quote:Out of curiosity, what are your points of disagreement with them?
I don't have the material at hand, but one of our big beefs (it's not just me) is that a number of prominent Catholic bioethicists have been promoting a theological version of Singer's "personhood." Some differences, of course. They don't think of animals that way, and don't support direct killing.
But... (and don't hold me to specific wording here - I'm not Catholic and don't have the material in front of me).
The idea that they're promoting is based on the premise that the main purpose of living is to develop a relationship with god through acts of intellect. If you no longer are able to do that, your purpose on earth is done. And there is no obligation to provide life-sustaining treatment.
On a policy level, from a secular standpoint, it works out fairly simililarly to Singer in a system that doesn't endorse active killing.
There's some other stuff too, but that's probably the part that will create the most waves.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that they're promoting is based on the premise that the main purpose of living is to develop a relationship with god through acts of intellect. If you no longer are able to do that, your purpose on earth is done. And there is no obligation to provide life-sustaining treatment.
Interesting twist - what would your argument be against this one? Do you disagree that intellect is the purpose of life, or would you argue that disabled people still possess this intellect, or would it be that we are still obligated to provide treatment to those without purpose?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Turns out this is a minority interpretation of church teachings. And, in the fine print, the ethicists in question will even say that. (At least one failed to say that on a TV appearance, though.)
So, at least some of the audience will be in agreement with me, and the conflict there will be over how some of these ethicists have come to be prominent spokespersons for the "Catholic view."
As I've pointed out before, the idea that we can tell with any kind of assurance who is "conscious" and who is not is highly debatable, as studies on misdiagnosis of the persistent vegetative state show. In one case, I was in the audience when one of these ethicists laid this principle out relating to a publicized case in which all parties agreed the man in question was inarguably conscious and reacting to people around him.
The claim is simple: Ethicists like this one are undermining the rights and helping to condone the devaluing of people with intellectual disabilities. I'm not there to teach Catholic doctrine. I'm there to say where and when they are actually hurting people they all like to think they are helping.
posted
I'm glad at least that they (sometimes) remember to say that they represent a minority sect within the Church. Because I have not yet found a piece of formal modern Church teaching that would support that view, to that extreme.
It would be interesting to see how they would react to something by Jean Vanier (Catholic) or Henri Nouwen (Catholic priest), who both have written some marvelous books about the Church and the intellectually disabled.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since a few people seem to be interested, here's an update on the Singer/sndrake saga:
Package from school arrived, containing:
1. Largest honorarium I've ever received, but payable to organization rather than me. 2. A tape of Singer and me having our discussion - I have not been able to bring myself to watch it yet. 3. About ten copies of the school newspaper, the content of which makes it look like I held my own or maybe better, considering I wasn't the one with the Princeton professorship. 4. A school shirt - yeah, right. Like I'm going to wear a shirt advertising a school that wouldn't have admitted me as a student when I was a kid?
Meanwhile, Singer came to town to promote his new book, titled "The President of Good and Evil," which purports to analyze the ethics of George Bush. He came to do a talk and book-signing at Borders in downtown Chicago on March 17th.
We were ready for him. Our leaflet:
PAGE ONE The Professor of Smoke and Mirrors
What others have to say about Singer's new book:
"But anyone who has followed recent critiques of the administration would learn nothing new from these familiar arguments and conclusions, such as that the justification for the Iraq war might have been problematic. Singer's logic can also be mushy." (Publisher's Weekly)
Hurray for someone at Publisher's Weekly finally noticing that Peter Singer's "logic" can be mushy. Those of us with disabilities can only assume that reviewers are more astute when it comes to reviewing political books than bioethics texts, or Singer's mushiness would have been noticed a long time ago.
When writing on euthanasia, assisted suicide, infanticide and disabilities in general, Singer's writings have always been a pile of mush - often devoid of anything resembling intellectual rigor or integrity. His latest work is just the latest turd on a big pile of crap.
PETER SINGER IS IN NO POSITION TO JUDGE THE INTEGRITY OF ANYONE
Peter Singer, over the years, has repeatedly made the case that certain members of society should be denied the same civil rights that everyone else enjoys.
Who are we talking about? Us - all people with disabilities in infancy, and disabled people at any age who cannot demonstrate enough cognition to convince bioethicists like Singer that they're "persons."
Singer's public policy advocacy takes aim at an already-devalued segment of society - people with disabilities. It's especially important to do periodic reality checks when reading Singer or listening to him - to figure out if he's reaching out to your intellect or your bigotry. Hopefully, we can learn from our history - those who argue that people seen as "less worthy" may be treated as second-class citizens advance their cases by disguising flawed arguments in the rhetoric of progessivism and reason. But no one should be fooled into agreeing that some disabled people are not persons entitled to the equal protection of the law.
Many of us here protesting are some of the harshest critics of the Bush administration you're likely to meet. There are many useful and insightful critiques of the Bush admininistration in publication. We urge you to buy one of those.
"The President of Good & Evil" has little to do with original insights on the Bush administration and its "ethics." On the other hand, it has everything to do with promoting Peter Singer and his "ethics."
Like any good stage magician, Singer is good at staging reasonable, lifelike illusions.
In the end, though, it's all just misdirection, with the help of some smoke and mirrors.
PAGE 2
Who are we, and why are we protesting Peter Singer?
We are Not Dead Yet, a national grassroots disability rights organization. In the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 people with disabilities are described as "a discrete and insular minority group." The disability rights movement is founded on a belief that the pervasive discrimination and injustice that this minority group faces must be addressed. It is from this foundation that our concern for justice flows. It is from this concern for justice that we find ourselves opposed to Peter Singer's approach to public policy. For Singer makes policy suggestions about people with disabilities without ever directly addressing, much less designing proposals to solve, the injustice that disabled people face.
But isn't he a respected scholar?
He is talking, not just about ideas, but about actual people living in the actual world. These are empirical matters. There is extensive research that indicates that people with and without disabilities have positive opinions about their own quality of life. But Singer ignores this research and takes it for granted that people with disabilities have inferior lives from our own perspective. He also ignores the research that indicates doctors who treat newly disabled people, and disabled newborns vastly underestimate the way those people will, within a few years, evaluate their own quality of life. He treats discrimination and other social problems as if they cannot be remedied. He acknowledges the research that shows that parents of disabled infants almost always withhold lifesaving treatment when doctors encourage them to, but he fails to consider the relevance of that fact when he talks about giving parents, not doctors, the right to make life-and-death decisions. Singer's work is not only shoddy - it's dishonest. If Singer were a college freshman in a special education course, these errors and omissions would be unacceptable; why are the standards so much lower for an Ivy League professor?
Is Peter Singer proposing something new?
No. But don’t take our word for it. In 1994, Holocaust scholar Michael Burleigh had some pointed comments about Singer's dismissal of "Nazi" analogies. Writing in History Today, he asserted: "they (Nazis) were rather adept in dressing up their coldly utilitarian calculations about 'useless eaters' and 'ballast existences' with the quasi-religious rhetoric of 'deliverance' and the humanitarianism of 'mercy-killing'." He adds that, when Singer makes comparisons between humans with disabilities and lower animals, he is "using arguments and analogies employed again and again by the Nazis."
The erosion or outright denial of civil rights to members of society who are seen as less valuable than those in power, even to the point of "justified" killing, has a long and sad history. It has always been wrong in the past and it is wrong now.
posted
OSC doesn't advocate killing gays. Have they ever protested one of his signings?
Singer's a bioethicist - proposes changing public policy to legalize killing of infants with disabilities, and to legalize killing of people with severe cognitive disabilities of all ages.
Besides, we were quiet, no signs, no chanting.
Just making people uncomfortable - and also sharing an unfavorable book review with them.
So if you were uncomfortable, maybe that's OK. The point was to make people uncomfortable without actually giving them a reason to evict us.
There were about 15 people. I stayed in the background this time.
Edited to add: The very worst thing that has happened to Peter Singer's book sales is the publication of Richard Clarke's book. All the other Bush-bashing works have fallen by the wayside.
First, I’m not sure how I missed this thread the first time around. So let me start by saying to you, not just for this incident but for your entire life’s work. It sounds like you did fine, and that you made the audience think. My fear is that Singer typically is opposed by hysterical, incapable advocates selected at the last minute at most of his lectures. Congratulations for bearding the lion, if not in his den, then in his usual hunting grounds.
Now for random responding to two-month old posts
quote:sndrake said: My definition for torture is using pain and deprivation to force a change in behavior. In the Northeast, there are several facilities that use cattle prod-like devices, ammonia sprays, and other painful “stimuli” to punish behavior. In these same programs, people, most of them kids, are put on “specialized food programs” in which every bite of food they get to eat depends on doing what someone in control required of them. They can be fed as little as 300 calories per day. And, because it’s a professional-parent collaboration being labeled as “treatment,” no human rights organization will touch it. (Even Singer looks a little stunned by this – it might be news to him.)
After I become a prosecutor and get some discretion, I’d like the names of any such places in my jurisdiction, please. At minimum this won’t be a hushed-up secret when I’m done with them.
quote:Tresopax said: After all, the Constitution doesn't say when rights begin. It just says people have rights, without distinguishing what is a person and what is not. That's what the abortion issue is all about, right? Does personhood begin at birth or before? Singer, I think, wants to argue that it might not begin at all for some people. Now, the question is, why is that right, or why is it wrong?
14th amendment is pretty clear on the subject: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
Singer can try to redefine such things all he likes, but none of this redefining personhood stuff will be consistent with the Constitution unless a pretty severe amendment is passed. Any decision finding otherwise will be remembered by future scholars as Dred Scott is today.
Unfortunately (IMHO), personhood has been found to not attach before birth. But the Supreme Court grants the states a compelling state interest in the survival of a viable fetus, with exceptions for the life and health of the mother.
quote:Destineer said: So when I travel to a lawless land there's no matter of fact about whether I'm a person or not?
When you’re in a lawless land, it doesn’t matter if you’re a person or not. Anyone who decides you’re not will be free to treat you that way.
quote:sndrake said: The idea that they're promoting is based on the premise that the main purpose of living is to develop a relationship with god through acts of intellect. If you no longer are able to do that, your purpose on earth is done. And there is no obligation to provide life-sustaining treatment.
I know you’ve posted the Pope’s smackdown of such thinking recently, but it bears repeating. Such a position is not consistent with Catholic theology. Catholic bioethicists are apparently being less Catholic and more bioethicist.
These are just my replies to things that particularly attracted my attention and do not represent any single coherent opinion on these issues. Except that Peter Singer is a tool.
Dag, that made me laugh so hard I almost want to have it made into a bumper sticker. Except that would be sinking even lower than he is. It's really tempting, though.
posted
sndrake, I know you were publishing the leaflets to get a point across. Which I think they did.
I just have issue with one specific sentence because I feel that it is petty and tears down a lot of the rest of your valid stuff.
It puts you over the line into "jack chickish" areas.
the sentence I would delete is this.
quote: His latest work is just the latest turd on a big pile of crap.
It is too petty. You could say "His latest work is just the latest in a long history of questionable wishy washy research" or something else that is equally strong yet doesn't resort to what some would consider indecent language.
I understand that you think it might be good for a little old lady to be shocked out of her complacence. But I'm guessing that the majority of people who read books like Singer's would instantly turn you off the minute you resorted to that level of mud-slinging. It would work much much better better as a strong media sound bite than it does on the written page.
That sentence, would turn me off from your whole pamphelet, even if the rest of it made valid points, and I was inclined to agree with you overall.
quote:sndrake, I know you were publishing the leaflets to get a point across. Which I think they did.
I just have issue with one specific sentence because I feel that it is petty and tears down a lot of the rest of your valid stuff.
It puts you over the line into "jack chickish" areas.
AJ,
The line, which is non-highlighted and kind of buried in the text, didn't get any comment at all from people. If anything was objected to, it was the fact we were there at all.
As the primary author (and the version on the flyer is a little different than the one here), most of the blame for inaccurate or over the line stuff is on my doorstep. But it also was vetted by two other people - that line did cause discussion. Even grassroots activists refrain from using profanity or scatology impulsively - it's a calculated decision, with upsides and downsides.
For a number of reasons, I think the comparison to Jack Chick is inappropriate. An argument could be made for comparing this to rhetoric and tactics of folks like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.
But the context also matters. I stayed in the background, and most of the discussion with people in the audience was happening with less academically-oriented activists than me.
You might notice that we found a loophole in the "never make Nazi comparisons" rule. The loophole is when you can find something written by a holocaust scholar that compares your "target" unfavorably with Nazis. Which we did. That way we weren't the ones who were saying his views were similar to those of the Nazis - a holocaust scholar did it for us. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My fear is that Singer typically is opposed by hysterical, incapable advocates selected at the last minute at most of his lectures. Congratulations for bearding the lion, if not in his den, then in his usual hunting grounds.
Actually, Dag, Singer generally gets to speak without any opposition. When someone is gotten, it's generally someone who is coming from a prolife perspective and who doesn't necessarily disagree with low estimation of life with a disability. They also tend to treat his scholarship with respect.
There's a Christian Bioethics center on the west coast that actually pays for him to come out so they can have a public debate - personally I have trouble understanding the ethics of financially supporting someone whose advocacy you abhor. In contrast, we and a lot of others in the disability community, oppose Singer's inclusion as an invited presenter at a disability event, but will debate him at just about any other venue.
Edited to add: That's not to say there aren't at least a couple of prolife activists who could give Singer a run for his money. I know at least two - both women Catholic prolifers who are great on disability rights, ethics, and articulating their own prolife perspective.
About the torture stuff - it's not a secret. And it's legal. In fact, when the state of Massachusetts tried to shut down the practice they were sued by the facility and the parents - it cost the state millions. Not a case of an "activist judge" - just one of all too many judges willing to put "professional judgement" and "parental choice" over the rights of children (as long as they have disabilities).
I retract my jack chick-ish comment, now that I know the line was purposely put in there to shock. Jack doesn't seem to realize how horrid his staments are or have any concern about how the audience will read them.
I'm glad you were there handing out the leaflets. I just didn't want you to be scandalizing little old ladies into the vapors in the process <grin>
quote:They also tend to treat his scholarship with respect.
Perhaps they just think that everyone deserves respect.
Speaking of which:
quote:Peter Singer is a tool.
Let me repeat myself. Singer is one of my professors. I find it a little insulting that people are willing to take cheap shots at him with abandon, after I've pointed out that I know and respect the man.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
But no one who predicates the personhood of a human being on his perception of their ability to feel pain, suffer, or think gets ANY of my respect, other than the bare respect due him as a human being. I consider his views monstrous. The fact that he actively advocates reforming public policy to reflect them makes him little better than a monster in my eyes.
I am sorry you feel bad somehow because of the attacks on Singer.
However, I don't apologize for the language I use, the critiques I make, or the lack of respect I have for him.
I've been reading Singer's stuff and dealing with him as an activist longer than you've been a student of his.
You might be interested to know that one of the things he said at the Borders appearance (in answer to an audience question)was that ALL the Nazi killings of disabled people were done without the knowledge or consent of their parents.
Guess what? That's false. It describes the second phase of the killings of the disabled, but the T4 program was initiated using the request of two parents as a basis for it.
Was Singer lying? Is he just ignorant? He's had to deal with this issue for two decades or more, so you'd think he'd have his facts straight by now.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But no one who predicates the personhood of a human being on his perception of their ability to feel pain, suffer, or think gets ANY of my respect, other than the bare respect due him as a human being.
What do you predicate personhood on? Is it so crazy to believe that a functioning brain is more important than a beating heart? I can understand your disagreeing with other peoples' definitions of a person, but not your saying that having a different definition of a person makes someone morally dispicable. The question is so complex!
SN, I'm not bothered by your responses to Singer's positions. I just wish you'd tone down the language a bit. Even when I'm talking about someone like John Ashcroft, who I believe is about as close as anyone can get to pure evil, I don't go around telling people that he is a Nazi or that everything that comes out of his mouth is horseshit. On a practical level, if you don't engage with people you are not going to change their minds. On a personal level, if you get angry at people who are honestly trying to do the right thing then you aren't being fair.
Singer is obviously well-intentioned and wants to help people (and animals, which is one of the places where I disagree with him). He gives at least 10% of his income to charity. Yeah, there are some historical and allegorical examples that seem to go against his position on disabled peoples' rights. The same is true of your own position, especially with regards to anencephalic patients, who are literally (I think) mindless pieces of flesh. Nobody has all the right answers about this stuff.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you predicate personhood on? Is it so crazy to believe that a functioning brain is more important than a beating heart? I can understand your disagreeing with other peoples' definitions of a person, but not your saying that having a different definition of a person makes someone morally dispicable. The question is so complex!
Don't put words in my mouth.
First, I don't give a rodent's posterior what gets tossed around in philosophy classes. What I, and other disability advocates, care about is policy advocacy. We object to the advocacy of public policy that would deprive some humans of their legal protections under the law. Further, we think that public policy should be a result of public debate. Singer and his fellow bioethicists are very happy to have the debate on policy dominated by a small range of people in the professional class - themselves.
quote:I don't go around telling people that he is a Nazi or that everything that comes out of his mouth is horseshit. On a practical level, if you don't engage with people you are not going to change their minds. On a personal level, if you get angry at people who are honestly trying to do the right thing then you aren't being fair.
For the record, we discourage people from calling people from calling Singer a Nazi - it's an easier comparison for people to make since, unlike Ashcroft, he's calling for making it legal to kill a bunch of people - based on certain medical judgements. (And although it's not really relevant, I'm not an Ashcroft fan.)
As to honesty and fairness - how many examples do you need to be able to admit that Singer is not exactly rigorous when it comes to being honest? Was he being fair or honest when he told Australian papers that his only opposition in America came from religious conservatives? He said this at the same time Princeton was being swamped by protest letters from the disability community.
quote:Singer is obviously well-intentioned and wants to help people (and animals, which is one of the places where I disagree with him)
Isn't everyone well-intentioned? That is, don't most people rationalize their actions and their beliefs to fit a positive view of themselves. I disagree that he is well-intentioned when it comes to ALL people - to him, disabled infants and adults who can't demonstrate intellectual ability (notice the distinction being made here - one that seems to escape Singer) don't count. They can be killed precisely because they don't count.
Singer doesn't believe in discussion that is really open or fair. And when it comes to his treatment of people with disabilities, don't confuse respect with condescencion. They feel a lot different when you're the one on the receiving end.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm... I'm definitely not comfortable with the idea of using pamphlets as a tool of philosophical discourse. Not unless those pamphlets give a fair account of Singer's reasoning, and a complete refutation of it - and few pamphlets can be that long or wordy. Otherwise, it just reminds me of Gorgias (using words that "taste good" rather than true reasoning).
quote:First, I don't give a rodent's posterior what gets tossed around in philosophy classes. What I, and other disability advocates, care about is policy advocacy. We object to the advocacy of public policy that would deprive some humans of their legal protections under the law.
Yes, but Singer's argument is rooted in a philosophical view - as I would hope most public policy is! If you take the reasoning and philosophy out of public policy, you'll probably end up with irrational lawmaking. That's my view.
Hey, if we have a shot at a reasoned, complex debate, great. However, that was not an option. The choices here were to go with the flyer or do nothing.
And if you were uncomfortable, as I've pointed out before, that's not exactly unexpected or undesirable when you're doing protests, street theater, or different forms of activism.
When talking about public policy, facts and hard data should be first and foremost. Singer gets very fuzzy with those - they don't matter in a philosophy class. They DO matter in public policy.
My view of philosophical discourse and its role in government was probably best expressed by Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Peter Singer said: “Killing a disabled infant is sometimes not wrong, given that the infant like any infant is not a person as I see it," Singer says. "I think that it's ethically defensible to say we do not have to continue its life. It does not have a right to life. And we can choose to end its life on the grounds that the future otherwise will be very bleak for that child.”
quote:Destineer said: What do you predicate personhood on? Is it so crazy to believe that a functioning brain is more important than a beating heart?
Explain to me how your quote at all is relevant to Singer’s. “[G]iven that the infant like any infant is not a person as I see it” cannot be interpreted any other way but to say that a human infant, even one not disabled, is not a person and therefore has no right to continued life. Just in case you think I’m taking him out of context:
I modify my former statement: The man is a monster. As a theoretical philosopher he is bad enough; as someone actively advocating public policy based on his theories, he is a monster. This isn’t a question of “complexity.” This is a question of a man deciding who’s life is worth living, and being allowed to curtail someone’s life because they’re less than 28 days old.
quote:Yes, but Singer's argument is rooted in a philosophical view - as I would hope most public policy is! If you take the reasoning and philosophy out of public policy, you'll probably end up with irrational lawmaking. That's my view.
The philosophy is evil; policies based on it are evil. Attacks on either are equally valid.
posted
I have many disagreements with his philosophy, and the though of turning them into public policy both terrifies and enrages me. If I was debating him, or writing about him, I would use proper language and academic "respect."
On a purely personal level, I have utterly no respect for this man who advocates killing my best friend, my soulmate, simply because she does not meet his intellectual criteria.
quote:When talking about public policy, facts and hard data should be first and foremost. Singer gets very fuzzy with those - they don't matter in a philosophy class. They DO matter in public policy.
Philosophy is all about facts and how to interpret them. And public policy, in turn, should be first and foremost about the philosophy justifying the public policy.
On the other hand, it is activism where facts are often pushed aside, in favor of brief rhetoric, accusations, etc. I suppose this is because, as you said, activists don't have time to get into a reasoned, complex debate. And this has proven to be an effective method of convincing people - only, I think it's a dangerous method, because it appeals to emotions at least as much as it appeals to reason. And that often leads to trouble, in my view.
I've often found that brief rhetoric relies on appeals to emotion via plausible logic. Often that logic is laid out in a very small regime (i.e. ignorant of the big picture). This avenue of public discourse or convo appears very ego-centric and conditionally, dangerous, to me.
The statement you quoted before saying this was actually my reply to Dagonee. So if I was putting words in anyone's mouth, it was his. Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Obviously I disagree with Singer about infanticide. I can see why he holds the position he does on that topic, but his conclusions are crazy. At the same time, it really is hard to explain why human babies are people. Mentally they seem much closer to lower animals in a number of ways. Probably they are not self-aware.
My own view is that babies probably aren't people in the strictest sense, but should be treated as people because they will normally develop into people. This is based off an anti-abortion argument by Don Marquis, which proceeds from the premise that the wrongness of killing consists in depriving the victim of future experiences, and since the fetus (whether it is a person or not) will eventually have experiences, it is worth protecting.
Anyway, I do think a more moderate form of Singer's position, which witholds personhood from brain-dead and vegetative people, is perfectly defensible. But this is where SN's objections become salient. We may agree that brain-dead humans, if they really are brain-dead, do not have rights -- but nonetheless maintain that we can't reliably establish when someone is brain-dead. So accepting that mindless humans are not people doesn't necessarily mean that we should withold rights from them, if we have no good way of identifying them. I don't know much about the relevant science.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Everyone has rights. The majority holds sway over the minority. The reign of the majority is not optimality. Not all rights can be met at once. Enter ego.
posted
I have to say that I really like this thread. I have thought of a lot of these issues many times, and I love the fact that I am getting so many different sides of these issues all from this thread.
I am going to read up on Singers work, and will probably read the other suggested materials as well. I read really fast, so I won't even have to buy his work, I'll just read it at B&N this week. That way he doesn't get any of my money.....
I know that you weren't really sure if you should bring this up here, sdrake, but thank you for doing so.
posted
It's early and my brain isn't into gear yet. But I thought I'd share this. It's a piece that anyone who's gone through this thread should be able to appreciate as a piece of satire. I wish I could take the credit for it, but it was written by a colleague.
quote:A Modest Proposal For Preventing Disabled Children from Being A Burden to their Parents and Society, and for Making them Beneficial to the Public
It is a disturbing sight indeed, for anyone who has traveled in what we in the industrialized nations euphemstically call "underdeveloped countries" and seen the streets and marketplaces crowded with starving beggars, begging for food and coins. As I have argued elsewhere in my work (especially in my Practically Ethics and Reshrinking Life and Death), our ethical obligations to other sentient beings are not dependent on our geographic proximity, racial and ethnic similarity or any other such extraneous factor.
At the same time that malnutrition and even outright starvation are rampant in the non-industrialized world, the lives of disabled infants are sustained at enormous social cost in the neonatal intensive care units of modern hospitals in the industrialized societies. These infants will, of course, survive only to live lives of which are nothing but pitiable and miserable. (continued...)
quote: Destineer Obviously I disagree with Singer about infanticide. I can see why he holds the position he does on that topic, but his conclusions are crazy. At the same time, it really is hard to explain why human babies are people. Mentally they seem much closer to lower animals in a number of ways. Probably they are not self-aware.
Self-awareness as a criteria for personhood has no rational basis. It is one of the traits of a person; no reason exists for distinguishing it from the myriad of others. And of course, this analysis, as do all strictly utilitarian philosophies, entirely ignores the question of supernatural aspects of personhood. While there is no way to prove the existence of the supernatural, ignoring it in a philosophy of life and death has huge consequences.
quote:My own view is that babies probably aren't people in the strictest sense, but should be treated as people because they will normally develop into people. This is based off an anti-abortion argument by Don Marquis, which proceeds from the premise that the wrongness of killing consists in depriving the victim of future experiences, and since the fetus (whether it is a person or not) will eventually have experiences, it is worth protecting.
Maybe this is just the lawyer in me butting squarely against the philosopher in you, but if infants aren’t people, what are they? On what basis does Singer assign the right to kill them to the parent and not other members of society? There’s an arbitrariness glossed over with glib words at the heart of his philosophy.
quote:Anyway, I do think a more moderate form of Singer's position, which witholds personhood from brain-dead and vegetative people, is perfectly defensible. But this is where SN's objections become salient. We may agree that brain-dead humans, if they really are brain-dead, do not have rights -- but nonetheless maintain that we can't reliably establish when someone is brain-dead. So accepting that mindless humans are not people doesn't necessarily mean that we should withold rights from them, if we have no good way of identifying them. I don't know much about the relevant science.
And that’s the perniciousness of Singer’s philosophy and his advocacy: He’s advocating making life and death decisions based on incomplete data. And it’s not limited to the question of brain-dead patients. He advocates that third parties make predictive decisions based on their perception of whether the patient’s future life is worth living.
Warning – rampant speculation ahead: I honestly think that many physicians’ attitudes on this subject stem from the fact that disabled infants and “vegetative” patients represent failures of medical science. Here’s someone we can’t fix. Our job is to fix people. Keeping them around is a constant rebuke to the medical profession.
Not that I think they callously make such a decision knowingly – I think it is a deep underlying motivator that allows them to adopt the prevailing attitudes of the profession, prettied up by scientific words as a “rational” decision. And. obviously, there are many, many counterexamples to this idea. I just think this motivation exists and mixes with physicians’ other motivations to help patients in some unfortunate ways.
I think this also helps explain why most physicians would be appalled at the idea of killing a healthy infant, but are more willing to kill (or fail to save) a disabled infant.
quote:Philosophy is all about facts and how to interpret them. And public policy, in turn, should be first and foremost about the philosophy justifying the public policy.
If this is true, then Singer gets low marks as a philosopher - and it would also apply to a great many bioethicists. First and foremost, Singer presents "facts" in a way that either treats critical information as trivial if he bothers to acknowledge the information at all.
Let's just take one example, that of the prejudice in the medical profession toward people with disabilities - especially those with intellectual disabilities. How can you have a reasoned discussion about medical decision-making without acknowledging the existence of these attitudes (I'll dig out a few cites later if people want) and considering their impact on medical decision-making?
Singer, who has been hearing about prejudice in the medical profession for at least 15-20 years from people like me, claims to be totally unfamiliar with any of the research, but that he would (generously) take my word for its existence.
15-20 years of this and he hasn't bothered to look it up?! Or at least claims to be ignorant of it.
quote:On the other hand, it is activism where facts are often pushed aside, in favor of brief rhetoric, accusations, etc. I suppose this is because, as you said, activists don't have time to get into a reasoned, complex debate. And this has proven to be an effective method of convincing people - only, I think it's a dangerous method, because it appeals to emotions at least as much as it appeals to reason. And that often leads to trouble, in my view.
But for groups fighting against mainstream thought and voices of privilege, activism is usually the only way to get into the debate at all. Let me be clear - while I am sure the school here in Chicago would deny it, I am pretty confident they would never have invited anyone as a countervoice to Singer if there wasn't the implied threat of a protest if his presentation to students went without rebuttal.
And Singer would agree. He engages in animal rights activism. I remember a picture from sometime about a year or so ago when he had his picture taken in a chicken cage during a protest of factory farming conditions of chickens. Was that rational or was it emotional?
And also, if you read Singer honestly, especially in Rethinking Life & Death, you'll find he's not at all shy about manipulating the emotions of readers with the stories he selects and the ways in which he tells them.
So would you say the same things to Singer?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well, yes - assuming he uses the sort of rhetorical tactics you claim he does, which is easily possible. Lots of 'philosophers' resort to tactics I'd not be so comfortable with. (I haven't read anything in-depth from Singer though, so I can't judge him now based solely on the description of him given by one of his opponents.)
quote:If this is true, then Singer gets low marks as a philosopher - and it would also apply to a great many bioethicists. First and foremost, Singer presents "facts" in a way that either treats critical information as trivial if he bothers to acknowledge the information at all.
Possible, but you haven't convinced me that the "facts" you are refering to are actually critical to his argument.
As I understand it, his argument is that certain disabled individuals are not people, because they lack the cognitive activity that makes people people. I think if he is granted that, then his conclusion is almost certainly correct. So, the evidence that is critical to his conclusion is only the evidence surrounding personhood and the true extent of mental activity of disabled people. The prejudice of the medical profession, for instance, does not really relate to that argument - so it really isn't all that critical for him. His argument in no way rests of the assumption that the medical profession is unbiased, at least as I understand his argument.
quote:As I understand it, his argument is that certain disabled individuals are not people, because they lack the cognitive activity that makes people people.
Well, that relates to his policy advocacy concerning those past infancy. For him, disability in and of itself is sufficient during early infancy to legitimize killing.
There's a body of literature that describes not only the prejudice of medical professionals toward disability, but their willingness to steer discussions toward the outcome they themselves deem most desirable.
When it comes to adults, Singer (unless directly questioned) never admits to any uncertainty about the mental states of people who can't demonstrate a certain level of cognitive ability. When were both at the school, he made sweeping statements about what we "know" about "persistent vegetative state." I insisted on revisiting the topic and cited the literature regarding the high misdiagnosis rate. Singer did not contradict me. So either he deliberately omits mention of the uncertainty factor in making assumptions of people's mental status OR he really hasn't bothered to familiarize himself with the literature. He's either being dishonest or he's being sloppy. Take your pick.
You really need to read Singer - especially in Rethinking Life and Death - before making assumptions about the importance he puts on assumptions about professional objectivity and compassion.
posted
Steve, how bad is the misdiagnosis rate? I ask because some time ago in a thread when I talked about my grandfather's death, I said the doctor told us he was vegetative, and that he had no brain function, based on the EEG.
This was untrue, he could speak, had some memory of faces (called my aunt by name) and some realization of what was going on around him. When my pastor said "Let's pray" he folded his hands and bowed his head, for example.
I was told that I'd obviously misunderstood, as no doctor would ever say such a thing. I felt kind of beat up on, because I do remember what was said and that time period is seared irrevocably in my brain and I remember it well.
So, are you saying my situation is not unique? That doctors have indeed said things like that, even though there was evidence to the contrary? This doctor recommended removing oxygen support and not placing a feeding tube, and used the EEG results as justification "He's not really the person you remember anyway, his brain is not functioning at anything higher than a vegetative state."
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sorry if I come off testy, but put yourself in my place. I am appalled by how much space Singer takes up on my personal bookshelf. Whatever else I am guilty of, I am not guilty of misunderstanding him.
And now I have to answer challenges on the accuracy of critiques of Singer from someone who hasn't read him in depth.
It's a good thing I have a deep-seated appreciation of irony. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, are you saying my situation is not unique? That doctors have indeed said things like that, even though there was evidence to the contrary? This doctor recommended removing oxygen support and not placing a feeding tube, and used the EEG results as justification "He's not really the person you remember anyway, his brain is not functioning at anything higher than a vegetative state."
No, Belle, it's probably not unique. Although it's something that is hard to get data on. Here's the best study done and I think we should all ask why we haven't seen others trying the same kind of study. This is from the British Medical Journal, which is freely and publicly available. I'll link to the abstract and quote it, but you can access the whole article there.
Objective: To identify the number of patients who were misdiagnosed as being in the vegetative state and their characteristics.
Design: Retrospective study of the clinical records of the medical, occupational therapy, and clinical psychology departments. Setting: 20 bed unit specialising in the rehabilitation of patients with profound brain damage, including the vegetative state.
Subjects: 40 patients admitted between 1992 and 1995 with a referral diagnosis of vegetative state.
Outcome measures: Patients who showed an ability to communicate consistently using eye pointing or a touch sensitive single switch buzzer.
Results: Of the 40 patients referred as being in the vegetative state, 17 (43%) were considered as having been misdiagnosed; seven of these had been presumed to be vegetative for longer than one year, including three for over four years. Most of the misdiagnosed patients were blind or severely visually impaired. All patients remained severely physically disabled, but nearly all were able to communicate their preference in quality of life issues--some to a high level.
Conclusions: The vegetative state needs considerable skill to diagnose, requiring assessment over a period of time; diagnosis cannot be made, even by the most experienced clinician, from a bedside assessment. Accurate diagnosis is possible but requires the skills of a multidisciplinary team experienced in the management of people with complex disabilities. Recognition of awareness is essential if an optimal quality of life is to be achieved and to avoid inappropriate approaches to the courts for a declaration for withdrawal of tube feeding.
posted
Well, now to play Devils Advocate here a bit: 40 patients is hardly a good sample.....but it's a start.
I think this whole argument is about the issue of what consitiutes a person, and I don't think anyone here is willing to "give" Singer anything. I find some of his arguments intreguing, but his conclusions faulty.
Is a 2 year old less of a person than a 20 years old? There is a obvious difference in cognitive ability, which seems to be the only standard Singer wants to apply. In my book, the two year old might be more of a person, as they have fewer bad habits...
Then there is the argument of family choices...what if they can't meet the financial burden of a disabled child? Well, having children at all is expensive...why not allow poor people to change their minds all the way up to the 28th day as well......after all, mentally they are non-existent....
I find myself revolted by the logical conclusions of his theories, as I understand them. They are elitist at best, and he deserves the rancor his detractors show when discussing his theories.
I personally believe in the right to die movement, because it is a personal choice made by the affected persons. It is difficult, and worrying, but I have spent a lot of time trying to find my true feelings on the matter.
However, the thought of someone else attempting to make the decision for me as to when and how I should die horrifies me. How DARE anyone tell me that I have to die because I am too much of a burden!
I don't find it hard to classify babies as human; and I don't think most people do either. They are becoming; becoming exactally what we never really know. But they are one of us, are human, because they are as we were at that time in our lives. We cannot predict the future, so we sould not take it upon ourselves to kill what we do not understand.
Infancy is a condition we grow out of, and animals never do, so I think attempting to link the two is deceptive at best. A cow matures physically, but will never be a person, while a child simply IS a person from birth, even if it is brain damaged.
Some of the happiest, most wonderful people I have ever met had Downs Syndrom. It is heartwrenching to see these children play, because we know they will, for the most part, never grow up, but most of them are wonderful to be around.
And if Singer had his way, they would all be dead. As a matter of fact, according to his views, you could go right up to one of them and shoot him in the head right now, and nothing would happen to you.....after all, they're not even human enough to have a right to live...
quote:And if Singer had his way, they would all be dead. As a matter of fact, according to his views, you could go right up to one of them and shoot him in the head right now, and nothing would happen to you.....after all, they're not even human enough to have a right to live...
Well, he might give the parents a cause of action against you because you violated some ill-defined property right in their child.
quote:And if Singer had his way, they would all be dead. As a matter of fact, according to his views, you could go right up to one of them and shoot him in the head right now, and nothing would happen to you.....after all, they're not even human enough to have a right to live...
Unfortunately, I don't have much time today to do much more than quick fluff posts. (I'm busy on stuff right now that probably has me on the fecal roster of Kevin Spacey and some Paramount film promotion executives.)
What you have described would NOT be OK with Singer. He says he supports the rights of people who (to his satisfaction) are "persons" once they are past early infancy. That would include most people with Down syndrome.
And for those whose killings he would like to authorize, he would allow it only by humane means and with permission of parent or guardian.
There's always a temptation to make Singer out as worse than he is. I find it unnecessary, since he's already bad enough.
Besides, when I make a claim that seems surprising, I'm almost always asked to back it up. Singer generally does not get that treatment. Too bad. I know it keeps me honest.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, I'll make sure to read up on him some more. I have heard of him, and read excerpts, but it was years ago so perhaps I remembered wrong, or he was quoted out of context.
But my other points still stand, particularily thouse about infanticide for financial reasons. If finacial hardship is a major justification for termanating a life then what is to stop people from applying the same standard to other children who aren't disabled? They realize that they can't afford a child after the fact,so they kill it. If a child isn't a person, then why pay for an abortion? Just smother it before the 28th day and save yourself the fee....
Kwea
P.S. Thanks for posting this, sndrake, it hits close to home for a lot of us.
quote:Sorry if I come off testy, but put yourself in my place. I am appalled by how much space Singer takes up on my personal bookshelf. Whatever else I am guilty of, I am not guilty of misunderstanding him.
And now I have to answer challenges on the accuracy of critiques of Singer from someone who hasn't read him in depth.
This is philosophy we are talking about. Two scholars can spend their lives studying a single body of work and come to completely different understandings of it. It is most certainly possible to misunderstand someone you have a read a lot of.
And yes, I suppose I could just stop talking, go read Singer's stuff, and leave discussion to the experts in the matter - but what fun would that be?
quote:I find myself revolted by the logical conclusions of his theories, as I understand them. They are elitist at best, and he deserves the rancor his detractors show when discussing his theories.
Why? Why would any theory deserve rancor? It seems like simple refutation would be sufficient...
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
No. It's bioethics and public policy. It's not theory, but practice.
(I really have to get back to my job - which has the potential for annoying the heck out of some people this particular week.)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's philosophy too (which bioethics and public policy are essentially subsections of). Theory and practice are not two unconnected things.
If you have a theory that doesn't apply to reality, you're just wasting your time. And if your practice is inconsistent with theory, one or the other is mistaken.
Besides, we're talking about understanding Singer. I am quite certain his view is more of a theory than it is a practice - unless he is doing some quite illegal stuff.
you're the one that's talking about understanding Singer. And in the spirit of a classroom discussion.
That's not where I live and work. It's not just about "views." It's about advocacy. It's about the students in the medical field who use his texts as part of their coursework. Texts which aren't generally accompanied by an effective countervoice. It's about power, privilege, and who gets to speak.
It's amazing how many times Singer concedes having given misinformation (like with Down syndrome) or having underestimated the impact of professionals on parental decision-making. He does it graciously. The audience comes away impressed.
None of those concessions, nuances or admissions have made their way into print. But they work well with the audience of the moment. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's what I'm buried in today. Having to coordinate with people in three different time zones. And some of whom don't know each other at all. (the short article below isn't available online.)
quote:Los Angeles Times Wednesday March 31, 2004
QUICK TAKES Autism portrayal spurs protest
Home Edition, Calendar, Page E-3 Calendar Desk 4 inches; 155 words
By Erin Ailworth,
A group of activists plans to attend the Friday opening of the "United States of Leland" to determine whether the film's portrayal of an autistic boy is a replay of "vicious stereotypes."
Ellen Sweeney, 32, of Brick, N.J., began protesting the movie after it was screened at the Sundance Film Festival in 2003; she said she has collected about 1,900 signatures on an online petition against the film. Sweeney, who has not seen the film, is the mother of a 7-year-old boy with autism.
She said she fears that moviegoers will leave the theater with an "obscure impression of what autism is" that will be overshadowed by the sympathy they are supposed to feel for the film's main character -- a teenager who murders an autistic child.
Sweeney has asked Stephen Drake, of Illinois-based disabilities rights group Not Dead Yet, to mobilize the group's 30 national chapters to screen the movie and issue a statement.
We haven't seen the movie (I get to do that Friday), and won't comment on it beforehand, but it looks suspiciously like, at the very least, the writer of this film needed the victim of the murder to be someone the audience wouldn't identify with. Someone the audience wouldn't think of as having lost a future, so they could focus on the lost future of the teenage murderer instead.
Those fears could be unfounded. That's why we're going to see it.
Edited to add: Review from tired and probably cranky activist expected on Friday evening or Saturday morning.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
to you, not just for this incident but for your entire life’s work. It sounds like you did fine, and that you made the audience think. My fear is that Singer typically is opposed by hysterical, incapable advocates selected at the last minute at most of his lectures. Congratulations for bearding the lion, if not in his den, then in his usual hunting grounds.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
