|Genre||Treatise (256 pp.)|
|Keywords||Abortion, Aging, Cancer, Caregivers, Childbirth, Death and Dying, Disability, Disease and Health, Doctor-Patient Relationship, Euthanasia, History of Medicine, Hospitalization, Illness and the Family, Law and Medicine, Medical Advances, Medical Education, Medical Ethics, Pain, Patient Experience, Pregnancy, Professionalism, Society, Suffering, Suicide, Technology|
In Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Values, Peter Singer argues that "the traditional western ethic has collapsed" as we enter "a period of transition in our attitude to the sanctity of life" (pp. 1). The book begins with the tale of Trisha Marshall, a twenty-eight year old woman, who in 1993 was seventeen weeks pregnant when a gunshot to her head left her in an intensive care unit, her body warm, her heart beating, a respirator supporting her breathing. However, she was brain dead.
Her boyfriend and her parents wanted the hospital to do everything possible so that the baby would be born. The ethics committee of the hospital supported the decision. For the next 100 days, Trisha Marshall continued to be supported in the ICU until her baby was delivered by cesarean birth. After a blood test showed that the boyfriend was not the father, and after three weeks in the intensive care unit, the baby went to live with Marshall's parents.
Singer uses this introduction to pose the many ethical questions that are raised because of medicine's ability to keep a "brain dead" body warm for an extended period of time. "How should we treat someone whose brain is dead, but whose body is still warm and breathing? Is a fetus the kind of being whose life we should make great efforts to preserve? If so, should these efforts be made irrespective of their cost? Shall we just ignore the other lives that might be saved with the medical resources required?
Should efforts to preserve the fetus be made only when it is clear that the mother would have wanted this? Or when the (presumed?) father or other close relatives ask for the fetus to be saved? Or do we make these efforts because the fetus has a right to life which could only be overridden by the right of the pregnant woman to control her own body--and in this case there is no living pregnant woman whose rights override those of the fetus?" (pp. 17-18).
In the chapters that follow, Singer argues that whether western society will acknowledge it or not, we have, in our actions and decisions, moved to an ethic where "quality of life" distinctions trump "sanctity of life" positions. Yet, many continue to raise the "sanctity of life" position when it is clear that our legal and ethical positions in western society have embraced the "quality of life" stance. For Singer, this paradox results in an incoherent and illogical approach to the ethical challenges presented by modern medicine.
Throughout his book, Singer presents evidence for his argument through ethical and historical analysis of brain death, abortion, physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, organ donation, and the nature of persons. For those uncomfortable with Singer's position on "infanticide," this book allows one to follow Singer's argument and his recommendations in the last chapter for a coherent approach to these "quality of life" decisions.
He closes his book with the recommendation that a new ethic should embrace five new commandments to replace the old "sanctity of life" commandments. His commandments are: 1) Recognize that the worth of human life varies; 2) Take responsibility for the consequences of our decisions (in end of life care); 3) Respect a person's desire to live or die; 4) Bring children into the world only if they are wanted; and 5) Do not discriminate on the basis of species.
In Peter Singer's last chapter, he writes: "The new approach to life and death decisions is very different from the old one. But it is important to realize that the ethics of decision-making about life and death are only one part of ethics . . . I want to emphasize that to deny that a being has a right to life is not to put it altogether outside the sphere of moral concern. A being that is not a person does not have the same interest in continuing to live into the future that a person usually has, but it will still have interests in not suffering, and in experiencing pleasure from the satisfaction of its wants. Since neither a newborn human infant nor a fish is a person, the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person . . . We do both infants and fish wrong if we cause them pain or allow them to suffer, unless to do so is the only way of preventing greater suffering" (pp. 219-220).
Most will want to read this book and learn more about Singer's arguments that lead him to such provocative and challenging statements. This is an excellent introduction to the mind and logic of one of our most controversial and challenging philosophers. It provides a deep and textured discussion of the major important medical ethics problems that we face.
|Publisher||St. Martin's Griffin|
|Place Published||New York|
|Annotated by||Martinez, Richard|
|Date of Entry||03/27/01|