By DONALD DeMARCO
David Oderberg is a professor of philosophy at the University of Reading (England). In an address he gave to students at Oxford University in 2008, he offered the following indictment of the current status of bioethics:
“The bioethics industry is, unfortunately, populated by many individuals whom one might even call second-rate philosophers. They have found themselves unable to grapple with the more technical or abstract areas of philosophy — or at least to make a name for themselves in such areas — but have found that it is relatively easy to forge a name for oneself in the bioethics business.”
He cites the example of one bioethicist who approves the deliberate deafening of a child. “The deaf child,” he writes, “is harmed by being selected to exist only if his or her life is so bad that it is not worth living. Deafness is not that bad. Because reproductive choices to have a disabled child do not harm the child, couples who select disabled rather than non-disabled offspring should be allowed to make those choices.”
“Choice,” therefore, even if it involves the deliberate mutilation of a child, is self-justifying. This, bioethicist, however, took care to honor the politically correct imperative and express himself in “inclusive” language.
We also find an example of that to which Professor Oderberg is alluding in the person of Udo Schuklenk, a bioethicist who serves as co-editor of Bioethics, a leading journal in the field of bioethics, and is a professor of philosophy at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. In a recent article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, he stated that “conscientious objection has no place in the practice of medicine.”
The Catholic bishops of Canada have criticized the proposed legislation for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for, among other reasons, not including any protection for conscientious objection. Will doctors be forced in one way or another to comply with euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide?
At least one doctor has already resigned rather than kowtow to a totalitarian government. Dr. Nancy Naylor has practiced family medicine, including palliative care, for 37 years. Writing in the Canadian Family Physician, despite her preference to continue her work, she has decided to withdraw from the field because, as she states, “I will not be told that I must go against my moral conscience to provide standard of care.”
Will there be more to follow in her footsteps?
It is ironic that conscience played such an important role for women who wanted an abortion and for doctors who were willing to perform them, while it is being negated for those whose moral conscience is formed in the interest of providing care for people. How did this inversion of moral values come about?
When abortion is regarded as a right, which is an egregious misunderstanding of a right, its correlative — duty — also undergoes a drastic change. A sick patient has a right to medical care. Concomitantly, health-care workers have a duty to provide that patient with care. Rights and duties go hand in hand. When abortion, which is killing an innocent unborn child, is regarded as a “right,” then “duty” becomes the obligation to do something that is wrong. Those who regard abortion as a “right,” therefore, regard performing an abortion as a “duty.”
Because of this inversion of moral values, conscience itself undergoes a radical reshaping. If abortion is a “right” and also something that is “good,” conscientious objection suddenly appears to be wrongheaded.
Dr. Naylor is fully justified in refusing to sub-serve a travesty. Abortion is not a “right” nor is there a right to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The moral order is organic. One area that is misunderstood leads to another area being misunderstood. A wrong notion of rights leads inevitably to a wrong notion of duty. As the witches in Macbeth proclaim: “Fair is foul, and foul is fair.”
There is an additional reason for this inversion of moral values. It is assumed that the patient who is the candidate for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is “autonomous.” This assumption, of course, is pure fiction. A human being does not choose to be born or choose injury, discomfort, or disease. He is mortal, finite, and highly dependent on others. In fact, he would not be in a position to request death if he were autonomous.
But in a fictionalized world of medicine, the “autonomous” patient demands the cooperation of the physician. In other words, the patient would not be autonomous if a doctor refused to consent to his autonomy and obey his commands. Yet, the doctor has every right to say, “I will not allow either myself or my profession to be subservient to a fiction.” If the patient is “autonomous,” then the physician is degraded to an automaton! As one doctor said, with regard to what he felt was his obligatory role in performing abortions, “I am just a technician wielding a curette.”
If we do not understand what words truly mean, then we are at risk in failing to do what is right. Abortion is not a “right.” An individual is not “autonomous.” Killing a patient, even legally, is not an act that has “dignity.” “Choice” is not self-justifying. Much of contemporary bioethics is mounted on a misunderstanding of what words really mean.
To cite Professor Oderberg once more:
“People must never cease to demonstrate, both in academic publications and in the media, the shallow and fallacious thinking that permeates so much of what bioethicists write and say….Its boosters and spin doctors march through the media and the journals virtually unscathed. To do something concrete about this requires action, imaginative thinking, and direct engagement. Perhaps it is too late to turn back the tide. But it is never too late to try.”
+ + +
(Dr. Donald DeMarco is professor emeritus, St. Jerome’s University; an adjunct professor, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; a senior fellow, Human Life International; regular columnist for St. Austin Review. He has authored 28 books. His latest book is In Praise of Life [available through Amazon.com]. Some of his recent writings are posted on “Truth and Charity Forum.”)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress