The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as
the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless’d; It
blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
—William Shakespeare, “The Merchant of Venice ,” IV.1.184-187.
Maggie Smith as Portia in William Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" |
In Shakespeare’s “The
Merchant of Venice,” the judge, Portia, pleads for the plaintiff to temper his
legal claim to justice with mercy for the defendant. In a recent post,
“Abortion & Down Syndrome: An Apology for Letting Slip the Dogs of
Twitterwar,” Richard Dawkins begs mercy from “the haters,” those “who go out of
their way to find such tweets” as he posted publicly, despite his intention to
share only with “the minority of people who follow both her [a woman who had expressed her uncertainties about
aborting her child if she were to learn it would be affected by Down Syndrome]
and me.” (You can find his full post here.)
In response to her
uncertainties, Dawkins had Tweeted™, “Abort it and try again. It would be
immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” In seeking to
quench the fiery response to his Twitterpations (limited as they are to 140
characters), he offered a 255-word explanation. It suffers from certain
anachronisms and additions which would understandably be seen as belated
revisions or even second-thought afterthoughts in the eyes of even his most
ardent supporters.
Most importantly to my friend
and mentor, Paul Louis Metzger , is
Dawkins’ rebuttal of the accusation that he was advocating eugenics. Eugenics
can be narrowly defined the process of selecting preferable traits, especially
within human persons, and seeking to enhance those traits within a population
by encouraging procreation by those who possess those traits. Most, however,
consider the eugenics that has been practiced to be a clearer indicator of the
process: removing from the procreating gene pool those deemed to possess less
desirable traits, either through forced sterilization (as has occurred among
the developmentally disabled in the United States) or outright genocide (as is
the more frequently employed means).
Richard Dawkins |
To be clear, neither
definition would apply to the decision to advocate aborting the lives of
children found to be affected by Down Syndrome. Dr. Metzger is correct to point
out that Dawkins’ position is not one of eugenics, but of mere utilitarianism.
Guided, as Dawkins claims to be, by “a desire to increase the sum of happiness
and reduce suffering,” he holds that “the decision to deliberately give birth
to a Down baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy,
might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.”
Dr. Metzger is careful and
correct in admonishing us “to practice the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12 ) and do to others
what we would want them to do to us. We should try and interpret their claims
in keeping with their intended aims rather than with how we might wish to
interpret them for partisan purposes, just like we would want others to
interpret our positions as we intend them.” (Dr. Metzger’s full post can be
found here.)
I whole-heartedly agree with Dr. Metzger, and am often indebted to those who
are willing to engage in dialogue with me, especially when they request
clarification when my points are vague or muddled—or even when they are not
unclear, but merely objectionable to those dear friends.
Derek Humphry |
Among the conversation
partners with whom I am currently engaged, though, are those who are seeking to
navigate the very difficult and narrowing channel between hospice care and
physician-assisted suicide (PAS). With the recent passage of California’s
End-Of-Life Options Act, there is an assumption that hospice providers will
become what we are already often mistaken to be: “the black-pill people,” aka
“the death-squad.” Hospices have traditionally followed the pattern set by Dame
Cicely Saunders (more about the founder of the modern hospice movement here). We
seek neither to hasten nor postpone a patient’s natural death. Why? Because, in
the words of Dame Saunders, “You matter because you are you, and you matter to
the end of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die
peacefully, but also to live until you die.”
This basic philosophy is being
attacked by those who want hospice to “evolve” in order to cooperate in
accommodating and referring, if not actively providing, physician-assisted
suicide. Now legalized in six of the United States , and moving toward
legalization in fifteen more, PAS is advocated strongly by an organization now
known as “Compassion & Choices.” (Their website can be found here; I have addressed my concerns
with what was previously called “The Hemlock Society” in a post you can find here.)
I find a striking similarity
between the position that Dawkins takes, and the one taken by the organization
founded by Derek Humphry. In both cases, they advocate that there are human
persons who would be better off dead than alive. For Humphry, the choice is
presumably in the hands of the human person who experiences a life-threatening
diagnosis and chooses, like Brittany Maynard (Compassion & Choices’
fundraiser, “The Brittany Maynard Fund,” eulogizes her here), to proactively end her life by
committing suicide (to express it in terms most of us would use). Dawkins,
however, prescribes death as the moral choice “from the point of view of the
child’s own welfare.” In short, others should decide on behalf of the child
that she would be better off dead than alive.
Brittany Maynard |
Some would see a difference
between these two decisions. On the one hand, there is the exemplary suicide of
Brittany Maynard, intended to preclude her own suffering by choosing to die
while she was still able to increase the sum of her happiness by doing so. On
the other hand, Dawkins recommends the homicide of a child in order to preserve
someone else’s happiness by preventing what he would presume to be their
suffering, caused by failing to end the life of their child.
But there is less difference
here than you might imagine. Dawkins has backtracked from his earlier
statement. He claims that while the woman in question could end the life of her child, he was not deciding for her that
she should “Abort it and try again.”
Those claiming to offer Compassion & Choices would say they merely want
others to know they could end their
life. But if I read Dawkins’ intent correctly, what he meant to say privately
has changed, now that it has been heard publicly. If what Humphry’s progeny are
saying publicly is any indication, then it should not surprise us that some whose
lives are considered to lack a sufficient level of quality…well, the message we
are hearing is that we should end our
lives.
Shakespeare’s Portia wanted
mercy to temper justice. Dawkins wants mercy to temper reactions to his
inadvertently public position on aborting lives of insufficient quality. And where do we find the mercy of Humphry & Company?
“Compassion” would seem to include Choices that foster mercy toward the terminally ill, but not what amounts to mercy-killing—even
if, as the current PAS laws require, you make the patient administer their own
hemlock.
No comments:
Post a Comment