.” This list reads like a parody of bourgeois myths of achievement, success, and respectability. To Singer, however, these are legitimate reasons for killing a newborn. After all, if you can’t do your own financial planning, why should you be allowed to live?
Thus we find that in Singer’s view, “severe disabilities” – and also sometimes merely “mild to moderate” ones – are acceptable grounds for parents to decide to have their babies killed. He stands by this view even in some cases where other families offer to adopt the child (Should the Baby Live?, p. 13). At no point does he entertain the possibility that parents who make such a decision on the basis of these criteria are capitulating to a groundless social prejudice exactly analogous to sexism, racism, or homophobia. Indeed he embraces such criteria as ethically proper and vociferously promotes their widespread application.
Singer’s argument sorts people into two categories, “normal” and “abnormal”, and declares the ostensibly abnormal ones fair game at birth. He doesn’t even bother to try to provide “objective” grounds on which to classify some human physical or mental conditions as “defective” (a term he used in earlier editions of Practical Ethics) and contrast them with “healthy” ones. Instead he simply welcomes whatever arbitrary social norms happen to prevail, thus turning his argument into a vehicle for prejudice. But of course there is no perfect, flawless version of the human form against which putatively “inferior” specimens could be measured
that should all be in quotes except the first sentence.
Another bus to catch
I’d have to see the original text that this article rather selectively quoted from.
As we all know from writing diaries here every day, it’s the easiest thing in the world to take a quote out of context and turn it into something it is not.
And, I ADMIRE YOU SO MUCH for your efforts with your autistic child. he is just different. That’s all.
And, although I can’t speak for him, I’m absolutely certain that Peter Singer would greatly admire you and be pleased that your son is a part of your life. I’d love to meet your son sometime.
I shouldn’t be admired though. I’m truly “just another mother of a child like no other”.
Not only is he a part of my life – he’s a part of and has touched so many other “normies” lives. He’s had a positive impact on several.
Including the woman who felt he shouldn’t be in her son’s class because her son was “normal” any my son was … not. She later, years later, apologized to my husband during a field trip.
Anyways, It’s just that instead of Singer saying that they are somehow “less than” and haven’t the “normal futures” we should be advocating for how we all have the ability to draw our rainbows from the colors we’ve been given.
Maybe we can get to a point where we can just talk about the problem of living up to certain ethical ideals.
Here I am, someone who read Singer’s book 25 years ago and who spent time with him — and had him autograph another book he co-authored about factory farming … and I just ate some chicken!
It was free-range chicken, but a dead chicken nonetheless. I only buy it about once a month…. but, if I were purely ethical, I wouldn’t buy it at all.
I’m a mess of ethical contradictions. But I’m willing to consider others’ feelings.
Like Martin, I couldn’t bear to tell parents of a severely disabled child, without hope, that they couldn’t fight to keep their child alive. Would I do the same? I haven’t been in that situation, so I can’t say. If my child were suffering terribly, I’d be inclined to help end the child’s suffering.
I used to work with a woman who is a member of Opus Dei — a far-right wing of the Catholic church. (Scalia belongs too.)
She told me that she’d never live in Oregon because they permit assisted suicide (under very strict guidelines).
I find her comment preposterous. But, she’s entitled to her opinion. However, I don’t want her deciding for me where I should live and under what laws.
Exactly, I don’t want Singers ethics raining down on my childs education and rights.
The problem with Singer is he’ll saying something very vague and then when he has to expound (sp) on it he just makes a bigger mess of the disability rights issues.
I’m not talking the child will die if uncared for.. heck, any child will die if not cared for… but we’re talking Down’s Syndrome. No child dies from that. But they don’t suit Singer’s views of “fit”.
I can’t stomach that. Free range thought or not 🙂
I, too, admire the work you do. Just… Singer is a sore spot for this family and dozen of children who are indeed “people”.
Here’s a case independent of Singer and our previous conversations.
A longtime, highly revered pediatrician here in Port Angeles, WA was charged with manslaughter a few years ago.
Why? He had been called in to the local hospital’s ER to look at an infant that was near death.
He held his fingers over the infant’s nose until it stopped breathing.
A couple nurses noticed this and reported it.
(A local doctor told me the entire story once — but it was two years ago — and I can’t remember all the details, so don’t quiz me too much.)
But, this doctor told me that this is actually done quite often by physicians with babies that are very close to death and are in great pain.
For political reasons, many days later, the doctor was charged with manslaughter.
The overall view of the medical community here: He shouldn’t have done what he did, probably, but the nurses shouldn’t have reported him and the prosecutor most surely shouldn’t have charged him with manslaughter.
There were various complications, including that the wife of this doctor had run the political campaign for the prosecutor’s opponent in the previous election.
This story got splashed all over the press. I wouldn’t be surprised if you heard of it.
But, I think what this doctor did speaks to a desire to relieve the baby’s intense suffering at a point when there was absolutely no hope.
And Singer says that in the FAQ above. He advocates a kinder, swifter relief of suffering than the normal route by slow starvation and dehydration.
Singer’s chief intention, it seems to me, is to relieve suffering when there is no hope.
I agree with that. Years and years ago, my mother asked me — begged me — if she ever became hopelessly ill and in great suffering, to please help her end her life. And I said I would. I would hope the same would be done to help me, if I couldn’t do it myself. I think it’s insanely cruel to keep people alive no matter what — like my Opus Dei friend believes.
I can’t recall, but didn’t he not consult with the parents of the baby? Wasn’t where he took it upon himself? Very hazy but I do remember there having been a huge case.
All in all, I just wouldn’t want some group telling me I should let my child go… oh wait, that has happened to me. That we should sign him over to the State of California so that they can place him in “residential placement” and we’d be “better off”.
Sign him over, go have a nice dinner with my husband and “get over it”. This from an agency whose job it was to help with in-home services. None of which we ever received, but we tore up the paperwork, kicked the worker out of our house and kept our child.
“relieve suffering” then why does he go on about cognitive and neuro disablities? Like Downs or CP? Not all of the criteria for death are “severe” disabilities or ones with physical or mental pain.
Princeton Weekly Bulletin December 7, 1998
T H E P R E S I D E N T ‘ S P A G E
The Appointment of Professor Peter Singer
The appointment of Professor Peter Singer, who will join our faculty next fall as the DeCamp Professor in the University Center for Human Values, is just such a case. There is no question about Professor Singer’s eminence in the field of bioethics. He began his career at Oxford University, was appointed to a professorship at his home university (Monash) in Australia at the age of 30, has served as president of the International Association of Bioethics and as editor of its official journal (Bioethics), and won the National Book Council of Australia’s prize for the best non-fiction book published in Australia in 1994 for his Rethinking Life and Death. His books, including Animal Liberation and Practical Ethics, have been translated into 15 languages and have been widely taught in ethics classes throughout Europe and the United States, including here at Princeton. He is a gifted teacher whose clarity and originality have made ethical issues come alive to a broad intellectual audience.
As Peter Unger, a distinguished professor of philosophy at New York University, wrote in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, “this world-renowned Australian may well be the most prominent professor his country has ever produced; by many measures, he’s the most influential ethicist alive.” When faculty members associated with our University Center for Human Values — including eminent humanists, social scientists and scientists — conducted a world-wide search for an exceptional teacher and scholar to hold the DeCamp Professorship, Peter Singer ranked first on their list, and their judgment was strongly endorsed in the letters we solicited from scholars at other universities who also are leaders in this field.
Given Professor Singer’s credentials, why should his appointment engender so much controversy? As Wes Tooke ’98 explained in his article about Professor Singer’s scholarship in the October 21 PAW, some of the controversy can be attributed to misrepresentation or misinterpretation of his views in the public press. But some of the controversy arises from the fact that he works on difficult and provocative topics and in many cases challenges long-established ways of thinking — or ways of avoiding thinking — about them. Even careful readers of his works will disagree, sometimes quite vehemently, with what he has to say or will reject some of the premises upon which he bases his arguments. In strongly recommending and endorsing Professor Singer’s appointment at Princeton, our own faculty members have made it clear that while they may disagree with him on some issues, just as my colleagues in Economics may differ on issues of economic policy, they have deep respect for his scholarship and invariably find his work instructive.
But the test in making any faculty appointment is not whether we agree with the findings of a professor’s scholarship; the test is the power of the professor’s intellect and the quality of his or her scholarship and teaching. An important part of our purpose as a university is to ask the most difficult and fundamental questions about human existence, however uncomfortable this may be. We search for truth, new knowledge and better understandings through scholarship, research and teaching, even as we also convey our society’s cultural inheritance. In these ways we challenge students — and others — to think critically, to examine their beliefs and assumptions, to hone their abilities to identify and assess ethical issues of various kinds, and to develop both a capacity for independent thought and a set of moral values to guide them through their lives.
We serve these central purposes of a university by appointing faculty members like Professor Singer whose work is intellectually astute, morally serious and open to engagement with others. We serve them by appointing faculty members who, again like Professor Singer, examine important questions with integrity, rigor and originality. We also serve these purposes by assuring a forum for the free and open consideration of ideas, even when some of these ideas make some — or even most — of us uncomfortable. We insist upon civility in debate and respect both for evidence and for the rights of others, but within this context we regard debate and controversy as healthy and invigorating. For these reasons we are delighted that Professor Singer will join the Princeton faculty next year and we eagerly await his contributions to our better understanding of the complex ethical questions that surround some of the most difficult issues of our times.
In a letter of his own to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Singer notes that significant advances in medical technology require us to think in new ways about how we should make critical medical decisions about life and death. “Our increased medical powers mean that we can no longer run away from the question by pretending that we are ‘allowing nature to take its course.’ In a modern intensive care unit, it is doctors, not nature, who make the decisions.” Professor Amy Gutmann, the former dean of the faculty at Princeton and current director of the University Center for Human Values, notes that throughout his career, “Professor Singer has remained deeply committed to arguing for the reduction of suffering in the world (through the avoidance of famine and the humane treatment of all sentient beings), the ethical treatment of animals, and the improvement of the environment for the benefit of all He also has found time to reflect on what it means to live a good life, reviving the time-honored idea that turning away from self-centeredness and towards the urgent needs of others makes for a satisfying life.”
As Peter Singer has said, “obviously, most of these matters are controversial. At Princeton, as throughout my teaching career, I hope to challenge my students and stimulate them to form their own conclusions on such issues. In my students, I look for the ability to think independently, and I assess my students on the quality of their argument, not on whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions they reach.”
This, of course, is exactly what we expect of our faculty. And while Professor Singer may engender more public controversy than many members of our faculty, the qualities of honesty, rigor, creativity and commitment that he brings to his scholarship and his teaching are qualities that we prize throughout our faculty — qualities that are central to Princeton’s continuing eminence as one of the world’s leading universities.
–H.T.S.
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/98/1207/singer.htm
From an interview at the Princeton magazine:
Yes. People sometimes say you shouldn’t judge the quality of life. To which I respond, well, doctors already do that every day in every major intensive care unit when they make decisions about what treatment to give or not to give. We’re already well down this road. It’s not a question of whether to go down it or not. So let’s do it openly. Let’s talk about where we are, where we’re going, and what’s the best way to ensure that we don’t go where we don’t want to go.
What are the range of views you cover in the seminar you are teaching on Questions of Life and Death?
The views that the students are asked to read range from mine to those of Germain Grisez and Joseph Boyle [in their book Life and Death with Liberty and Justice], who present a viewpoint that is consistent with that of the Roman Catholic Church. What I want students to go away with is a sharper sense of what the issues are and what the arguments for and against different viewpoints are in the areas we’re discussing.
Clarify for me when you believe a baby becomes a person, as you define “person,” and therefore has a right to life?
Babies become persons when they develop some kind of awareness of themselves as existing over time. That is, when they can grasp that they are the same being who existed previously and who may exist in the future. As for saying exactly when that happens, I can’t. I don’t think anyone can. Though I would say it happens sometime during the first year of life but not in the first month of life. That’s why I’ve suggested putting a clear boundary on the time within which it is justifiable to kill a severely disabled infant. At one point I suggested a 28-day boundary. But I no longer think that that will work. It’s too arbitrary. I don’t think you would get people to recognize that there’s a big difference in the wrongfulness of killing a being at 27 or 29 days. So what do you do? I think you need to look at it on a case-by-case basis given the seriousness of the problems and balance that against the age of the child.
Have you ever received letters from parents of children born with severe disabilities who had to make difficult decisions about their care?
I’ve had letters from people who were worried about whether they did the right thing. I’ve also received letters, including some just recently, from parents who have read my work and are now more angry than they were before at what the doctors did in keeping their children alive. Some parents said the doctors basically had given them no choice about whether to operate on their child. The parents used langauge like “They got to play with their toys,” meaning their medical equipment, “and left us with a child who has a terrible life.”
You have said that the U.S. seems to be a less caring society than every other economically developed society in the world. Why do you think that?
It may be that the American tradition makes people think in terms of their rights rather than their responsibilities or obligations to others. And that makes the community a more individualistic one. The clearest figures are the foreign aid figures where the U.S. is at the absolute bottom of economically developed countries in terms of what it gives as a percentage of gross national product.
In terms of the lack of care for American citizens, the figures are a little harder to pick out. I guess I’m aware of two things: Most obviously, that there is no national health insurance, and that you see more homeless people sleeping rough in New York City than you do in any Australian city, for example. So something is going on here.
Full interview
Then he can hear from this parent. I do not see my child as a burden. 🙂
The problem I do have about his “care” is trying to obtain care for him from medical/dental “people.
Is he demanding you adopt his view?
is he overtly, rigidly stubborn in his views and not open to any other view?
Is he in any way seeking to legislate his view?
he is a philosophy professor. They tend to argue every matter of philosophy and ethics until the cows come home.
And the ones like Singer are harmless.
you may not agree. Martin may not agree. I may not agree with everything he writes. I don’t. But, he’s not trying to shove his ideas at me or my fellow community members. He’s just saying what he thinks.
Of far greater damage: The corporate world’s success in denigrating his writings in an attempt to keep people from reading what he has researched on animal cruelty because they need to protect their right to exploit animals cruelly.
The problem with Peter Singer’s arguments is that they are rational and a lot people who are personally involved in the issues of animal rights or disabled children/people seem to have a hard time being rational when it comes to discussing those issues. They are so personally involved that it’s hard for them to take a step back and use logic and rational thinking rather than go with their first gut emotional response and react emotionally without thought. At least, that’s what I’ve observed about myself and others.
Rational. The Special Education Director uses that term alot. Says we were being irrational about trying to have our child in school. Americans with Disabilities Act is very rational as is IDEA.
They also used the term “denial” when we asked for help with speech therapy.
I know that you are correct when it comes to the intensity of the feelings, but I wouldn’t consider myself or Susan to be irrational or the many parents I know who are feel very strongly about Singer.
As abstract. One step removed from whatever situation.
Admittedly, just about everything I know about Singer, I am learning in this diary; his past and present may be full of disabled family members or children of his own (or may have at one time, anyway), for all I know.
But love for a child or a person, no matter how disabled or “defective” is not irrational, I don’t think, especially if you are the parent. And arguments to just “let them go” may not be rational either, if what you are expecting of the person is to just live as best as they can, rather than live up to someone else’s idea of what is best.
That said, I think doctors should help in cases where the family decision is to just ‘let them go’, in the most merciful way possible.
Singer doesn’t mince words, does he, and his words are loaded for sure. That being said, European culture, and I’ll take the liberty of including Australia (though I’ve never been there) in this, pretty much teaches us that quality of life is the most important element in life. This is what I was taught growing up – to put yourself in the position of another and to ask yourself if you would/could be happy living under these circumstances – empathy. Now while euthanasia is generally considered immoral, so is prolonging suffering through medical means. I do also to a great extent view the medical community (generalizing here!) in this country in particular, as medieval experimenters truly void of morality, concerned primarily with making a name for themselves, as well as being motivated by financial gain.
I would resent being told by anyone, what I as a parent can choose for my newborn – hopefully prenatal testing improves significantly so that these decisions can be made earlier – either way. I would include in my decision the following questions: who will take care of this individual, who will love this individual as I love him/her heart and soul – after I no longer am around? Can I expect his/her siblings to do as I do in providing for this person – and can I make this decision for them?
That is me. I would not make this decision for someone else, ever – nor should the State. Would I want to be given the option of speeding up the end in cases of extreme suffering – yes. If not I would probably act myself, as I would act for myself, or hope someone would act for me. If the State forces adoption against the parents wishes, it is these parents that will continue to suffer knowing their child is suffering.
This does not conflict on how we should treat the disabled, who should be treated with the same respect as we give to others.
Heck, I can’t even neuter my dogs – I can not deny sexuality to any creature I love – it makes my stomach turn, and in all honesty I would rather see them dead. I give them parts of my dinner, desert, some chocolate – it is the quality of their lives that is important to me, happiness.
this country… I can’t trust how they treat patients. It’s illegal for an elderly woman with MS to smoke a marijuana even if it eases her pain.
Where was the concern about suffereing when dental patients can’t get surgery in Northern California because there’s only two facilities for them to go under anesthesia(?) So my son waited 3 months to be seen for a 2 root canals and 2 impacted teeth.
Most of the suffering is caused by the lack of access or the indignities one must face.
I’m just very leary of the whole enchilada. But thanks for sharing and allowing me to share as well. 🙂
I won’t deny you have it tough – in terms of finding facilities and proper care. The concern of those that will make decisions for you ends when you leave the maternity ward, I know this. There is no real infrastructure for support, because this would require caring, and humans are a selfish lot. This is part of what I tried to include in my perspective – that I will not be able to find someone who will follow in my footsteps in loving the one I love and caring properly for him/her. I am not trying to be callous or discouraging. Systems are hopeful things, since they can be changed – however personally I would feel immense pain knowing it would be near impossible to find someone beyond my time to care for my child with love.
With my daughter it was the first kick I felt where I knew I loved her unconditionally, and had to protect her unconditionally. Any decisions I would have had to make stem from that and my responsibility for her future, not convenience or repulsion. Everybody should be supported in their decisions – there is no right and wrong, it’s personal.
I realize I came off sounding a bit harsh, and for that I apologize. I’ve spent a great deal of time among people with varying disabilities, and I’ve seen a few of them institutionalized, others leading normal lives.
My uncle has autism. He didn’t speak until he was six, has fear of loud noises and won’t let anyone touch him in any way. Oddly enough loud noises coming from him he doesn’t mind as he marches a lot. He hasn’t seen a doctor or dentist in over 40 years, and his teeth look to be in very bad shape. I doubt he bathes much either, and no family member has ever been allowed inside his dwelling. His clothes are unwashed, and he hoards money probably because numbers mean a lot to him. A conversation with him lasts 30 seconds, if that. On the other side of the coin he graduated from university with a PhD in Particle Physics when he was 23, has worked all his life in a lab (now retired), and as a member of MENSA has something of a social life. He has had his own life and has been content.
Growing up one of the sons of my next-door neighbor had (has) Phenylketonuria (PKU – now treatable) in its most severe form. He is severely retarded with his mental capacity stuck in preschool. Physically in excellent health, unbelievably handsome and well muscled. If you saw him you’d take him for a lifeguard in one of those beach shows. His parents always took the best care of him and kept him at home with them and always had him with them. Unfortunately he wasn’t able to process puberty in his mind – and though I was not privy to his infractions, the State institutionalized him, though his parents were able take him out frequently enough. He is a happy person, even in his new surroundings.
As for downs syndrome – I know and have known a lot of kids with this disease. They are all at different levels of ability and most of them are happy, prone to the occasional tantrum. One girl that I knew from my childhood was hit very severely by the problems associated with the disease. She had her first surgery when she was newly born and several more in the course of her life. She was constantly struggling with infections and had an unusual amount of tantrums, which were usually violent. She was kept at home until she was 9 when she threw her baby cousin on the floor in a fit. The baby had a concussion but was otherwise all right. At this point the parents decided they could no longer cope with her care and had her institutionalized. She died there when she was twelve, and I don’t think she was ever happy or content. Maybe because she did have severe physical ailments it caused her to be moodier than others.
Lastly there is the child of my former boss. I don’t think his disease has been defined. Their child was born with severe organ malfunctions and what doctors said was an incompletely formed brain (I am unsure what was meant by this). This child would not have survived the week if it hadn’t been for several surgeries. This boy spent the entire 9 months of his life in the hospital, the doctors recommending all sorts of procedures to the parents, giving them false hope. A few months after the child died my boss was divorced, though other factors may have been involved the whole company could see the toll it took.
From what I’ve seen, kids born with mental and physical problems have not had a decent life, and this is where I personally would end up making decisions that might go against social acceptance. I can’t criticize my boss for his decision either – that would be heartless, but I do think his son suffered needlessly in a situation where there was no hope.
What strikes me as so … (I’ll bite my tongue as I realize I’m having a uniquely hard time these past few weeks LOL) is that there are so many “normal” babies who grow up and do they “contribute” to this society? Do they have polished, perfect “futures”? No.
People should be able to live WITH whatever it is that challenges them. Not DESPITE them.
It’s like society expects that the only valued disabled person is one that can accomplish “Super Crip” Abilities. For some reason, mediocrity is not accepted by society from someone who must work harder for minimality than one could ever imagine. This doesn’t mean they suffer or their life is hard or GAWD forbid “less than”… it just means they are different.
Please noet that your encounter with autism is vastly different from mine as well as from the next person. Autism is a spectrum disorder. It affects each individual in a different manner. They also have varying skills and delays. I could paint a totally different picture of what autism is. Sure it’s a fucking nightmare in the early years. Yes I as a parent struggle with the mortal issues of who will be around to support, care for my children… but don’t we all for our children?
My son probably isn’t Mensa material. He isn’t “Rain Man”. He doesn’t have super abilities to amaze and astound the circus audience. He’s just a boy who has to work harder than others with simple matters and other things he doesn’t have to work at all. But.. he doesn’t “suffer”. But I know that several people would believe that simply because he’s disabled “he must suffer”. We do suffer with dental and medical issues because health care SUCKS.
But please know that we can not expect each person to have to display outstanding skills in order to be accepted or let alone “tolerated” by society. They should just be able to do the best they can.
Do each of our kids grow up to achieve great success? Do they meet all of your expectations?
One of the things I had to re-learn as a parent and I think very FEW parents can do this:
My only dream for BOTH my children is that they will be able to create and follow their OWN dreams.
And fuckitall to what society or the next door neighbor wishes. 🙂
No – to answer your question, mediocrity is the norm and very few stand out. We want people who can stand around the barbeque with us – after all look at what we elected. We can examine the damaging effects of mediocrity by looking at the life of Mozart, for instance, but that is another discussion.
Society strives for mediocrity – we don’t like geniuses and we don’t like those we feel are inferior to ourselves. We strive to be “normal” and in an urban environment we enlist psychologists and drug manufacturers to help us achieve this. In a rural environment we group together with our guns and shoot those that are different (we would if we could anyway).
For the record my uncle was not diagnosed until later in life – if he had been he might have been categorized and it would have been harder to gain acceptance. He might have been institutionalized.
Suffering and be unable to function are different matters.
Some might say Mozart’s abilities were a “splinter skills”…
Some, like myself, would gladly say that Presidnet Bush and his ilk fall into the category of sociopath as defined by the “doctors” – and as you said the “C” grad with questionable, at best, mental capacity is in power and supported by – again- the normal society.
But yet – there are those that protest this. That can see the blind allegiance to such a “loser” for what it is.
In this society – If you’re rich and have some “oddities” you’re merely “eceentric” If you’re poor with the same oddities then you are rushed “away”.
and where I stand.
In the past, I’ve been a special education advocate for other parents in our rural area. I’ve faced nasty issues head on. While dealing with the early years of autism, I normally awoke to news vans outside my home due to ugly controversys and inadequate schools and ignorance and abusive agencies.
I don’t tolerate ignorance just as much as I don’t tolerate pity. I have always been open that my oldest child has a cognitive disability. Autism.
Mothers get a bad rap if they are involved in some political issue that surrounds children. They are either in “denial” or are “irrational”. Somehow the fact that I have breasts and a disabled child minimizes any work I do or have accomplished or any views I have.
The kind people say one of two things to me – either that they are sorry or they somehow applaud my efforts. This always strikes me as odd. Why sorry? Yes it’s a struggle and yes it’s something most can not comprehend. I have close, dear friends who I allow into the inner realm of what it truly is like to live with, raise, and nurture a child who is so … amazing. But I can not and do not take any credit for any of the hardwork and acheivements he continually has to deal with.
I will admit that I’m “different” sort of mother. I have to be. Just as ALL loving parents of children who display various interests, abilities and disabilities. I just wish society would realize that ALL children are “Special”. That we all are in some ways “broken”. It’s just up to us to look out for the ones who are “broken” a bit more.
I think the one other thing that may make me different from other parents is that I have no idea what tomorrow will bring. Will it be a “hard” day or a day of surprises. Life is usually bittersweet. And yes I have to live it entirely different than most of you… But I can find the beauty in that and embrace it.
My son. He is 12 and albeit a bit of a fireball of energy. (So is my daughter) He loves movies. He does have selective eiditic memory. (The one “rainmannish ability”) He is not a savant and for that I am happy as most savants are severely delayed in most things with only a few splinter skills.
Wesley LOVES Xbox, computers, anything that is high-tech he loves. He is fascinated with movies and James Bond. He can read a book in a day. He reads Ian Fleming, Jules Verne, several Star Wars authors and Dav Pilkey (Capt. Underpants). Anything gadget like he adores and understands completely. As a toddler he’d take apart everything in our house. However he’d throw the parts off the deck…
SusanHu would have an incredible partner when it comes to animal care. Wesley LOVES animals. Several rescue kittens have been taught how to use the litter box or had medicines placed on them with his careful hands and extreme attention. Anything that is small, hurt, needing care, babies… he seeks out.
He is enjoying cooking now. He is a pure delight to have as a customer in a restaurant.
I will not go into his delays or his few “splinter skills”. Just that if you didn’t know him, and you were standing in line with him, you’d think he was from another country. If you were to hear his voice, his manner of speaking you might scratch your head and wonder if something is wrong, but you wouldn’t say he was defective, weird or less of a person. You would look at the smile and dimples on his face and know that whatever it was – he wasn’t suffering and neither were those who loved him.
All my son wants is to be liked. To have friends. To be a friend. That consumes him. That sometimes is how he “suffers”. Doesn’t anyone’s child feel hurt whne they aren’t invited to the big dance, party?
Ever since he was in 3rd grade he has wanted to work in films. He writes scripts after script. The school says he can’t write because he can’t hold a pen well enough and this creats some fine motor skills difficulties… but man can the kid type. But… the school only just now – and after much battles has allowed him to have a laptop. He only takes it in once a week…. The schools here are a special kind of stupid.
Luckily we as his parents and the ones around him do what most are unable to do. We focus on the ABILITY rather than just the DISABILITY.
The most disabling defect is those who haven’t a heart. Sadly they make everyone around them suffer.
My son has brought nothing but love and joy to those around him. I believe that when I am dead and gone, he will continue to do. Because we work and fight each day to help him be the best he can be, not help him be something he isn’t.
Oh, my 12 year old knows more about politics and the environment than most adults I’ve met. My son cares about the world and those around him. I don’t know many people who do. If anything, Wesley has enriched the lives of those around him.
I believe that mercury poisoning hurt my child and others. I will damn the government for that. I won’t damn my son or others like him.
It’ll be the ones who care, nuture and love that will change this country, this world. Not those who were able to make alot of money.
Your son is normal. (My daughter can’t hold a pen properly and her writing is unreadable. So what. I deal with a school board that would like to see her on Ritalin – they’re ignorant!) Your not dealing with severe retardation and organ failures, you’re dealing with nit wits, people who need to label everything because it is the only way the world makes sense to them.
Oh no – a school board shouldn’t be attempting to make any decisions about medicines. Yikes! We’ve been seeing more and more of that here lately. School officials threatening parents about narcotics.
They wanted him on Ritalin as well as Clonodine. Which creates the “palsy” effects in so many adult autistics.
Yes, our main fight and most I know is with the “nit wits” – that’s the exhausting part.
Wes can’t hold a pen too well either. Fine motor skills are a challenge.
If you’re in Calif(?) there’s an agency that has actually been a pitbull for us. The Area Board on Developmental Disabilities. They might be able to help you with your fights with… the school board.
No – Mass. My husband is a pitbull himself so they’re more intimidated by us I think. My daughter, if I would classify her as anything, is a very impatient individual and her attention span is unbelievable when she’s interested. I just don’t think many teachers really want to teach – but then I see that in many professions – people are there because they get paid not because their work is fulfilling.
She’s a difficult person, head strong like her dad and very argumentative – and she’s definitively weird. I have long ago embraced that word as something that is unique and not ordinary. To me ordinary is an insult, because it is in no way spacial. So that next time someone insults your son – tell them their minds are ordinary and what they just insulted your son with is special.
My daughter suffers from hay fever and her doctor just gave me a nasal spray to try on her: “rhinocort aqua” (budesonide). In the main section with the large print it describes a few possible side effects that don’t sound too bad. In the glued together fine print section it states that it has been known to cause cancer in lab rats when given in high doses. The instructions do say to never increase the dosage. I’m supposed to give this to my child??
As far as Ritalin is concerned it is legalized Cocaine – but doctors won’t tell you that because they are being paid large amounts by the drug manufacturers.
Whatever you can do without medication – do. A drug can cause unknown side effects which in turn will be treated with another drug, and then you have a vicious circle and a lifetime of dependency. Funny, that – because when my great aunt lay dying in absolute pain, they refused to give her morphine because it was addictive. The doctors actually had no shame in telling us this – she died four days later.