A GMA News reporter made an intriguing dissection of the Philippine Supreme Court judges’ stands on the issue of the Hold Departure Order (HDO) that was issued against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.  The reporter, Mark Meruenas, noted that the Chief Justice – who is one of the twelve appointees of the former President to the Supreme Court – anchors his argument to Arroyo’s right to life.  It was reported that he said, “A person has a right to live life as life should be lived.” To me, this is intriguing since majority of the justices founded their arguments and contra-arguments on the damsel-in-distress’ right to travel.

Thus, I try to briefly ponder on what right to life means – at least, from philosophical point of view.

I deem it safe to begin by pointing out that most world religions and philosophies over the ages have strongly condemned any and all acts of taking human life.  It is not surprising thus that international human rights law has always upheld right to life as the most sacrosanct and fundamental of the rights in a good number of international treatises.  In particular, the protection of human life from the possibility of being taken by the state is inscribed very clearly in most state and even in supra-state documents and agreements.

However, it needs to be pointed here too that right is life is taken by philosophers to be not inviolable.  As a matter of fact, there are a number of situations when an individual may be deprived of life – and international human rights law does not object!  Specifically, there is death penalty, or the use of violence is allowed in instances of self-defense.

Succinctly put, the right to life may be fundamental for all the other human rights are founded on it.  We have human rights because we are alive.  Nevertheless, right to life is also contingent.  Any society may be morally required to limit any one’s right to life.  As in the case of Arroyo, her right to life cannot be made to justify letting her escape from her legal woes that arise from her serious crimes when she was in power.

Another view just opposite to the above is that every one has a right to live, hence nobody’s life can be sacrificed for others, hence let the 10 persons die for their own reasons without snatching right to life of a single person. This is what is dictated by human morality. In most of our normal dealings, we go by this norm, but not always. Are not lives of thousands of soldiers put at stake to save lives of millions of civilians in a war between two nations. It seems utilitarianism dominates in this case. But not, the soldiers are trained and kept in reserve for fighting in the wars and they opt for the jobs on their own wills in due course. They are posted at the front not with the intention of sacrificing their lives but to defend theirs as well as their countrymen’s lives. The essence of their jobs is to defend lives not their sacrifices.

Thus, we reach a point where intention plays a role parallel to the action. I discussed this issue in an earlier article ‘Intention, Action and Result‘, wherein the conclusion was that action in pursuance of an intention has to be supported by wisdom taking care of the prevailing circumstances. So, in case of a war, all efforts are made to make the action full of wisdom under the given circumstances and to implement the intention. This establishes that no soldier’s life is sacrificed intentionally in the war even though some may lose lives in the process which can’t be termed as under umbrella of utilitarianism and without a support of morality. 

With this, we turn now towards psychological and physiological aspects of morality versus utilitarianism. Brain scans have established that a utilitarian decision takes less activities in the brain than those in a decision on moral grounds, indicating that utilitarianism is only a short cut to morality, hence with less intellectual content than that in the morality. Since, humans’ greatest asset is their highly developed intellect, it is more human to be moral than to be brutely logical or utilitarian. 

It is the position of this writer that such a practice of using animals as experimental subjects should continue for a number of reasons. Foremost of these reasons is the tremendous benefit that such use of animals in medical research has provided to mankind in terms of the successful elimination of horrible diseases, increase in longevity of humans, the saving of numerous human lives, the great improvement in the quality of lives of humans and animals and other benefits that would not have been achieved if no such preliminary testing with animals was conducted.

Image by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr 

On a secondary level, it does not mean that taking the position of continued use of animals for experiments assumes that animals have no right to life (although rights are domains only of humans in the exercise of their reason or free will). It only means that in the overall scheme of things, assuming even that animals have rights, two rights are battling for recognition and primacy: the right to life of the human being or the right to life of the animals. Where the logic as to who will respect whose rights is raised, it is certainly the right of human beings that will be recognized as the more supreme. 

This position is actually along the line of reasoning that accompanies the use of other living beings for food by humans, such as fowls, fishes, hogs, cows and other animals. Their sacrifice is actually a sacrifice for the benefit of the higher form in the animal kingdom. 

On a tertiary level, the opposition to the use of animals in medical research on the basis of the imagined or even actual consequences to them of such experimentation, such as the imposition of pain or undue stress during tests, must be seen from the point view of the greater kind and the balance of the perceived gain resulting from the experimentation. 

If tolerating the presence of pain is seen as animal cruelty, which indeed it is one, it must be seen against the potential pain that would have been inflicted on humans if such experimentations were not held. It is also procedural that part of the exercise of humane treatment of animals is the application of anesthesia during experimentation to relieve the animal of the suffering of pain in the process. 

In conclusion, this writer believes that the use of animals for biomedical research should continue for all the tremendous benefits that redound to mankind. If ever a sense of humanity attends such an experimentation, it must surrender to the supremacy of the right to life of the higher kind, at the same time employing methods to lessen the imposition of suffering in the process. 

Additionally, continuing with the use of animals in research will prevent the possibility of using human beings as the subjects themselves if animals will not be available. Advances in medicine, new drugs, new procedure, and new therapy must necessarily be tried on a living being for the first time. If animals will not be used, it will be tried on human beings without any other prior testing. That will certainly be a horrifying possibility.

- – - – - – -

You may want to check out:

Waste-to-Energy Technologies

Harnessing The Sun as Alternative Energy Source

Can Poverty Really be Eradicated?

The confusion over euthanasia is more than just a humorous story by David Sedaris, and while it seems the peak of controversy on the subject matter hit years ago, it is still a very real point of contention in modern day medicine. Should a person be allowed to decide when they die? And if so, should assistance with this decision be allowed? Aside from the religious side of the debate, should a medical practitioner have a hand in providing a patient with a means to an end? These are the arguments for and against active euthanasia.

Active euthanasia is the act of taking steps desired by the patient to bring about death. Active euthanasia these days is generally done by administering the ill individual with a lethal dose of medication by which to send the patient off into a peaceful death in which to relieve them of excessive pain in the end of life. For example, a terminally ill cancer patient may choose to end the pain of the illness through the administration of life-taking medication; however, as Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati (2011) notes, other methods such as shooting or smothering are also considered euthanasia if done for the “alleged benefit” of the individual.

The argument for euthanasia centers around the idea of compassion in dying. It is important to note that many sources, including Comer (2005) specify this reasoning is used mostly for euthanasia by drugs. However, despite the method, those for euthanasia believe that they are doing it for the good of those asking for it, and that their deeds are done in order to ease the pain of the dying. This argument for euthanasia is that such an act eases the suffering of the terminally ill individual thus allowing them to ease into death, rather than be in pain until death occurs. In essence, it is a dignity issue. Rather than watching a person be in pain, be put through the pain of hospital stays, needle sticks,

Secondly, advocates of euthanasia proclaim that terminally ill patients have the right to choose death over suffering. After all, why should a person who is dying have to suffer through it instead of make peace with it and leave this world in comfort? This argument relies on the idea that the decision to live is the patient’s choice, and that no other person or institution can control or decide the fate of that individual. The BBC’s ethics of euthanasia page (N.d) also notes a key part of this argument, that even without the “right” for a person to die being granted, other basic human rights already imply this right, and thus law, family, friends, or medical professionals cannot take that right away.

These arguments strike a cord with many people who question whether or not they would want to live through a painful terminal illness, or die in comfort. However, there are also people who argue against euthanasia of any sort and for any reason claiming that an individual’s “right” to choose death could turn into an individual’s duty to die (Comer, 2005). This argument takes root in the idea that terminally ill and disabled individuals could be euthanized in order to rid the community of them, a sort of let the strong live and the weak die mentality. Rather than having patients choose to die, euthanasia would become a duty of family or medical professionals to kill the terminally sick and disabled in order to better care for the well of the community. One Alaskan court case argued “the terminally ill are a class of persons who need protection from family, social, and economic pressures, and who are often particularly vulnerable to such pressures because of chronic pain, depression, and the effects of medication” (Euthanasia.com, 2011).

Additionally, rivals of euthanasia call upon medical professionals and the vows they make upon working in the field, claiming that administering euthanasia is a breech of the “do no harm” ethics (Comer, 2005). If it is a doctor’s role to help the sick, the disabled, and the terminally ill, how then can a doctor terminate the life of the ill. Does it not go against medical ethics? Or, is it that euthanasia is the act of helping the terminally ill?

Euthanasia.com (2011) also notes the importance of physician care for the terminally ill as euthanasia opponents believe that the pain suffered by terminally ill patients can be managed more effectively in order to alleviate the desire to die. Furthermore, they believe that the desire by terminally ill patients to die is merely a cry for help like any other suicidal individual.

Despite the age of the debate, the questions still remain. There is no definite answer country-wide. Currently, there are only two states that allow assisted suicide (euthanasia by medical professionals), Washington state and Oregon (Euthanasia.com, 2011). However, not all other states are entirely decided on the matter. For example, Ohio has ruled that assisted suicide is not a crime, however, there is no definite ruling that euthanasia is permitted under the law. In fact, Utah, Wyoming, and Virginia have similarly unidentifiable stances on the issue (Euthanaisa.com, 2011).

References:

BBC. (N.d). Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia. BBC Ethics guide.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml

Comer, R.J. (2005). Fundamentals of Abnormal Psychology, 5th Ed. Worth Publishers: New York, NY.

Euthanasia.com (2011). Information for Research on Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, Living Wills, Mercy Killing.

http://www.euthanasia.com/bystate.html

Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati (2011). Euthanasia Methods.

http://www.affirminglife.org/site.cfm/Life-Issues/Euthanasia/Euthanasia-Methods.cfm

     In the Soviet Union there were a number of work camps where people who possessed undesirable opinions were sent to make useful contributions to society.  The same questions are asked.  Is there anyone who, given the chance, would not support, participate, or even lead a group to rescue those in the camps?

     In mainland China today, there are a number of camps where people are sent to be “re-educated” so that they would not “disrupt” society.  Again the same series of questions are asked.  Is there anyone who, given the chance, would not support, participate, or lead an action to rescue those being help prisoner in those camps?

     If anyone has the smallest bit of compassion would or will gladly do just about anything it will take to free prisoners held in those murderous camps.  Doing things like giving money, providing information, providing supplies, a place to train and live, even participate or lead others to free the helpless.

     Even at being inconvenienced.  Even if it cost them money.  Even if it caused them pain and suffering.  Even if it cost them their freedom.  Even if it cost them their lives.  Even if it resulted in deaths of the workers or guards at the camps.  Regardless if they violated the laws that the Nazi, the Soviets, or the ChiComms put into place.  Because these things were and are able to operate within the legal system of those countries.

     As are abortion centers are able to operate here.  There is no moral difference between murdering innocent people because they are inconvenient, and murdering babies before they are born.  Everyone involved bears guilt.  The organizations that provide legal, political, and monetary support.  The doctors that actually do the murders.  The nurses that assist them.  The office workers who make the appointments and keep track of billing.  And the mothers who come in to murder their baby.

     If it was morally correct to rescue the prisoners out of an extermination camp. Even if it was illegal under the regime.  Even if the ovens and other equipment were damaged or destroyed in the doing.  Even if people who are working there are killed in the process.  Then it is equally morally correct to do the same to abortion clinics. 

Over 40 million babies have been murdered since Roe v. Wade.  Most of them minorities.  It was Margaret Sanger’s (founder of Planned Parenthood) goal to “eliminate the Black problem.”  Planned Parenthood clinics seem to be in more minority neighborhoods than in white areas.  And let us not forget all the third world countries that they are in.  Mr.  Hitler, Mr.  Stalin, and Mr. Mao would be envious.

My great-aunt, born in the late 1800s, used wire coat hangers or knitting needles. Her husband was a handy-man and an alcoholic. She alone raised most of the food her family ate. And she raised her daughter’s son, the one her daughter abandoned when she decided she didn’t want a baby after all. Shortly thereafter, the baby’s father, my uncle, abandoned him too, leaving my great-aunt with the full responsibility of another child, just what she’d risked her life so many times to avoid.

After Roe v. Wade, women no longer had to try to abort themselves or sneak off to some quack’s garage for an abortion, or have the procedure performed on a kitchen table by someone untrained and working in conditions that were neither clean nor safe and sterile. Many pregnant girls died from infections. Some lived until they got home, then collapsed and bled to death in front of their horrified families.

Then a law was passed that allowed women access to real doctors and sterile environments. If any of you were ever young, consider what you might have chosen to do when you were thirteen or fifteen and had to go home and tell your parents you were pregnant. Might you have panicked enough to do what you had to in order to keep from having that terrifying conversation, and possibly being forced to become an unmarried, teen-age mother?

What if, when you were older, your doctor told you that if you carried the baby to term, you would die, leaving your other small children without a mother (and maybe even a father, if you were already a single mom)? Would you tell the doctor that you would be happy to die so the fetus could be born, then raised by your ten-year-old son or stuck in a foster home, probably permanently separated from the only family he or she had? When faced with a life or death situation, our survival instinct almost always wins.

I learned a long time ago that—unless it was my life or the fetus’s—I would not choose an abortion. The one time I thought I might be pregnant, my husband told me in no uncertain terms that he would leave me if I was and didn’t abort it. I advised him to find an attorney and have divorce papers drawn up.

I do not accept that anyone else has a right to make that decision for me, or that I have a right to make the decision for anyone else. I respect the rights of the pro-lifers to practice what they preach, but will not give up what I believe in and submit to the demand that everyone must believe as they do. I am clearly pro-choice: no one but the woman involved can make such a decision, based on her own religious beliefs and ethical codes, and must allow others the same freedom. Anything less seriously infringes on our religious freedom, among others.

While I respect your right to believe as you wish, I do not accept your insistence that I must believe as you do, or do what you believe. I would prefer that you acknowledge my right to believe what my religion or my heart, brain, and experience tell me. The only way the fanatics on either side of this argument can win is to permanently eliminate those who disagree with them! Speaking of which, I find it ironic and almost unbelievable that the most vocal and radical Right-to-Life proponents are comfortable with taking the lives of those who do not share their beliefs!

Why is the life of a doctor with a family of his own to raise and support of less value than a few cells that may or may not survive in the womb to become a child? The fetus cannot survive on its own until it is born, then fed and cared for by others for fourteen or eighteen years, assuming that the mother doesn’t miscarry or die before the fetus is viable.

How do you know with any certainty exactly when a few cells in a womb has a soul or becomes a person rather than a potential person? If you tell me that God told you so, I would like to hear a recording of the conversation, assuming that you can verify the true identity of the speakers.

If you turn the clock back to before Roe v. Wade and do away with the religious freedom and other freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, you will be forcing your sisters, daughters, mothers, and friends to seek out back-alley quacks who are likely to kill your loved ones, those who believed themselves to be in situations desperate enough to risk their lives to not be pregnant.

And tell me, please, if you would love a child born to your daughter if the father was a mentally deranged, genetically damaged, drug addicted, sexual predator as much as you would love the child born to your daughter and her husband, within a happy (or at least, legal) marriage.

My mother learned she was pregnant with me not long before she learned my father’s heart condition had worsened and he probably had not more than a year or two to live. In 1940, she went to a reputable doctor to have a ‘tumor’ removed. She believed she had let the doctor know the true nature of the tumor. In 1940, the great majority of married women worked only in the home. My mother had little education, virtually no work experience, and no marketable skills. She wasn’t sure she could get a job to support herself and my older sister, let alone a new baby. She was, in fact, quite terrified.

The doctor either misunderstood what she wanted or was pro-life long before that label existed. I am convinced that if he had complied with my mother’s wishes, I would not have known the difference. I’m happy he didn’t abort me, whatever his reason. And I’m not sure I would have made a decision different from my mother’s, had I ever found myself in the same situation.

I don’t believe the pro-life versus pro-choice argument is necessary or useful. For the fanatics on both sides, you should understand that you will never convert your opponents to your opinion, your beliefs. Don’t demonstrate your opposition by killing those who disagree with you. Not only is it the antithesis of what you’re preaching but, based on my understanding of religion, is the antithesis of what most of the hundreds of different religious denominations and sects teach is the path to salvation.

You cannot stop a practice as ancient as mankind itself. You can only force the desperate to once again—in the twenty-first century—resort to dangerous and primitive solutions. I believe that would be an even greater sin!

My grandfather served in the Navy, I had two uncles that served in the Air Force, I have friends in the military even now that have fought and are still fighting for this country! They have not then, nor do they now fight for our freedom to have any government tell us, the people, we have no rights to practice our faith and beliefs. So long as we don’t do something illegal our right to practice our faith and beliefs are ours. I have some very responsible gun owning friends and family members but because they believe in the right to own a gun they and I are criminals?

I had friends that were Gay and Lesbians, but that doesn’t make me one! I’ve known people on drugs and for many years people had been trying to say I was one of them, but I’m not and never had been; just because you are family doesn’t make you like them either. Just because you know people doesn’t make you guilty of the same offenses. How many of you who are reading this have been under close scrutiny, and or falsely accused of something, just because you are related to or acquainted with someone else?

Not all people that own a gun is out to get poor Ms. Napolitano or any one else. Does she think she has been the only person wronged in this world? My message to Janet Napolitano is to buckle up honey and ride the rollercoaster of life like the rest of us have to, and stop putting everyone into nice neat little packages because we are all different; most of us don’t fit into your little packaged groupies!

My suggestion to every one else reading this article, call and or write and or E-Mail your congressmen, statesmen, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 (202) 282-8495 and any other person in government and very politely demand an apology from the woman who must have had a very bad day to come against the entire people of the United States of America, to which she owes her career to.

Documents were filed with the U.S. District Court in Hartford, CN, on behalf of the medical associations to provide a legal way for them to combat threats to the conscience rights of health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions, refer patients for abortions and provide contraceptives.   The papers state its members would be forced to perform, assist and train to do abortions and refer individuals for abortions contrary to their moral and religious convictions.

The suits by the abortion rights groups seek to overturn the ruling that codifies existing federal statutes that prohibit discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to participate in medical procedures that violate their religious and moral beliefs.  

A “Conscience Clause” in Dept. of Health and Human Services policy, signed by President Bush before he left office, currently supports health care professionals right to refuse to perform or assist in actions that violate their conscience.  A proposal to change the policy will be considered by Congress soon and President Obama announced he would review the proposal when he receives it.  After a review by the Office of Management and Budget, the proposal will be published in the Federal Register for 30 days for public comment.  With both Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sibelius, and Presidet Obama supporting abortion rights, the pro-life health care professionals fear the policy is in danger of being reversed.

Even if the HHS policy were rescinded, the federal laws in place would protect medical professionals from the threat of being required to violate their moral values.  However, if the lawsuits by abortion rights organizations in Connecticut are successful, they believe it will diminish their right to protection from violating their moral and religious convictions.

The leaders of the three right to life medical associations have asked their members to call or write their legislators and President Obama.  They are encouraging them to write letters to the editors of newspapers in opposition to the lawsuits and rescinding of the HHS conscience clause.  Their concern is that Catholic hospitals may have to close to prevent the forced violation of the moral and religious beliefs of their staff.  There are 624 Catholic hospitals in the U.S employing 600,000 people and serving thousands of patients who would be affected. 

What does this tell us?

Obviously, abortion quite a contentious issue in the United States. In fact, it may be the most contentious issue. But that’s not the message I’m getting. What I hear is that those who oppose abortion, those who call abortion murder, are not ready to prosecute women who have abortions as murders.

If abortion is really and truly a moral evil, as the religious right claims, there should be no ambiguity here. At the very least, there should be no ambiguity from people like abortion picketers. If abortion is murder, it ought to make sense to treat it like murder.

The catch is, of course, that abortion isn’t the same thing as murder. Deep down, you know that. I know that. Even these abortion protesters know that. Otherwise, why wouldn’t they feel comfortable trying women who get abortions like they would treat any other child-killer?

The truth is, although abortion is an extremely sensitive issue, it clearly does not resonate with the vast majority of the country as murder. The bottom line is that when a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she is in a very complicated situation and she has some very difficult choices to make. No other woman or man has the right to make that choice for someone else. Especially when that other person is themselves filled with indecisiveness and moral ambiguity.