| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Life - A Liberal Conundrum |
04 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
It is quite hard to put a positive spin on the liberal agenda as compared to the views of the right. The liberals call for pro-choice, the right labels them pro-death. Liberals talk of quality of life, the right talks of its sanctity. The case of liberal states can be seen from the American viewpoint as a grim warning to a dystopian future with states such as Switzerland and the Netherlands being cited as examples of cold liberalism. The state permitting euthanasia seems to champion a view in which a life which that doesn't exude health and enjoyment is not worth living. Yet it is surely a direct ramification of liberal values and individual sovereignty that an individual should have the right to end his life, the same way he can choose how to live it.
It is hard to produce a convincing argument against euthanasia based solely on liberal values. A viewpoint that defines life by the ability to engage autonomously with the environment is perfectly happy to give the option of ending life to the ill and disabled. It fits in perfectly with the disposable, consumer culture - if something doesn't work, get rid of it, if life doesn't work, get rid of it too. As well as the usual religious groups, strong and well-organised opposition comes from disabled groups. They contend that when disability is considered a sufficient reason to end life, or to extinguish before it begins, the corollary is that the disabled will be stigmatised and discriminated against as lower forms of life. Hence to challenge this view they have been active in cases such as that of Terri Schiavo in the States.
It's a commonplace that, as society increases its knowledge of the world through the scientific process, and applies the results practically through ground-breaking technology, traditional religion and morality will wither away. Peter Singer, chair of bio-ethics at Princeton University and a key hate figure for both conservative religious groups and disabled rights groups advocates precisely such a view. As he puts it, "that whole tradition, the whole edifice of Judaeo-Christian morality, is terminally ill. I am trying to formulate an alternative. Some of what I say seems obscene and evil if you are still looking at it through the prism of the old morality. That's what happens when morality shifts: people get confused and angry and disgusted."
However, it could be argued that rather than making the old morality irrelevant, scientific breakthroughs are giving new life to old views and sparking further controversies. More premature babies are surviving at earlier ages. Technology shows us more about the foetus in the womb, that they respond to environmental stimuli even in the first trimester of pregnancy. At the other end of the line, more can be done to prolong life and bring about some recovery. Rather than signalling the death knell of traditional views, each new step seems to reinvigorate such views in opposition to those of a more secular mind.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 2 3 4
Page 4 of 4 pages
| |
|
|
