Here's my quickly put together synopsis of the debate.
Singer went first and mapped out
what we already know about his positions. He separated his position on
"euthenasia" for infants in general vs. "euthenasia" for disabled
infants. He
backtracked and said the term "defective infants" was from earlier
versions of
"Practical Ethics" and last night he used the term "disabled infants" as
a newer
term. He implicitly assumed that those are synonymous concepts. I
took notes so here's the scoop.
Singer made the following basic points: 1) newborns are not "persons"
because they
haven't developed rationality, self awareness, etc. 2) having
potential for
developing these things (as in being a newborn human) " isn't enough
justification
to protect a class of beings against euthenasia" (these were his exact
words) 3)
parents should be the ones to determine when to "allow a newborn to die"
and
should do so in concert with doctors 4) parents should be well informed
in this
decision and should bring in dis. organizations to inform them (this is
his
response to the dis. activists).
Adrienne said she agreed with Singer on one account: that his views are
not outside the
mainstream. (This was a claim he made in his statement.) Adrienne's
response was
that "there's a penchant for people to like a bad guy..." and she went
on to say
that Singer wasn't the bad guy. He isn't a "monster" she said, "if
there's a
monster, it is not Peter Singer but the views that he holds." She
proceeded to debunk his facts and premises by responding on several
accounts including that: 1) you can't
calculate happiness and value based on one
characteristic of a person (e.g. disability) 2) his presumptions are
based on
myths about disability and disabled people (she mentioned several
examples, all ones often used in disability studies) 3) and that it's
social conditions that create poor
outcomes/quality of life for disabled people, not something intrinsic to
the
individual. This was an important point because Singer kept using
distinctions
between extrinsic and intrinsic. E.g., if a newborn has disability,
that's an
intrinsic trait that allows euthenasia but if a newborn's family wants
the baby "in
spite" of disability, that's an extrinsic situation that he allows for
as long as the consequences are happiness for the parents. I though
this line of argument was weak but then, I've always questioned this
line from utilitarians.
Overall, it was clear to me that Singer operates from two antithetical
frameworks
than do his opponents in the disability community. First, he adheres to
utilitarianism, which does not allow for broad social value judgements
without taking measures of "happiness"
into account. Second, he doesn't recognize his need to question his
assumptions, particularly those about disability.
My reading of his statements is that his assumptions range from
definitions of
happiness to strongly held and widespread myths about life with
disability and
parental rights to "choose" life or death for a disabled newborn.
Interestingly, he came out against euthenasia for disabled children and
adults based on their disabilities alone. His claim was that they have
the same rights as other "persons" (i.e. self aware beings). The one
sticking point here is that he wasn't clear whether he considered
"severely cognitively disabled" (his term) people to be persons.
His talk was full of disability myths. Of course, I already mentioned
the deficit
model from which he operates. One that bothered me in particular was
his use of
"evidence" at birth to help parents make euthenasia decisions. Several
times he
argued that parents can only use the evidence available to them (i.e.
what they
see at birth or before birth and what they "know" about the prognosis
for what they
see). Even when Adrienne pointed his fallacious argument out to him, he
didn't
"get" it...he never recognized that he needs to question his notions of
"evidence," "knowing something," and being able to "predict" outcomes
based on
diagnoses of conditions in a fetus or newborn. He seems to think that
evidence
and knowing remain constant in all situations and contexts. He doesn't
have
enough knowledge about disability to understand that what we see when we
look at a
visibly disabled person (his idea of evidence) isn't necessarily what is
there. Futhermore, his notions of intrinsic and extrinsic break down
here and Adrienne attempted to illuminate this. For example, he argued
that disability is an intrinsic thing, therefore what is seen when one
looks at a disabled newborn is, in fact, an intrinsic deficit. Of
course, Adrienne's counter was that this was not, in fact, what is
necessarily seen. Rather, she argued, the disability is an extrinsic
thing, resulting from social conditions.
Singer is so far from the disability studies community that arguing the
distinctions between disability and impairment are probably useless at
this time.
The age old disability hierarchy was in play last night, too. Singer
definitely
devalues "severely cognitively disabled" infants. My reading of his
argument is that he's quite comfortable allowing
them to die. I'm not sure he even believes these individuals can
develop a sense
of self awareness. Here, too, he doesn't question the "evidence" he
imagines when
"viewing" such a person...he assumes that because he sees no
recognizable signs of
self awareness (e.g. the ability to talk aloud about the self), there is
no self
awareness.
This leads to one of his last distinctions, and one that I'm glad he
made because
it gives me exactly the "hook" I've been looking for to make my
aesthetic of
disability more practical. He talked about the difference between
biological
lives and biographical lives. This comes from someone else's research
but I
didn't catch the name. A biological life is one that goes through life
stages,
including birth and death, but that being doesn't "write" its own
biography, doesn't
even recognize itself in order to write a biography. Thereforme,
killing a biological life is
sometimes ethical. The biographical life, on the contrary, is one that
is
constantly being written, shaped, a text that is in construction (how
discursive
of him). If that life is killed, a biographical being is destroyed
before the
text is completed. That, he claims, is unethical. My reading of this
example and his larger argument is that severely cognitively disabled
people (his
phrase) are in the biological life category, not the biographical. What
a sad,
misconception!
Well, enough said. Adrienne held her own and called Singer on some
issues. He, too, called her on the issue of eating animals and anima
rights and she graciously recognized
her need to think through those matters more carefully. He did not,
however, recognize a
need to think through his arguments more carefully.
Oh, Singer used a tactic that I thought was a bit inappropriate. In his
first statement, he read two excerpts from letters he's received
from parents of children with "severe disabilities." Both parents
agreed with him
and encouraged him to keep speaking out. They're stories were
typical: they
wished the doctors hadn't saved their children after birth, they don't
feel
adequate to raise their children, they regret having them, etc.
Adrienne pointed out this tactic as a tactic and argued that,
indeed, those parents probably shouldn't be raising those children but
that
doesn't mean they shouldn't be born or shouldn't be allowed to live.
There were no surprises last night. Singer was extremely well spoken
and
probably came across as highly informed. That really stings, given his
misunderstandings.
Do others who watched have any different observations or contrasting
responses? Susan Gabel, PhD, University of Michigan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
