Upholding the sanctity of Human life and Standing Up for the Vulnerable
A Christchurch group taking a landmark legal bid to overturn the way abortions are done in New Zealand has won the latest round of its battle in the High Court in Wellington.
After failing in its political fight to change abortion laws, Right to Life New Zealand launched a judicial review in the High Court, claiming that the Abortion Supervisory Committee was failing to safeguard the human rights of unborn children. The committee oversees the more than 15,000 abortions performed each year.
Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer is famous for two primary reasons: First, he jump started the animal rights/liberation movement with his 1975 book Animal Liberation. Second, he is the world’s foremost proponent of the legitimacy of infanticide. Thus, writing on page 186 in Practical Ethics, he supported the right of parents to kill a newborn with hemophilia in order to make life easier for a hypothetical, yet-to-be-born sibling:
When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be higher if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.It should be noted that the disability of the infant isn’t why he can be killed, but rather, his view that infants are not persons.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/labels/Peter%20Singer.%20%20Utilitarianism..html
Lets be very clear when the next major push comes from those who wish to promote Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide in New Zealand. Lets learn from the experience of others when we hear of emotive reasons behind the "need" for the killing of those who are dying. This debate as we know is characterised by passionate debate on both sides of the fence. But as one commentator in the state of Oregon has recently commented, the implications for all of us must be studied very carefully. Looking at all the evidence and good law requires far more than emotion, passion and feeling.
Oregon’s law relating to Physician Assisted Suicide (H.168), was sold to the people of that state as a way of compassionately ending the pain of those suffering from uncontrollable degrees of it and who had less than six months to live.
The facts however are that there has not been a single documented case of PAS being used for a terminally ill patient with uncontrollable pain. Each case in which a person has been killed has been based on psychological and social concerns.
A study of 129 cases from 1998 to 2002 in Oregon, reveals the following reasons that a person chose to exercise the PAS option.
44 – burden on family, friends and caregivers;
99 – decreasing participation in activities;
73 – losing control of bodily functions;
106 – losing autonomy
28 – fear of pain.
There were no citations of experiencing uncontrollable pain.
In addition, PAS has been used in Oregon to remove those who are seen as a "burden" on their families and that state, has taken the first steps leading to euthanasia.
What can we in New Zealand learn from Oregon’s experience? If one thing is for sure it is that our legislators now have no excuse for using the pain argument when the facts so clearly speak for themselves.
Chris O’Brien
(President Right to Life New Zealand Inc.)