We have discussed the Baby Joseph futile care case here. He is the baby who a Canadian hospital wanted to force off life support against the parents will and whose parents want a tracheotomy to help him live longer and at home. The impasse was resolved when the parents were able to move him to a St. Louis hospital.
Well, now Peter Singer has come out against the parents. From his column in the NY Daily News calling continuing care of Joseph “Deeply Misguided: “
Joseph’s parents, who have previously had another child who died from the same disease, objected to the removal of the breathing tube. Instead they wanted an operation performed that would cut a hole in the child’s neck, so that a breathing tube could be inserted in it and kept permanently in place. Joseph’s doctors refused to do this. They acknowledged that the operation might prolong Joseph’s life, but said it would not improve his well-being. A Canadian tribunal agreed with the doctors, giving them permission to remove the breathing tube. Then Priests for Life, a Catholic -abortion and anti-euthanasia organization stepped in, chartering an air ambulance to fly Joseph from Canada to Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center, a Catholic hospital, in St. Louis, which will perform the operation the parents requested.
“We Rescued Baby Joseph!” says a page on the Priests for Life website. The organization’s director, the Rev. Frank Pavone, says he has been told that it could cost as much as $150,000 for Joseph’s stay in the pediatric intensive care unit. That doesn’t include the cost of the aircraft, which would have added thousands more to the bill. Priests for Life is, of course, asking its supporters to donate to pay these costs.
Here’s the irony. According to the most rigorous charity evaluation agency in the country, GiveWell.org, you can save a child’s life for about $1,000. All you have to do is give the money to their top-rated charity, Village Reach, which delivers vaccines and other urgently needed medical supplies to rural areas in developing countries. If Priests for Life were really serious about saving lives, instead of “rescuing” Joseph so he can live another few months lying in bed, unable to experience the normal joys of childhood, let alone become an adult, they could have used the money they have raised to save 150 lives – most of them children who would have gone on to live healthy, happy lives for 50 years or more.
Yet, this is the same Peter Singer who says that parents should be able to have their disabled babies killed.
So, we see the real utilitarian agenda here. And we see the hollowness of Singer’s “preference” approach to utilitarian decision making. It isn’t parental empowerment. It isn’t family intimate decision making. Their “preferences” don’t matter in a futile care imposition. In other words, the consistent through line of Singer’s approaches is the death of disabled infants.
We don’t have to choose between caring for profoundly disabled individuals and helping children who can lead “healthy, happy lives.” In fact, such thinking reveals the profoundly bigoted heart that lurks within the passive prose of Singer’s utilitarian advocacy.
March 18th, 2011 | 5:57 pm
Scoundrel. Knave. Miscreant. Fiend. Sower of Iniquity. Evil. Bigot. Villain. Rogue. Reprobate. Wretch. Megalomaniac. See, I called Peter Singer all those names, and I didn’t even have to swear! :D
March 18th, 2011 | 7:14 pm
“In fact, such thinking reveals the profoundly bigoted heart that lurks within the passive prose of Singer’s utilitarian advocacy.”
Aw, Wesley, don’t say such mean things about HW, I mean, Singer. :D
March 18th, 2011 | 8:42 pm
You’ll kill this one . . .
Singer is an ass. First name? Jack.
March 18th, 2011 | 9:37 pm
Someday this man will be sick. Or he will be in trouble. Or he will be faced with his Maker. And Karma will catch up with him.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Safepres: Or mercy.
March 18th, 2011 | 10:48 pm
In cases such as this, should the parents’ wishes be inviolate? Should physicians be allowed to refuse to administer treatment they consider unethical?
What if, rather than St. Louis, Fr. Pavone has to take the next baby to India to find surgeons to perform the surgery? At what point does the expertise and experience of the medical community get taken into consideration?
Does anyone know how the surgery went? Or how baby Joseph is doing now?
March 18th, 2011 | 11:06 pm
Yes, a truckload of mercy.
March 19th, 2011 | 12:07 am
Jeffery
Be sure not to let your compassion for the child show through.
Heaven forbid you pro-deathers might be wrong!
March 19th, 2011 | 12:07 am
Ooops . . . sorry.
Is Heaven in your lexicon?
Jeffery Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 8:04 am
@jb, Heavens to Betsy, attack me, rather than address the issues.
We have the technological capabilities to keep a person “alive” indefinitely. We can oxygenate the blood, pump it around the body, dialyze it, keeping cells relatively happy. Why should we ever stop?
How is baby Joseph doing today?
In fact, he is in the hospital here in St. Louis, still no tracheotomy, just as he was in Canada. According to the hospital “a team of doctors is still evaluating the 14-month-old”. What if they decide, as did teams of doctors in Canada, and teams of doctors throughout the US, that the surgery is futile, where will the publicity hound, Fr. Pavone, take baby Joseph next?
Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/Baby+Joseph+undergo+surgery/4469887/story.html#ixzz1H39J71Wf
March 19th, 2011 | 3:44 am
I’m curious what Singer thinks the alternative should be: should the medical staff activly kill baby Joseph, for “his own good”, or just let him starve to death, or die of thirst? It either has to be actively done, or passively done, and both hardly strike me as “compassionate”.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Bret: Singer would inject him. He has supported non voluntary euthanasia of non persons in the past. Kevorkian said the same thing. Both would think it okay to make objective use of the patient before death, I would think. Singer because of personhood. Kevorkian, because he posited a very strident utilitarianism with which he sought to explore his own death obsession, as in medical experimentation on those he was euthanizing.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, The notion that, a person with severe disabilities, can be “permissibly killed”, is profoundly disturbing. You’re right that it’s a false choice between helping baby Joseph and helping “healthy” children. We can help both groups.
March 19th, 2011 | 7:11 am
Dr. Singer’s missive misrepresents Joseph’s clinical condition. Joseph does have purposeful movement, he breathes on his own and he is not having seizures. Not sure how Dr. Singer knows Joseph’s had has not grown in three months but if that is the case, we better get busy, there are a lot of disabled children we need to consider for termination. A second opinion was received from Toronto. It was done electronically. Doctors from Toronto never examined Joseph. They returned judgment via email and fax. Doubtful this is the kind of second opinion Dr. Singer would ever be interested in.
Dr. Singer’s stance is far worse than a bias against disabled children. He has a bias against any infant or adult unless they are in a state of “consciousness”. We should be grateful we have Dr. Singer here to instruct us that infants, until sometime in their first year of life, “are sentient beings who are neither rational nor self- conscious. So if we turn to consider the infants in themselves, independently of the attitudes of their parents, since their species is not relevant to their moral status, the principles that govern the wrongness of killing non-human animals who are sentient but not rational or self-conscious must apply here too.”
(From Taking Life: Humans by Peter Singer
Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217)
This might be shocking to speciesists, but we should be grateful that we have Dr. Singer in our midst, and useful tools like Jeffrey. Dr. Singer’s mission is to subvert and erode any claim of unique value we place on human life. To him, an infant before it reaches the epiphany of consciousness is nothing more than an animal. According to a good friend of Dr. Singer’s, Dr. John Harris, “If they cannot wish to live they cannot have that wish frustrated by killing them.”
Honestly I don’t know how Dr. Singer tolerates the rest of us. When one has reached his stage, and evolved beyond accepting unique value in the human species…When one has thrown off the chains of speciesism, it is abundantly clear that there are many human animals occupying space that need to be dispatched. Baby Joseph meets Singer’s and Harris’ criteria.
It is laughable that Dr. Singer suggests that funds provided for Joseph’s care should be diverted for the care of 150 children in rural areas of developing countries who for $1000 each “would have gone on to live healthy, happy lives for 50 years or more.” How has Dr. Singer decided that children born into poverty in Malawi and Senegal will go on to live a healthy and “happy” life of 50 years!
Pay attention to Dr. Singer’s use of the word “happy.” “Happy”, as trivial as it may seem, is his raison d’être for all of us…er, well for society, and oh yes, you, if he and his friends judge you are “happy.” Happiness justifies existence. Suffering, in any way shape, or form becomes a potential “Get out of Life” card for those who are willing to take it. It may also be a card that will be forced upon you, even if it is not desired.
So if those 150 children in Senegal are now “happy”, Dr. Singer sleeps at night. Joseph will “suffer” through a surgery. He might develop complications which cause his breathing to stop, or his interactions with his family to end. The infant in Malawi faces disease, famine and civil unrest. What allows Dr. Singer to judge this will be 50 years of a happy life while Joseph’s life will be months (denying it could be longer) without joy? Why is living in such a dreadful place as Malawi presumed to afford happiness Dr. Singer, while Joseph at home with a stable breathing tube, living with his family, will be suffering?
No matter, I have a solution. It will not please Dr. Singer initially but it seems it should get us all what we desire. Dr. Singer would call it medieval, but it is actually the Judeo-Christian tradition which has its roots well before medieval periods. Let’s assume intrinsic human value and that we love human beings, not preferred states of being. Priests for Life has anted up to support the intrinsic value of Joseph’s life, disabled as it might be. Let’s ask Dr. Singer to step up and support 150 “happy” lives in Malawi. Dr. Singer has written in the NYT (1999), “An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit economic research organization. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world’s poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.”
Praise God for the American capitalism Dr. Singer so despises. He owns a Princeton home and a Manhattan apartment. He is paid as a full Princeton Professor and draws income from a trust fund that his father set up and from the sales of his books. In 2000 he said he gives away 20 percent of his income to famine relief organizations, but he is certainly living on a sum far beyond $30,000. When asked about this in a 2000 Reason Magazine interview “he forthrightly admitted that he was not living up to his own standards.”
Well, perhaps Dr. Singer will not be so supportive of those 150 children in Malawi after all. It is beside the point. Dr. Singer sets up an absurd Malawi strawman he truly does not support. On Dr. Singer’s “happiness calculator”, if he is honest, Malawian children score as low as Baby Joseph. He just can’t say it. All the feigned sympathy for poverty and the poor is pure cover for Dr. Singer’s unabashed and cold-hearted utilitarianism. The proof is in the pudding. Dr. Singer admits his faiure to meet what he has determined are his expectations for the rest of us.
The utilitarians, CS Lewis called them “men without chests”, unfettered by traditional morality, religion and the Tao, are themselves ultimately slaves of the animalisitic pursuit of happiness…for themselves. They have fully and wholly returned to nature. They can become nothing but tyrants in this self-appointed role and they have no regard for the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness for the individual. They operationalize their own perverse biases through a blitzkrieg for societal “good” and goosestep under the banner of an end to “suffering.”
If we are to remain moral beings and a humane society, we must preserve the value of human dignity. Priests for Life and Village Reach are both to be applauded in these efforts. I cannot guess how long Joseph’s life may be. It will likely be short, but short could be months or years. His life will be filled with joy as well as tears. The Malawian child’s life is also uncertain, and likely will be filled with “happiness” as well as bucketfuls of tears. I pray that Dr. Singer will be able to muster the hope for Joseph that he has for the happiness of the Malawian children. On second thought…
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Quaere: Peter Singer is a professor, not a doctor. He has a master’s, not a Ph.D.
Singer is explicitly out to destroy the Judeo/Christian ethic, which he calls in a state of collapse in Rethinking Life and Death. It is a collapse in the same way a building is that is being hit be a wrecking ball.
I am aware of his personhood arguments. And once we begin to distinguish between human persons and non persons, what is to stop us from distinguishing between ubber persons and unter persons? Nothing, because human exceptionalism has been destroyed and those with the power will decide who matters more and less, who can exploit and who can be exploited.
March 19th, 2011 | 7:45 am
OK, now that everyone has got off beating Peter Singer, can we get back to serious discussion?
March 19th, 2011 | 12:08 pm
QV,
Spare us your false concern for the welfare of this baby and his family.
Yikes. Namecalling? How useful. You seem to be such a pathetic hate-filled wretch.
Although Singer is a provocateur and is wrong on many things, I was under the impression that pavone had moved baby Joseph to a top-flight childrens hospital here in St. Louis, where the doctors will do as the parents instruct.
So why are you radicals still so angry? You’ve won. Baby Joseph is saved.
It doesn’t sound as if Singer is your problem; rather it sounds as if you need to convince the entire medical establishment to adopt your minority view.
You DO understand that is unlikely to happen, right, so I recommend you choose high profile cases like Terri Schiavo and baby Joseph to publicize and politicize, align yourselves with a major US political party, and try to get your minority policies institutionalized using raw political power. But you’ve thought of that, haven’t you?
March 19th, 2011 | 12:47 pm
Shame on the Catholic Church and shame on pavone for using this baby to further his agenda and for outright LYING!
Rescued in the cover of darkness. Lies, lies, lies. pavone, head to confession, you need it!
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
VS: He didn’t kidnap the baby. He helped the parents. And you need to document your charges, not just scream them.
Quaere Verum Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
@VS,
Father Pavone’s agenda is preserving respect for the value of individual life. Yes, pretty nefarious stuff.
Joseph was assigned a state of “hopeless” by London and was facing extubation and death. His parents had their parental authority to make decisions abrogated and they were denied a second opinion. Sick Kids in Toronto offered input but they never saw Joseph. Sorry, there is no such thing as an electronic second opinion in a life and death case. This alone should make everyone cringe and question the Canadian motivation.
Priests For Life supported Joseph’s transfer and is paying for his care. Father Pavone generated the international interest that allowed pressure to be brought on London. His rallying cry to those troubled by the usurpation of parental authority and indifference to the value of a severely disabled life led to thousands of calls/emails flooding London Health Sciences Center. This led to London finally agreeing to transfer Joseph on a Sunday night after keeping a transport team waiting for 2 days. It was Father Pavone who flew to London and led the transport team in its flight to St. Louis.
So what exactly is Father Pavone lying about?
March 19th, 2011 | 1:13 pm
Jeffrey…every center contacted in the US felt that to adhere to the parents wishes was reasonable. So its not clear which “entire medical establishment” you are talking about? Feel free to deny my information related to this story, but truthfully the only folks who need convincing are the masters of the Canadian healthcare system.
I suspect you object to being called a tool Jeffrey. Being a tool is a good thing. In my case, I do my best to be a tool for the Lord. Forgive me if it seemed that you were parroting the philosophy of Professor Singer (a thousand pardons WS). It may not have been your intention but no doubt Professor Singer would see you as a useful tool.
When did valuing the unique life of every individual become categorized as “minority policies.” It would do you well Jeffrey to consider what you are sacrificing as you enthusiastically accept the role of a “man without a chest.” It may be beyond your ability to perform such analysis at this point but what you welcome is the abolition of yourself, and man.
Jeffery Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
@Quaere Verum, You are not being truthful.
Further, you’ve constructed the strawman argument that others are not concerned about life because they disagree with your radical minority views.
You may view yourself as a tool of the Lord, but you appear to be a tool of forces that misinterpret and misrepresent His message for political gain.
Quaere Verum Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
@Jeffery, What is not truthful?
Jeffery Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
@Quaere Verum, For starters, you typed: “every center contacted in the US felt that to adhere to the parents wishes was reasonable”
This is only one of several unsubstantiated claims that you are presenting as fact.
In fact, until you substantiate any of your claims why are we not to believe them to be false?
March 19th, 2011 | 1:27 pm
As usual, we see that you don’t understand Singers’ ideas. It’s a bit embarassing, but most of your “readersheep” agrees with you, so I suppose you’re doing a good job.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
As usual, in the face of such criticisms, I would posit I understand his ideas all too well. I see past the delightful accent and the passive prose (for example saying “start again” instead of “kill the Down baby,” in one of his books. Singer believes in a quality of life utilitarianism, and that moral value comes from possessing personhood, such as being self aware over time.
March 19th, 2011 | 2:39 pm
” The entire medical establishment agrees” argument explains so much in terms of how human rights violations are allowed to not only happen, but get out of control.
Remember it next time you hear the question “how could this have happened?”
March 19th, 2011 | 6:52 pm
It’s amazing how much G.K. Chesterton foresaw:
“They have lives!” said Turnbull, sternly; “that is quite enough for me. I understood you to say that you thought life sacred.”
“Yes, indeed!” cried his mentor with a sort of idealistic animation. “Yes, indeed! Life is sacred—but lives are not sacred. We are improving Life by removing lives. Can you, as a free-thinker, find any fault in that?”
“…Yet you applaud tyrannicide,” said the stranger with rationalistic gaiety. “How inconsistent! It really comes to this: You approve of taking away life from those to whom it is a triumph and a pleasure. But you will not take away life from those to whom it is a burden and a toil.”
“…Life, yes, Life is indeed sacred!” he cried; “but new lives for old! Good lives for bad! On that very place where now there sprawls one drunken wastrel of a pavement artist more or less wishing he were dead—on that very spot there shall in the future be living pictures; there shall be golden girls and boys leaping in the sun.”
From “The Ball and the Cross,” one of my favorite books.
March 19th, 2011 | 10:45 pm
I’m just curious, would anyone like to respond to Singer’s actual argument?
Why isn’t priests for life raising $150,000 to save babies’ lives in other contexts? Is that evidence of their bigotry?
Why engage in name-calling at all? How about actually responding to the argument given?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Charlie: Priests for Life can respond on its own, but it does a lot of various activities to save lives. Singer is saying that it should have spent the money on healthy children instead of this one. That’s not only a false distinction, but the point is to say this child has less value because he is terminally ill. That is odious.
Charlie Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Wesley, why won’t you be fair (if not charitable) to your opponent? He’s arguing that its a massive waste of resources to spend $150,000 on a singe child (who will likely not see adulthood) when one could save 150 children if one spent the money differently. Singer thinks we should have spent the money differently. What do you say?
Can you actually respond to that argument without resorting to a personal attack?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
I don’t make personal attacks. I quoted the man. He has said parents should be able to have disabled babies killed. He has said that the hospital should have been able to impose futile care on this family and that Priests for Life should have spent their money on healthy children instead of a dying one. That’s bigotry any way you look at it, which is what utilitarianism always turns into. See eugenics.
Charlie Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
OK, Wesley, since you won’t attempt to be fair to his central argument–and will apparently continue to distract with those issues surrounding it–let me just ask you directly to answer only the following question. Leaving aside quality of life considerations, do you think you should spend $150,000 on saving one child who will likely not live past childhood, or on saving 150 other children the vast majority of whom will live to be adults?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
That’s a false dichotomy. I think people should support those who they think best. Once that door is opened, it would never end. Let me see who you give to and I’ll judge whether you should have given to another cause.
It is also the kind of argument made by those who want to dispose of those with the least “quality of life.” It is bigoted. And immoral, as utilitarianism is. Why should you live when your organs could save 10 people?
Charlie Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 12:41 am
So you’re a relativist with regard to the question of whether one has a moral obligation to save either one child or 150 children? Interesting.
(FYI, I’m just going to ignore the attempts at distraction involving consideration of to whom I give and also the other kinds of arguments that are sometimes given by those who make the argument I asked you to consider.)
Jeffery Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
@Charlie, 150 dying babies is a statistic, 1 dying baby is a tragedy and a fundraising opportunity.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 19th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
I know Fr. Pavone. Fund raising was not what this was about for him. Easy to throw darts from the anonymous Peanut Gallery.
Jeffery Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 8:30 am
@Wesley J. Smith, It’s easy to throw darts from anywhere, it seems to me.
Frank Pavone is political. His cause is political. He is a fundraiser for his organization.
Your concept that societies have unlimiited resources to devote to medical care is puzzling, and the inablilty of even the most ardent proponents of Pavone’s position to explain (or even attempt to explain) the guiding principles at stake here is troubling.
Someone, anyone… Are there any limits to keeping a body “alive”?
Should physicans perform any and all procedures requested by the family?
Dblade Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:50 am
@Jeffery,
Peter Singer for all his utillitarian philosophy doesn’t care about people very much, because he wouldn’t be seeing a false dilemma: he would be busy raising money to help the 150. That’s because both of these are good, and the response is not to berate the father for helping who he can, but to inspire the rest of us to also help.
The problem is why I quoted chesterton: most utilitarian philosophers see people as ideas in fulfilment to a larger idea. Life as opposed to lives. People only exist in sufferance to an idea. In singer’s case, it’s maximizing Life by quantity. It has nothing to do with the actual healing and helping small “l” lives.
Once you view people in terms of an Idea, they become dehumanized. In favor of Life you would cheerfully advocated the killing of someone’s grandmother. But not your own, because the reality of her existing banishes the idea. This is why Singer talks crap about alzheimer patients but does all he can to help his own mother. This is why a faceless 150 is easier to argue for than one you see.
It’s annoying how this persists, because no singer advocate really believes in it. If it were your child, would you pull the plug on him just so you could spend the money on others?
Jill Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I think @Jeffery makes a good point:
“Your concept that societies have unlimiited resources to devote to medical care is puzzling.”
Now I haven’t done the math, but I don’t think the world has unlimited medical resources either. Prioritization has to be done: we see this with vaccination shortages, when certain groups/ages are given priority to receive. On a very local level, hospitals (and military medics) regularly have to perform triage to determine who receives care first. Where is the defining line drawn between “necessary triage” and “healthcare rationing”? Should triage nurses be flipping coins instead?
Yes, people have the right to not be killed, and euthanasia should rightly be condemned, but I think it’s hard to make a case that people have a Right To Unlimited Medical Care. If people did have that right, then perhaps the government should mandate certain people to enter healtcare occupations. Or, we should mandate the current workers to work as many overtime hours as necessary so that no triage is necessary in the nation’s ERs, and no one is turned away — everyone must receive care, and receive it at equal priority.
If we all have a Right to Medical Care, including technologically advanced care, then were humanity’s rights violated in previous centuries where such technology didn’t exist? Withdrawing artificial or technology-assisted medical care is not the same as euthanasia.
March 19th, 2011 | 10:58 pm
For those actually even remotely interested in the baby:
http://www.calgarysun.com/news/canada/2011/03/11/17576481.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Baby+Joseph+undergo+surgery+Missouri+hospital/4471916/story.html?id=4471916
There are even pictures of the the baby without Frank Pavone.
March 20th, 2011 | 12:33 am
Lets not be short sighted on the issues. Those who argue that the Priest for Life should not have spent $150,000 on one baby should also question why the London hospital spent much, much more on keeping the baby in the ICU for 5 months and then incurring legal costs on bringing the case to the board and court when it would have been much, much cheaper just to trach him and send him home.
Clearly there are principles at hand and messages to send. It seems to me that the doctors are trying to say that THEY can decide what constitutes quality of life and the parents have “no right to ascribe they beliefs” on the child. The Priests for Life are saying that parents who love and treasure their child as Joeph’s parents have demonstrated DO have a right to ascribe their values.
It is a very important principle and worth far, far more than $150,000 to make.
March 20th, 2011 | 3:23 am
The reason you do not sacrifice one child and “save” others with the money not spent, is that then I and every other person with normal human responses to betrayal will wonder (if only subconsciously) whether and when I or someone I love will be “sacrificed”, once that logic is used to justify unthinkable acts.
Integrity is an either-or. Either it is intact, or it is absent.
No integrity means no trust.
No trust means no civilization: society relies on cohesive bonds, and trust is what keeps those bonds cohesive.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
@Blake, This is not really about killing one child to save others. It is about saving as many children as possible.
If one has $150,000 to spend on saving children one naturally thinks about how this money might best be utilised. Do we spend it all on saving the life of one child merely because we have read about him in the newspapers or seen his parents on television? Or do we seek out a hundred other less famous children who will die without our intervention and say to each of them “You are valuable too – even if no one writes about you.”
We shouldn’t be forced to choose. In a less imperfect world it would indeed be a false dichotomy – we would save every child. This is, needless to say, not that world. In practice we devote only some of our time and money to saving other people’s children. Peter Singer’s point is that we ought to think long and hard about how to make sure those resources are effectively utilised.
Dblade Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:42 pm
@Raven Chukwu, It’s not saying we should also look at spending money to save the many, and that we can do a lot of good doing so.
It’s saying that care should be devoted solely to people in the developing world because we can help the greatest quantity, and expensive care in the western world should be passed up and the people aborted/euthanaized/left to die.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 6:02 pm
@Dblade, Hardly. It is perfectly justifiable to spend great sums on the well-being of our loved ones even if similar sums might provide greater benefit to others in distant lands. When seeking to improve the lives of strangers, however, we should give some thought to ensuring that our interventions are as effective as possible.
A father who spends a small fortune to prolong his daughter’s life does so because she is more valuable to him than are the nameless orphans he could have otherwise helped. Father Pavone is similarly saying that Baby Joseph is more valuable to him than are the many other children who might have been helped with the same degree of effort.
You might counter that it isn’t an either/or proposition – we do not “choose” between Baby Joseph and anyone else. After all, if one were to come across a drowning man, one ought not to say “I will not help him because the energy I expend thereby could save five drowning babies”.
You would presumably point out that we ought not to refrain from doing a good deed merely because it is theoretically possible to do a better one – and you would be right. However, the case before us is rather different.
This is more like leading a group of rescuers to a sinking ship and directing them all to concentrate on saving one celebrity, while leaving a hundred other desperate drowners (who might each have been saved by a single lifeguard) to their various fates or the ministrations of others.
The response to the Baby Joseph case is a perfect example of misguided emotionalism. Fr Pavone’s intervention may make some people feel better – but it will be of very little benefit to the child himself. As Singer himself writes, “we can obsess over Joseph and Terri – or we can make an honest effort to save the lives of countless children whose names we may never know. It is our choice.”
March 20th, 2011 | 12:31 pm
It is amusing how angry those who would see a life snuffed out for all the “best” reasons become when someone does not snuff out that life forthwith. This explains for me how the eugenics movement attracted so many to it. The only remaining question for the pro-death thinker is to decide what “best” is. For pro-death Iranians in charge today hanging homosexuals is “best.” For Eichmann and his pro-death laborers gassing Jews was “best.” For Stalin’s pro-death actions millions of Ukrainians were starved. Pro-death is pro-death, and Mister Singer is just another in the long line of pro-death advocates for all his “best” criteria. Arguing in his behalf merely announces that his pro-death supporters are circling their rhetorical wagons becuase yet again the argument comes down merely to “kill” or “save” a life, with their argument being merely “kill.”
March 20th, 2011 | 1:50 pm
Blake-exactly right. It is wrong to imply that in order to save starving African children, we have to kill disabled Canadian ones. And, no one’s addressed, say, the millions of dollars that people give to animal shelters and abused animals/hurt animals each year. On animal planet, I once saw a story about Rose McGowan, star of Charmed, about her funding operations to save the lives of Boston Terriers, because she loves BTs. Should she have sent that money to Africa? I LOVE animals. Should we go and argue that everyone who gave money to the SPCA last year should have sent that money to Africa to help starving children? Why isn’t Peter Singer making THAT argument?
Answer: Because PS regards the life of a sick dog as having more value than the life of a sick African child or disabled child. All of his concern is bourne out of his own publicity campaign. Don’t listen to him.
March 20th, 2011 | 1:52 pm
Also, I have no idea what charities PFL is involved in, but I would be willing to bet money that they DO help charities that assist destitute kids in other countries.
March 20th, 2011 | 3:47 pm
How _dare_ priests for life and their donors help the _wrong_ child, a child Peter Singer would not have helped. Clearly, Peter Singer should have sole control of everybody’s charitable dollars so that they are spent only as he deems best!/sarc
Blake Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
@Lydia,
Clearly, Peter Singer should have sole control of everybody’s charitable dollars so that they are spent only as he deems best!/sarc
Now you understand what “central planning” means.
Yes, they really do want that control. Over every decision of how you – and everyone else – lives.
Raven Chukwu Reply:
March 20th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
@Blake, He’s expressing disapproval, not seeking to exert control. One may criticise how a philanthropist disburses funds without seeking to exert control over the process.
A man who claims he is “supporting literature” by giving 10 million dollars to a Nobel Prizewinning octogenarian will probably be criticised for not seeking out young and promising writers perceived to be in greater need. These comments will come mostly from critics who have no interest in actually controlling how the grants are distributed.
Father Pavone may, of course, raise funds for any cause he pleases – but if he and his donors are really interesting in alleviating suffering or “saving lives”, their money is being egregiously misspent.
Generally, other people’s actions are of interest to us. When we tell a man that he ought not to cheat on his wife or that he ought to spend more time with his children or that the money he wishes to spend on recreation drugs could be put to better use it is not because we wish to “control” him. When a course of action seems to us ethical, pragmatic or just, we encourage others to embark on it. When it seems misguided, we say so. It’s all part of being moral animals – making recommendations, criticising, saying to each other, “I know you had good intentions, but I think you made the wrong decision.”
Blake Reply:
March 21st, 2011 at 7:07 am
@Raven Chukwu,
I understand that Peter Singer is expressing an opinion, rather than exerting control.
Obviously he is not in a position to exert control.
And I think it should stay that way, which is just one reason why I oppose handing over central planning powers to people like him.
March 22nd, 2011 | 5:12 am
Just wanted to let everyone know that according to the family’s FB page, Joseph did get the tracheotomy yesterday and will hopefully be on his way home soon.
March 22nd, 2011 | 12:21 pm
[...] caring for the welfare of Baby Joseph. In any event, the child was transferred to St. Louis–upsetting Peter Singer’s authoritarian utilitarian impulses. And now, a tracheotomy has been performed–demonstrating, I think, that the Canadian [...]
March 23rd, 2011 | 1:54 am
“Peter Singer’s point is that we ought to think long and hard about how to make sure those resources are effectively utilised.”
Is it Peter “sex-with-animals-is-alright” Singer’s money by any chance? I’m pretty sure he has 150,000 in a bank somewhere, maybe he should use it to save the hypothetical 150 “potentially happy” children he talks about.
Or maybe the commenter above should put his own money on the line.
The people who voluntarily gave money to save Baby Joseph are interested in Baby Joseph’s life. If you think the resources should be used somewhere else, create your own campaign.
March 23rd, 2011 | 7:07 am
Why help this child and not 150 others? How about, because the 150 others are not being a used as a trial balloon for officially offing the untermensch?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact