I recently wrote an article about prenatal testing and its implications on babies with Down syndrome and many other genetic disorders. It was in this article that I cited a very sobering statistic. Between 84 and 91 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted. I used this statistic to question the necessity of prenatal testing. A recent development in the argument of prenatal testing has caused me to become an even harsher critic of such tests and the regulations surrounding them. For this story we visit The City of Roses, Portland OR, where a jury has just awarded Deborah Levy and her husband $2.9 million for the "wrongful birth" of their daughter Kalanit. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around this the first time I read it, so let me try to explain. When Deborah was pregnant with Kalanit, she received prenatal testing just like many other mothers do. The hospital reported that everything looked completely normal, and the pregnancy was carried to term. However, when Kalanit was born, something wasn't quite right. It turns out that Kalanit was diagnosed with trisomy 21: Down syndrome. It was at this point that Deborah, her mother, decided to press charges against the hospital claiming "medical negligence" of the doctors that processed the prenatal test. Deborah testified that although she "loves her daughter dearly," had she known the truth about her daughter's condition, she would have received an abortion. So now, the hospital is forced to pay big bucks for delivering a healthy child into the world.
Now, this case brings a great number of questions to my mind including those concerning the current legal system, the audacity of a mother to claim she loves her child while still desiring an abortion, and how the prenatal test failed, but let us focus here on the ethical issues. It seems odd to me that a country so intent on being politically correct can justify the modern day eugenics used to kill about 90% of those with a specific genetic disease. I do not like to use references to Nazi Germany because they often seem hyperbolic and cliche, but in this instance I believe it is appropriate. The Nazi extermination of those with disabilities in Germany aimed to exclude "unfit" Germans from the community.These strategies began with forced sterilization and escalated toward mass murder. The most extreme measure, the Euthanasia Program, in itself murdered an estimated 275,000 adults and children because of their disabilities. Now this action was, and is universally condemned. Yet Down syndrome babies face a similar danger today as the majority of U.S. citizens support abortion in the case of prenatal diagnosis. How is extermination of disabled citizens soundly condemned in one situation, and then overwhelmingly supported less than 70 years later?
The contradictions continue, for once an individual with a genetic disorder matures, they receive overwhelming support, and rightly so. The Special Olympics are supported by 170 countries around the world and more than 3.7 million people are involved in the event globally. The United Nations, as well as the United States, have repeatedly spoken out for the protection of those with disabilities, some 650 million people worldwide. Yet, the most common genetic disorder, Down syndrome, is attacked at the earliest stage possible.
Now I will return to the Levy case. It seems to me that even from the most basic perspective, this ruling is flawed. Even the phrase used, "wrongful birth" makes absolutely no sense. This just goes to show the extent to which procreation has become a consumer activity. Through the in vitro fertilization and abortion industries, procreation and termination of life have become so ingrained in our culture that many people don't even think twice about either. No longer do these procedures deal with the creation and destruction of human life as a gift from God. Rather, they have reduced the gift of life to have nothing more than instrumental value. That is, a baby's only worth is derived from the usefulness to others or the desire of others for that life. Looking back I feel it was inevitable that at one point a situation would arise such as this when the value of life was degraded so far that a claim would arise that a baby never should have been born.
I believe serious reflection on these recent events is necessary. Life is a gift from God. Parents do not have a right to choose the characteristics of the child they wish to have and certainly no jury of human beings has the right to declare that a life should have never been born.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Slipping and Sliding
I have heard time after time that the so called "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy and cannot be used in debates. However, after a look through the not-so-distant history of America I would tend to believe that the slippery slope is altogether too real. Certainly the progression of laws concerning right to life issues provides ample support for a slippery slope theory. Let us begin in 1973 with the well known ruling of the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade. It was in this ruling that the Supreme Court stated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment promoted the right to privacy for a woman, and as such extended a woman's right to have an abortion. After this ruling, the idea of a slippery slope was proposed, but it was largely dismissed. After all, how can allowing women reproductive rights cause any kind of harm to society?
Fast forward just about two decades to 1994. It was in this year that the state of Oregon passed Ballot Measure 16, which provided for the enactment of the Death with Dignity Act. This was the first instance of a state legalizing "physician assisted suicide," a euphemism for euthanasia. Washington State followed suit in 2008 with the passing of Initiative 1000 and soon afterward the trail court ruling in Baxter v. Montana legalized physician assisted suicide in Montana. Once again, the subject of a slippery slope was raised. How could we ensure that this practice wasn't abused to simply kill those who become a burden? Rather than address this fundamental problem, superficial restrictions were placed on the practice, aiming to reduce unwarranted killing.
In 2009, President Barack Obama lifted the ban of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research through an executive order. After this executive order, research began through federal funds toward applications of human embryonic stem cells. The benefits were claimed to be innumerable, but the costs are far more drastic as research began involving the active destruction of the human embryo.
Now, I do not try to claim that these events were all directly caused from the legalization of abortion in 1973. However, these issues are all closely related and in recent times have seen a drastic change in legal standing. What is the connection then? Although these events may not be linked by a direct cause and effect, there is still an overarching theme among them. This theme is the degradation of the value of human life.
Each of the events listed above was made possible by the dehumanization of part of the human species. In Roe v. Wade the fetus was not seen as a whole person because it was dependent upon the mother. Physician assisted suicide dehumanized the terminally ill patient to no more than an animal waiting to die without any hope for the future. Finally, through embryonic stem cell research, the embryo is dehumanized to the point that it has no more intrinsic value, but only instrumental value, similar to that of a tool. In each step along the way, the dehumanization process has become increasingly dramatic, leading to equally dramatic attacks on human life. Although the slippery slope may not directly link one event to another, the culmination of these acts through the dehumanization of human life has caused increasing affronts to the culture of life.
Fast forward just about two decades to 1994. It was in this year that the state of Oregon passed Ballot Measure 16, which provided for the enactment of the Death with Dignity Act. This was the first instance of a state legalizing "physician assisted suicide," a euphemism for euthanasia. Washington State followed suit in 2008 with the passing of Initiative 1000 and soon afterward the trail court ruling in Baxter v. Montana legalized physician assisted suicide in Montana. Once again, the subject of a slippery slope was raised. How could we ensure that this practice wasn't abused to simply kill those who become a burden? Rather than address this fundamental problem, superficial restrictions were placed on the practice, aiming to reduce unwarranted killing.
In 2009, President Barack Obama lifted the ban of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research through an executive order. After this executive order, research began through federal funds toward applications of human embryonic stem cells. The benefits were claimed to be innumerable, but the costs are far more drastic as research began involving the active destruction of the human embryo.
Now, I do not try to claim that these events were all directly caused from the legalization of abortion in 1973. However, these issues are all closely related and in recent times have seen a drastic change in legal standing. What is the connection then? Although these events may not be linked by a direct cause and effect, there is still an overarching theme among them. This theme is the degradation of the value of human life.
Each of the events listed above was made possible by the dehumanization of part of the human species. In Roe v. Wade the fetus was not seen as a whole person because it was dependent upon the mother. Physician assisted suicide dehumanized the terminally ill patient to no more than an animal waiting to die without any hope for the future. Finally, through embryonic stem cell research, the embryo is dehumanized to the point that it has no more intrinsic value, but only instrumental value, similar to that of a tool. In each step along the way, the dehumanization process has become increasingly dramatic, leading to equally dramatic attacks on human life. Although the slippery slope may not directly link one event to another, the culmination of these acts through the dehumanization of human life has caused increasing affronts to the culture of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)