Infanticide was a rare but acceptable procedure for most of ancient classic period. In societies such as ancient Greeks and Romans, it curbed the disabled population (Plato especially advocated for these methods). In times of famine or plague, infanticide often meant one less mouth to feed, preventing the welfare of the family from worsening. The advent of the three major monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, stopped this practice dead in its tracks. From a religious perspective, such an action violated the most basic of human rights, and was a one way ticket to damnation. Everything regarding the procedures was quickly buried away, having been regarded as unacceptable no matter the situation
Yet the issue of infanticide has arisen yet as a byproduct of the current debate on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. In some ways, it is even more controversial compared to euthanasia and PAS, because it is not the individual making the choice; rather, the power lies with the parents or legal guardians of the infant. Personal choice is thus thrown out the window. I personally think that it is best to trust the parent’s judgment as long as it is in reason. Despite the ethical problems this entails, there is little doubt that no one knows that personal whims and wishes of a suffering child better than his or her parents. The courts seem to agree with me on this. Recently, a Dutch physician, Dr. Eduard Verhagen, was brought to trial for the mercy killing of four babies after he was given parental permission. Although, his actions were illegal under Dutch law, he hasn’t been prosecuted by for the court for them. To me, this demonstrates the acceptance of an imperfect but most suitable system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is perhaps not apt to compare the time of Aristotle to the present, as the conditions back then were completely different from now. Certainly in the present day we don't have plagues and famine that would let the addition of another child seriously jeopardize the well-being of a family unit, and the ethical contexts of the past were certainly more lax than now.
I'm confused about what exactly this "infanticide" you are referencing is fore, specifically. Is it for parents who cannot take care of their child? Then there should be no reason for it, given the options of adoption and abortion. But if it is for severely ill infants who will never lead a fulfilling life? That's a different question.
I believe the general medical consensus is that for infants who conceivably have nothing to gain from staying alive (born without a brain, for instance) are generally allowed to pass away comfortably by doctors. But for those who are severely crippled in some way, but continue to subsist without an extraordinary amount of medical intervention, therein lies the concern. The problem, as stated, is the concept of autonomy, whether the infants would really want to end their lives as their parents suggest.
I support PAS, but mainly because the subject is vocally willing, but of course this is not possible with infants. Yet, I do think they also have a right to die given the circumstances. The parents may know best, but I don't think we should place all out faith into their hands. If infanticide is to be done correctly, many ethicists and physicians and the parents as well should all be taken into consideration to decide if it is the right choice given a specific scenario. If that is done, then infanticide can be as ethically safe as possible.
Post a Comment