Slippery Slopes?
October 22nd, 2006 | by Craig |To me, one of the most odious arguments you hear from the pro-death crowd (euthanasia and abortion) is the “quality of life” argument. This comes from folks who would argue to abort Downs syndrome babies, or other handicapped children because of their quality of life.
To argue that such a person will have a lower quality of life devalues those who are living; it defines them as less than human. After all, if we were “merciful,” they wouldn’t have been allowed to draw breath in the first place.
So, when people with disabilities are seen in some circles as less than human, is it any surprise when they are treated as such? (H/T: Spousal Unit™)
A tee ball coach acting like an utter ass is one thing, but then there are incidents that are orders of magnitude worse. (H/T: ResurrectionSong.)
How is it that two kids can think that assaulting a developmentally disabled in such a heinous way is remotely funny? Is it because that someone who has a lower quality of life is not even considered to be a human being anymore?
Then along comes a story like this where a boy who wasn’t even given a chance for a normal life, and his parents were told to institutionalize him. (H/T: Lex Communis).
“He’ll be a vegetable the rest of his life;” Dick says doctors told him And his wife, Judy, when Rick was nine months old. “Put him in an Institution.”
But the Hoyts weren’t buying it. They noticed the way Rick’s eyes Followed them around the room. When Rick was 11 they took him to the Engineering department at Tufts University and asked if there was Anything to help the boy communicate. “No way,” Dick says he was told. “There’s nothing going on in his brain.”
Read the whole story. There’s plenty in there to give you pause.
Personally, it makes me wonder how we can be so sure in defining “quality of life.”
34 Responses to “Slippery Slopes?”
By JP on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
*low whistle*
Talk about a humbling and inspirational story. I can only hope to be as dedicated a father.
By Dani on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
When I was a graduate student I published an article on cost-benefit analysis that supports this exact thought. At that time, the medical ethics literature was rife with cost-benefit analysis articles trying to assess what a year of life was worth, what burden was imposed by disability, etc. etc. I mean, it’s kind of a chilling thought that doctors would sit around and wonder what people are worth, don’t you think? I remember reading a list of “disabilities” and was startled to find that my life was worth less than some one who didn’t wear glasses! Now, all of these calculations were meant to try to decide what treatments should be funded in a world with limited resources, in order to increase the total amount of health, but it’s easy to see that it was taking us on a path down which we didn’t want to go. Since then the American literature has largely abandoned that kind of thinking.
Not so elsewhere. Talk about orders of magnitude. And just in case you think euthanasia is limited to this well-defined population of terminal infants, that isn’t the case. The authors of the Groningen Protocol themselves think many, many more cases go unreported. And of course, have looked around for other people on which to pass judgement:
The slippery slope is not only real, it’s real steep.
By Hardcore Conservative on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
“To argue that such a person will have a lower quality of life devalues those who are living; it defines them as less than human. After all, if we were “merciful,†they wouldn’t have been allowed to draw breath in the first place.”
Having been born cripple I’ve found this to be very true
By OttomanPrang on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Dick has been pushing Rick through a gazillion Marathons for 30 years. Great people.
By Rocky Smith on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Great piece Craig. As a father, I understand how much that smile means.
“There’s nothing going on in his brain.’’
Yea- right!
By tony rosen on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Being an uncle of a very wonderful young lady who happens to have Downs Syndrome …. well done.
By colby natale on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
On a side note, I (as someone who supports abortion and euthanasia) am not pleased as being referred to as pro-death. I would expect that you, Craig, know all too well the arguments as to why people who “support” these things can still not want to be called “pro” them at all. No one is pro-abortion.
And as far as your ‘quality of life’ rebuttal goes, it seems to me there is a problem when applying this to people who chooce to be euthanized. Those people choose the assisted suicide. I would udnerstand if there was this big problem of people going around euthanizing people who didn’t ask for it, but we are talking about people who want to choose their own quality of life; not have it chosen by someone else. Your piece argues that it is not right to choose someone else’s quality of life. That is exactly why it is right to allow someone to have assisted suicide, because to not allow it is to choose somsone else’s quality of life; just in a different way.
By Hardcore Conservative on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
“On a side note, I (as someone who supports abortion and euthanasia) am not pleased as being referred to as pro-death.”
What’s wrong Colby can’t you handle the truth?
By colby natale on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, okay…the truth huh.
The truth is that I don’t like abortion, or people being ‘put-down’. The truth is that despite not liking it, I am a big enough person to admit people have a right to do those things. I am big enough to not feel a need to force my views on others. That is the truth.
So perhaps you are the one who cannot handle it?
By Jay Stevens on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, as someone who’s pro-choice, this argument feels like yer classic straw man. The “pro-death” movement wants to abort Down Syndrome babies? Not me, not anybody I know.
Doctors are assessing the value of human life? Is this a choice agenda, or something from the souless crypt of the insurance industry?
Personally, I see the issue as a spirtual, belief, or reproductive rights issue. Abortions are far from pleasant. Choosing to abort isn’t an easy decision for most, and a decision that haunts women for the rest of their lives. Still, IMHO it’s up to the individual to decide what’s life, not the government. But the bottom line is that I think we can all agree abortions suck, even we “pro-deathers.”
But it’s the “anti-women” crowd who makes the issue impossible to solve, IMHO. You’re not going to be successful in reducing abortions by trying to criminalize the practice. And where do you draw the line? If you criminalize abortions in the case of rape or incest, you’re pretty d*mn callous; if you don’t you’re a hypocrite.
Etc & co. I wrote a post about this ages ago. “Forensic vagina specialists”…brrr. Count me out.
So if you agree to stop pretending your opponents on this issue are godless and immoral heathens, we’ll stop pretending you’re a bunch of women-hating, prudish reactionaries. Let’s put down the rhetoric and work to actually reduce abortions.
By Dani on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Jay-
The research about the value of a human life has the potential for being used by insurance companies, or any number of payors. I am sure it originated in the economics divisions and/or the public health divisions of major univerisities, because it was so abstract and, as you so aptly put it, soulless. That’s why most American medical ethicisits fairly quickly gave it up. Now, what you see in the literature are very specific cost/benefit analyses generally comparing new treaments with old ones. The big difference is no one “discounts” people’s lives anymore, because that’s just wrong. Each year of life gained by medical treatment is considered equal, no matter whose life it is.
However, there is still the potential for cost/benfit analysis to be used in an ethically difficult way. For example, Oregon’s Medicaid program. They’ve decided that some things are too expensive to fund, given the outcome (like liver transplants) and they won’t do it. So they’re rationing care and using cost/benefit analysis to justify it. However, every year of additional life gained under treatment is equal. It’s the cost that is the problem.
I suspect that, behind the scenes, the discussions in the Netherlands also have an economic tilt, especially regarding the Groningen Protocol. But here’s the key issue: every year of additional life gained under treatment is not equal there, and may actually be considered to have zerovalue. You can imagine how that makes the cost/benefit ratio skyrocket- it becomes infinitely high! To some people, therefore, economics is used as a powerful justification for giving or denying care.
Because then, the money can be used for the greater good, you see? And isn’t that so fair and reasonable?
/sarc
By Dani on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, as someone who’s pro-choice, this argument feels like yer classic straw man. The “pro-death†movement wants to abort Down Syndrome babies? Not me, not anybody I know.
Jay, I think you’re a thoughtful guy. But, unfortunately, you don’t know everybody.
By Dani on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Okay, first the server malfunctioned, then it went down. Let’s try this:
Jay, I think you’re a thoughtful guy. But, unfortunately, you don’t know everybody.
By Jay Stevens on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for the link, Dani, but again — there’s no real person advocating aborting because of Down’s Syndrome in the article you cite! Just a puffed-up strawman, a unnamed university professor. Even if this person actually exists, all we have is one pencil-neck geek theorizing over peach cobbler.
Certainly in the mainstream choice movement, this is not a central tenet for supporting abortion rights. In fact, I’ve never heard this reason as rationalization for abortion outside of conservative blogs and letter-writers.
People may actually do this and I think it’s abominable. Still, the question isn’t whether it’s morally repugnant, it’s whether we want to make women’s vaginas government property or not. With individual freedom comes poor consequences. But surely there are better ways to discourage abortions other than criminalizing it?
By Dave Budge on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Government property? What kind of garbage hyperbole is that? Are you in favor of children being government property? Should I be allowed to feed my minor kids alcohol? If kids are under the protection of the state (government property) at what point does the sate have a compelling interest in an unborn child? How about my body? Should I have the unfettered right to use crank? Is it my body when I get into a car and refuse to use a seat belt? Are my organs government property? Should I have the right to sell a kidney? How about having sex with animals? Are they government property? Should a women have the right to sell sex?
There’s all sorts of restrictions on the uses of our bodies and I would suggest that there are a bunch of them that you endorse - such as a ban on cigarettes in “private” offices statewide and bans on transfats, use of corn sweetners and a host of other things you think are bad.
I can buy the argument that the state should not/can not define the morality of abortion to your satisfaction, but I can’t buy this meme that you embrace liberty when it supports your ends.
By Jay Stevens on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Ooo, the great “ilk” hunter makes his appearance…Please go flex your moral superiority for someone else. I’m not impressed.
If you had read the post I linked to, you’d see that criminalizing abortion would mean government intrusion into a woman’s uterus, which, if El Salvador’s system is emulated, would include government inspection of vaginas suspected of “foul play.”
Find me another example where a person’s body is subject to periodic government inspection?
While I do agree that a person’s behavior when it clearly endangers another’s well-being should be curtailed, I think the criminalization of abortion would be too intrusive, considering the controversey surrounding the actual definition of “life” regarding a fetus. It’s a matter of belief, IMHO.
And here I am trying to mend fences and come up with a means to common good, and you come in and accuse me of…what? Lying? Sheesh.
And as for accusing me of not embracing liberty, I might remind you it’s not me who’s indifferent to habeas corpus. Why’s that anyway? You got a line on water board stock or something?
By Dave Budge on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
You’re El Salvador example is hyperbole as well and name one thing in my list that endangers others with the exception of giving kids drinks.
Secondly, I have written on the habeas issue. But because I haven’t jumped up and down about it you conclude that I’m indifferent. Nonesense. Prove it.
Last, you have not answered a single question I posed - especially the one where I question at what stage the state has a compelling interest in protecting an unborn child. Instead you jump right into an ad hominem outbreak?. Why is that? Why can’t you argue my point but, rather, jump into a personal attack about my feeling superior?
I didn’t accuse you of lying. I accused you of inconsistancy on the issue of personal liberites. As for trying to mend fences, if you think there are fences mended you take yourself too seriously.
By Dani on Oct 23, 2006 | Reply
Jay, I guess there are a lot of “pencil-necked geeks theorizing over peach cobbler”. This study summarizes the results of a number of studies, and demonstrates that 90% of all Down Syndrome babies are aborted. The study mentions the abortion rates for other disabilities as well.
I agree it is not a mainstream pro-choice argument, but it is such an accepted fact that when I looked through the 100 most recent studies on Medline they were all about “selective termination” of a twin when one is healthy and the other not; or about “multifetal pregnancy reduction” which is terminating one or more fetuses in a triplet (or higher order pregnancy) so the others aren’t born prematurely. In other words, terminating just one baby with a defect is so standard it’s not even discussed anymore.
The problem is that we can now diagnose so many things we could not before, things like cystic fibrosis, which is a serious illness but isn’t fatal until adulthood, doesn’t cause problems with mental development, and the treatments are getting better all the time. So why is CF testing offered prenatally, when it can’t be treated then?
How about abortion for cleft palate. That can be cured completely with surgery, in infancy. This isn’t a strawman argument- and the more doctors can diagnose prenatally, the more common it will become.
By Jay Stevens on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Budge, the reason I didn’t answer your accusations is because I find them irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to pick rhetorical holes in my argument, keep a running diary and email it to me so I can delete it in one easy keystroke.
As for the El Salvador example, it’s not hyperbole, it’s an actual example, and would probably be similar to procedure necessary to enforce the kind of ban recently proposed by the South Dakota legislature.
Dani, I find those figures shocking. I won’t defend them, I think they’re repulsive. I can’t speak for any of the parents that made the decision to terminate such pregnancies. I hope I wouldn’t have made that same decision.
The size of the number of aborted Down’s syndrome babies surprises me…and leads me to question the results. If, after all, some 40 percent of Americans are pro-life, how is it 90% of Down’s Syndrome babies are aborted? I’m assuming, of course, that Down’s Syndrome does not discriminate based on political preference. If that number is accurate, then it seems to be a larger issue than choice/life and medical suasion may come into play…
What else could possibly account for the high number of terminations based on birth defects?
By Craig on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Maybe and maybe not. (Dani, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong in this line of thinking.) The probability of having a Downs baby is a function of the mother’s age; the older the mother, the higher the likelihood of having a child with Downs.
I don’t want to paint with too broad of a brush here, but, typically, the older mothers are the types who want to go out and have a career and all of that stuff, then, later in life decide to have a family. By and large, those folks are your generally liberal pro-choicers.
I could be wrong; it’s just a theory.
And, Jay, if you want callous, just give this a read. If that isn’t the very definition of selfishness and callousness, I don’t know what is.
By Dani on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Jay- Yes, indeed, I wondered about that pro-life & Down Syndrome question myself. Craig’s description seems to be born out in experience and demographics. Most conservative women have more babies and have them earlier in life when Down’s syndrome is much less common, so I do think that is the bigger piece of the puzzle. But, we can’t rule out a partial NIMBB (Not In MY Baby Bed) effect. Hypocrisy happens.
The abortion debate is not always black and white, and if one works in the medical profession, this is entirely too clear. Even the Catholic Church, for example, allows wiggle room on the extreme ends of the begining and end of life. I appreciate that there are good & reasonable folks on both sides who can still discuss this topic without (too much!) hyperbole.
By Gman on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
“It’s up to the individual to decide what’s life, not the government.”
Yikes!
By Dave Budge on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Jay, you posed the question of government ownership of a woman’s vagina as a central tenet of your argument - not me. How that is “irrelevant” vexes the mind. I can only assume that you haven’t the depth of thought to answer the question.
I have to applaud your use of demagoguery however. Asserting that somehow the Constitution would allow for the draconian methods of a third world Catholic country is a new high in fear mongering.
By Dani on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
For example, the Church accepts that if the mother’s life would be saved by terminating the pregnancy, it can be done. This is the doctine of dual (or unintended) effects. The thinking is that saving the mother’s life is the goal, and ending the baby’s life is an unintended consequence.
(Oh, I forgot, religion is fundamentally irrational. Silly me
However, I personally know of three mothers from way, way back in my training who were more conservative than the Catholic Church. Two died and one is permanently handicapped. Then there’s your typical professional, working mom having a child late in life who became saint (You weren’t painting with too big of a brush, Craig, but I couldn’t help myself
One extreme situation that bugs me is that of Terry Schiavo. The media kept harping about the fact that Terry’s parents were Catholic, but the Catholic Church is about dying with dignity and does not support futile artificial intervention. While I’m sure they could find a priest who supported them, there are plenty more who would not.
The media is all about causing conflict and polarization. I mean, if real people actually were able to have civilized discussions about serious problems, what would they have to put on the nightly news?
By Jay Stevens on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Craig, I was thinking the same thing last night, that professional, career-minded women opt to have babies later and that Down’s Syndrome happens more frequently with older women.
But there are a lot of assumptions in that line I could poke holes through. Like, pro-life mothers tend to have more kids, so if they’re on their sixth at age 40…
Ultimately, I don’t think I read this stat as an indictment of political philosophy. I could argue that career-minded women getting pregnant later in life are trying harder to have a child and would be less likely to terminate…
To me the number signifies an institutional problem with what mothers are told and encouraged to do by physicians.
Still, to me, while I can disagree with the motives for aborting, I have to recognize that it’s the woman’s personal choice here between her, her family, doctor, and her God…
By Gman on Oct 24, 2006 | Reply
Abortion should be no more a permissible personal choice than it is permissible for you to make a personal choice to shoot me. Both are acts of violence against another individual that deprive that individual of a natural, God-given right.
By BG on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Gman - if I don’t believe in god, I guess nothing I produce has any rights.
Keep the government out of my vagina, please. Amazing that healthcare will give a guy Viagra in this country but won’t pay for me to be sterilized since I don’t want kids, have never liked kids, and won’t change my mind.
By Gman on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
What does it mean to say “keep the gov’t out of my vagina”? Is that like saying “keep the gov’t from allowing me to kill people”? Can you clarify, BG?
I’m trying to understand your comparison, too. If I want to get a vasectomy, I’m quite certain my healthcare provider won’t pay for it. Does your health care provider pay for permanent birth control procedure — e.g. tube-tying (don’t know the medical term for it)? Now, if a health care provider favored vasectomy over tube-tying, then you’d have a point. What does Viagra have to do with birth control?
I guess, what is your point, BG?
By Dani on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
Can I explain the “logic” behind paying for Viagra? Some insurance companies use the yardstick of “restoring health” to determine what they pay for. Viagra restores health. Birth control interferes with a normal process. So, they’ll pay for birth control pills to help treat problems, but not for birth control ( (this is their logic, not mine). Companies that pay for a vasectomy will pay for a tubal ligation. It would be very unlikely that a company would pay for a vasectomy, but not BC pills (if they do indeed cover drugs at all), since neither one are required to restore health. (Obviously, they’re not considering mental health
)
By Gman on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
I like your posts, Dani.
By Craig on Oct 25, 2006 | Reply
I just want to interject and say that I fully expected to have to shut this thread down once it got north of about 10 comments, but aside from some snark, it’s been a good discussion, and I thank you all for it.
By Gman on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
It just goes to show how good your blog is, Craig. For us folks that got something to say, it’s great to have a venue. I also appreciate that you generally get both sides of the philosophical spectrum, and some in b/n, on a vast majority of your posts. I’ve been meaning say: Kudos!!!
By Dani on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply
Thanks Gman. I appreciate civilized conversation.