The Case for Allowing Euthanisia of Severely Handicapped Infants
Question: Why do you think we should be allowed to euthanize sick babies?
Peter Singer: Let me start with why I got interested in writing about it, I was directing a bioethics center in Australia and we were contacted by doctors who had ethical dilemmas, they were working in neonatal intensive care units, intensive care units for very small children and they have conditions, for example, Spina Bifida in which in their view, it was not really a good thing for these babies to survive. The babies, if they did survive would need multiple operations, would be severely disabled in various ways. And often the parents also thought, given the description of the condition, it was not going to be a good thing for the baby to survive.
So these babies were essentially being not treated. And the result of being not treated was that almost all of them died before they were 6 months old. Some of them died in the first week or 2, some of them in the first month or 2 and other gradually throughout that first 6 months.
And this was a very draining experience for the parents, the doctors, the nurses, you had this small babies in the hospital, but not being treated in order to make them live, but nevertheless, living for quite a long time.
And the doctor said, “Are we doing the right thing here? Is this justifiable?” S we, my colleague, Helga Kuhse and I, looked at it and we decided that yes, it’s a reasonable decision for the parents and doctors to make that it was better that infants with this condition should not live, basically the more severe variance of this condition should not live. But we couldn’t defend the idea that the right thing to do then was to let them die, this seems slow and painful and as I said, terribly emotionally draining on their parents and others.
So, we said, “Look, the difficult decision is whether you want this infant to live or not. That should be a decision for the parents and doctors to make on the basis of the fullest possible information about what the condition is. But once you’ve made that decision, it should be permissible to make sure that baby dies swiftly and humanely. If that’s your decision, if your decision is that it’s better that the child should not live. It should be possible to ensure that the child dies swiftly and humanely.”
And so that’s what we proposed.
Now, that’s been picked up by a variety of opponents, both pro-life movement people and people in the militant disability movement, which incidentally didn’t really existed the time we first wrote about this issue. And they have taken us the stalking-horse, the boogeyman, if you like, because we’re up front in saying that we think this is how we should treat these infants.
I can understand to some extent why the pro-life movement takes us that way, but I think the disability movement ought to be just as upset about letting children die because they have a disability, and since that’s a very common practice in many hospitals, I’m not so sure why they’ve gone after us in particular rather than after the doctors who were actually doing it. Because I really don’t see the difference between letting the children the die, and making sure that their death comes swiftly and humanely.
The philosopher thinks that parents of babies that have the more severe variances of diseases like spina bifida should have the right to end their child's life "swiftly and humanely."
A pragmatic approach to fixing an imbalanced system.
- Intentional or not, certain inequalities are inherent in a digital economy that is structured and controlled by a few corporations that don't represent the interests or the demographics of the majority.
- While concern and anger are valid reactions to these inequalities, UCLA professor Ramesh Srinivasan also sees it as an opportunity to take action.
- Srinivasan says that the digital economy can be reshaped to benefit the 99 percent if we protect laborers in the gig economy, get independent journalists involved with the design of algorithmic news systems, support small businesses, and find ways that groups that have been historically discriminated against can be a part of these solutions.
Is there a way for more human-centered algorithms to prevent potentially triggering interactions on social media?
- According to a 2017 study, 71% of people reported feeling better (rediscovery of self and positive emotions) about 11 weeks after a breakup. But social media complicates this healing process.
- Even if you "unfriend", block, or unfollow, social media algorithms can create upsetting encounters with your ex-partner or reminders of the relationship that once was.
- Researchers at University of Colorado Boulder suggest that a "human-centered approach" to creating algorithms can help the system better understand the complex social interactions we have with people online and prevent potentially upsetting encounters.