“Viable” People
On January 28 in the British House of Lords, Baroness Molly Meacher, in the discussion surrounding the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, described how she knew of two tiny children, born at 25 weeks with very severe cerebral palsy. The two children cannot breathe naturally, and will never talk. According the Baroness Meacher, "they lie on their backs and can do nothing." Baroness Meacher states that such children are not "viable people" and that "it would be in their best interests to have been aborted."
I certainly don’t want to romanticize the condition of those disabled, and suppose that their current state is somehow preferred to one where they could enjoy aspects of the freedom that those not disabled can, however, since this is not the first time such a conversation has come up, I would like to appeal once again to the unique value that those disabled possess, a value that is not always known by those who see them from a distance, as well as wonder out loud, what kind of society we would possess if there were no such people "to draw out levels of compassion in us, that we might not otherwise have known we had."
K.
In light of the fact that I am the most long-winded blogger I know, note that two entries in a row have been considerably short. Some of the background of this post can be found in more detail in entries such as The ‘Disabled, and Forcing Abortion.
If one believes that people are simply a part of existence, then discussion regarding the value of a life may be needful to determine whether or not to kill those that appear to be unable to contribute.
The other side of this discussion is, however, that all people are created in the image of God, born with immortal souls that are also accountable to our Creator. And that, as Creator, only God has the right to give life and to bring death upon life.
Comment by Robin — February 17, 2008 @ 8:19 am
I think the real issue is whether or not the society at large will take upon itself the care for severely handicapped children or not. It can’t be the parents alone who shoulder the burden of caring for these children. If one wishes to see less abortions take place, & I presume that most people do, than the society at large needs to step up to the plate in giving free state care for these handicapped children.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — February 17, 2008 @ 10:44 am
While I do not take the position that abortion should be illegal, I find morally repugnant the conclusion that it would have been in the best interest of these children to have been aborted.
I have been blessed to know several people with very severe diabilities and am thankful that they have been part of my life, and I have talked with parents who, far from wishing that their disabled child had not been born, are tankful for the blessing that the child has been.
While the discussion of how the wider community can help parents is an important one, Baroness Meacher’s commenst were not at all helpful and she might have been wiser to keep her initial promise to colleagues and not participate in the debate. I hope she has had time to reflect on her comments and realize how little wisdom they contained.
Comment by Daniel Weir — February 17, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Thanks for your comments people. I have a few comments and I’ll start in reverse:
Father Dan, I am glad you recognize that there is no disconnect between not wanting abortion to be criminalized and finding the views of Baroness Meacher as being “morally repugnant.” I agree that in her case she should have kept to her original promise to keep out of the debate, and although I do not think her comments were maliciously intended, that just shows how little motives affect the implications of one’s words. (Affect or Effect?)
I appreciate your comments about your own experiences with those disabled, and wish to add those experiences to my own and extend them to Robin’s comment. Robin, you speak of a more humanist approach to human life, one not necessarily bound by a belief in the divine origin of created beings, and you suggest that in such a context it might not be surprising that a conversation about the worth of those disabled might come up. I would suggest that the Baroness’ comments regarding the contribution that those two twins have on those around them is rather short-sighted, because as I said before those disabled have the potential to enrich the lives of those around them, and to desire for a society without them, would diminish qualities essential to what makes us human. Just to quote Margaret Somerville, whom I believe is right on this matter, society “will lose lessons in courage, perseverance, balance and acceptance,” and society’s capacity to be humble will be reduced, as will its empathy, compassion, and acceptance of difference.
Andreas, I agree that those disabled are to be cared for (precisely how [financing] is a matter of discussion) but I want to maintain that while in one sense this discussion is about our obligations to those disabled, in another its about how we are enriched by those around us, particularly those different. Jean Vanier when he opened his house to several men with disabilities originally thought that this was his opportunity to do good for others. At the time he did not realize that the relationship was reciprocal: That those he welcomed into his home did good to him as well, and that they enriched his life. This is what I find difficult about the attitudes of Gifford-Jones, or Baroness Meacher for they only see the relationship with those most vulnerable as one-sided.
K.
Comment by K. — February 17, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
I think it is selfish to consider how one’s existence is a blessing in our life, while that person greatly suffers and may not even be able to appreciate their own existence, never the less the company that is kept. In the case of a mother choosing to abort her child knowing that the childs life would be a constant struggle, or a half-life even, i could never judge her.
My girlfriend at a particular juncture in life became pregnant and we faced such a decision… i was adamant that we have the child regardless of what disabilities the child would have, but ultimately i realized i was thinking only of my own heart while she was thinking only of the misfortunes the child would suffer during his/her short life.
Comment by Greg — February 17, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
Greg, the charge of selfishness is really one I would prefer to avoid. Perhaps it’s accurate, but I certainly hope not. I want to make clear that I don’t see those disabled serving some sort of utilitarian purpose, however I do want to maintain that instead of always speaking of what we can do for them, and supposing that our relationship with those disabled is one-sided, we should reorient our perspective and recognize the good that those disabled to do us.
Now, having said that, why does the existence of suffering in someone’s life, or the fact that those observing the suffering of others might be unaware of whether the sufferer appreciates his/her own existence, why does that suddenly subordinate such a person’s right to life, to another person’s desire to dispose of them in the name of mercy?
Also, I am not judging mother’s facing difficult decisions, nor am I suggesting that the life of those disabled be romanticized, but we are talking about other people attaching a value to those disabled that has to do with their visible contribution to society, and I am saying that there is more to such a contribution than simply an economic one.
K.
Comment by K. — February 18, 2008 @ 6:19 pm