Spring Break
Less human than human
Every person's value must be the same
By: Joshua Dwyer
Issue date: 4/6/05 Section: Opinion
According to his Web site, Singer supports treating animals ethically, but redefines ethics to allow the murder of helpless humans that don't "have wants or desires for the future."
His sentiments are echoed by Bill Allen, a professor of bioethics at the University of Florida College of Medicine. He recently said, "I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood." This implies that those humans unfortunate enough to be labeled non-persons can and should be treated differently, even cruelly.
Individuals who endorse this distinction point out that anyone who can object to the mistreatment would qualify as cognitively able or aware enough to survive. But this application of survival of the fittest by killing the weakest does nothing to promote peace of mind for those who remember history.
While bioethicists may not suggest that these non-persons be eliminated, the mere notion that some humans are not persons permits others to rationalize the extermination of them. It is the weak and defenseless who should be protected from abuse, not those strong enough to resist or aware enough to object.
The media appears to have already accepted the non-person proposition. A Florida newspaper editorial criticized Gov. Jeb Bush for attempting to "prolong the non-life of Terri Schiavo." If the quality of life mantra replaces the sanctity of life as the driving force in ethics and medicine, it may be a few short years before other groups of people are deemed "unworthy of life" here in America.
In a future where the government pays for increasing amounts of medical care, it is conceivable that the worth of a person could correspond to the cost of his treatments. In such a case, the definition of non-person might be expanded to include those with incurable diseases and not just those who don't meet some cognitive standard. Murder may be seen as a way to cut expenditures.
Call it fostering a culture of life or simply learning from history. Future generations will judge whether Americans treated it like an alarm clock and hit the snooze button or like a fire alarm and rescued the inhabitants from a burning building.
If America accepts the bioethicists' theory that some people are non-persons, even if the distinction is based on scientific or philosophical justifications, we all lose some of our humanity and doom ourselves to repeat history.
His sentiments are echoed by Bill Allen, a professor of bioethics at the University of Florida College of Medicine. He recently said, "I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood." This implies that those humans unfortunate enough to be labeled non-persons can and should be treated differently, even cruelly.
Individuals who endorse this distinction point out that anyone who can object to the mistreatment would qualify as cognitively able or aware enough to survive. But this application of survival of the fittest by killing the weakest does nothing to promote peace of mind for those who remember history.
While bioethicists may not suggest that these non-persons be eliminated, the mere notion that some humans are not persons permits others to rationalize the extermination of them. It is the weak and defenseless who should be protected from abuse, not those strong enough to resist or aware enough to object.
The media appears to have already accepted the non-person proposition. A Florida newspaper editorial criticized Gov. Jeb Bush for attempting to "prolong the non-life of Terri Schiavo." If the quality of life mantra replaces the sanctity of life as the driving force in ethics and medicine, it may be a few short years before other groups of people are deemed "unworthy of life" here in America.
In a future where the government pays for increasing amounts of medical care, it is conceivable that the worth of a person could correspond to the cost of his treatments. In such a case, the definition of non-person might be expanded to include those with incurable diseases and not just those who don't meet some cognitive standard. Murder may be seen as a way to cut expenditures.
Call it fostering a culture of life or simply learning from history. Future generations will judge whether Americans treated it like an alarm clock and hit the snooze button or like a fire alarm and rescued the inhabitants from a burning building.
If America accepts the bioethicists' theory that some people are non-persons, even if the distinction is based on scientific or philosophical justifications, we all lose some of our humanity and doom ourselves to repeat history.
Be sure to include your name, major, and class year. Submissions without this information are subject to deletion.
By submitting a comment, you agree to thebatt.com's Terms of Use.
You may also send a Mail Call to The Battalion at mailcall@thebatt.com