Erik is justified in reacting to an issue that he feels passionately about.
However, my posting was not in any way meant to suggest that in some way
Singer's approach was more or less value-driven than those who hold an
opposing view. I do not subscribe to his point of view. But I still
maintain that he, and those in Australia (cf. Anne Wansborough from the
Uniting Church in "Australian Disability Review" 96-2) who recognise the
current situation of unregulated killings, have set about to debate the
practice. This means moving beyond (but not retreating from) the moral
dimension.
Yes, I did characterise the debate as the good old Christian, moral
majority against the "forces of evil", as this is exactly how the
pro-lifers and anti-euthansia lobby wnated to play it. The gut-wrenching
ethical dilemmas that Erik is no doubt sincere about were not allowed to
surface during the debate. Somehow, topics like this have to be sanitised
before they come into the public arena, as we are not mature enough to deal
with it (cf. much of Wolfensberger's work, which I can at a pinch cite
directly if you require - especially the article in which he says that
these issues should not be discussed at all).
I do not subscribe to Singer's beliefs. I am just saying that he was
prepared to put his beliefs on the table, and argue from the moral
standpoint through to practice. Those who oppose him do not tend to get
down and dirty in the grimy world of real practice.
Michael Bleasdale
At 15:58 8/07/99 +0800, you wrote:
>At 12:11 8/07/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Singer has attempted to place some ethical
>>considerations around the potential for regulations on these activities
>>that will always occur.
>
>I think this is sanitising Peter Singer's work. He actually did much more
>than point out the present situation he also outlined who can be considered
>persons and whom not (eg some people with intellectual disabilities) and
>what claim to life they may consequently have for instance.
>
> The euthanasia debate in Australia, which resulted
>>in the overturning of legilsation in the Northern Territory that made
>>assisted killings legal, seemed to be a triumph of one morally courageous
>>side against the "forces of evil".
>
>It is one thing to be "morally courageous" but it does not necessarily
>mean that one is right. Painting those opposing euthanasia as the "forces
>of evil" (even if in quotation marks!)and others as brave does a
>disservice to the sincerely held beliefs and the many arguments given on
>either 'side' by individuals and groups.
>
> In fact it just left us with the same
>>situation as before - people are killed and babies are aborted, but we are
>>too gutless to address any code of conduct around these happenings.
>>
>Again, it may not be so much a matter of being 'gutless'- most people from
>all angles of the debate are engaging in gutwrenching self-examination of
>values -
>and not so much a matter of addressing a 'code of conduct', legally
>enshrining the present situation however one sees that, but reflecting on
>what kind of society we want and what sort of practices, allocation of
>resources and legislation this requires.
>
>>I do not agree with the lines in the sand that Singer has drawn in his
>>efforts to establish a code of ethics, but do support the fact that he has
>>tried. Maybe we need to try, in recognition of the fact that what we find
>>repulsive - that people with disabilities are killed because of their
>>impairments - does happen and will continue to happen.
>>
>So do we put a 'code of ethics' on an existing situation (many do not like)
>or do we seek to (first) honestly identify and address some underlying
>problems ?
>
>Erik Leipoldt
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
