Editor's note. In the early days of abortion "reform," pro-abortionists insisted their agenda was modest and unassuming. In contrast with this phony humility, few, if any, expressions more candidly admitted that the agenda of the pro-abortion movement required the abandonment of the traditional Western ethic's commitment to the "equal value of every human life" than this reprint. This editorial first appeared in the September 1970 edition of California Medicine, a publication of the Western Journal of Medicine. Many younger pro-lifers have heard references to it. We reprint it in its entirety for their edification.
The traditional
Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and
equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. This
ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and has been
the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy. The reverence
for each and every human life has also been a keystone of Western medicine
and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect,
repair, prolong and enhance every human life which comes under their surveillance.
This traditional ethic is still clearly dominant, but there is much to suggest
that it is being eroded at its core and may eventually even be abandoned.
This of course will produce profound changes in Western medicine and in
Western society.
There are certain new facts and social realities which are becoming recognized,
are widely discussed in Western society, and seem certain to undermine and
transform this traditional ethic. They have come into being and into focus
as the social by-products of unprecedented technological progress and achievement.
Of particular importance are, first, the demographic data of human population
expansion which tends to proceed uncontrolled and at a geometric rate of
progression; second, an ever-growing ecological disparity between the numbers
of people and the resources available to support these numbers in the manner
to which they are or would like to become accustomed; and third, and perhaps
most important, a quite new social emphasis on something which is beginning
to be called the quality of life, a something which becomes possible for
the first time in human history because of scientific and technological
development. These are now being seen by a growing segment of the public
as realities which are within the power of humans to control and there is
quite evidently an increasing determination to do this.
What is not yet so clearly perceived is that in order to bring this about
hard choices will have to be made with respect to what is to be preserved
and strengthened and what is not, and that this will of necessity violate
and ultimately destroy the traditional Western ethic with all that this
portends. It will become necessary and acceptable to place relative rather
than absolute values on such things as human lives, the use of scarce resources,
and the various elements which are to make up the quality of life or of
living which is to be sought. This is quite distinctly at variance with
the Judeo-Christian ethic and carries serious philosophical, social, economic,
and political implications for Western society and perhaps for world society.
The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already
begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion.
In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value
for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status, abortion
is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary. It is
worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches,
the laws, and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic
has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea
of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.
The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone
really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether
intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics
which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human
life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially
impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge
is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has
not yet been rejected.
It seems safe to predict that the new demographic, ecological, and social
realities and aspirations are so powerful that the new ethic of relative
rather than of absolute and equal values will ultimately prevail as man
exercises ever more certain and effective control over his numbers, and
uses his always comparatively scarce resources to provide the nutrition,
housing, economic support, education, and health care in such ways as to
achieve his desired quality of life and living. The criteria upon which
these relative values are to be based will depend considerably upon whatever
concept of the quality of life or living is developed. This may be expected
to reflect the extent that quality of life is considered to be a function
of personal fulfillment; of individual responsibility for the common welfare,
the preservation of the environment, the betterment of the species; and
of whether or not, or to what extent, these responsibilities are to be exercised
on a compulsory or voluntary basis.
The part which medicine will play as all this develops is not yet entirely
clear. That it will be deeply involved is certain. Medicine's role with
respect to changing attitudes toward abortion may well be a prototype of
what is to occur. Another precedent may be found in the part physicians
have played in evaluating who is and who is not to be given costly long-term
renal dialysis. Certainly this has required placing relative values on human
lives and the impact of the physician to this decision process has been
considerable. One may anticipate further development of these roles as the
problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to
death selection and death control whether by the individual or by society,
and further public and professional determinations of when and when not
to use scarce resources.
Since the problems which the new demographic, ecologic, and social realities
pose are fundamentally biological and ecological in nature and pertain to
the
survival and well-being of human beings, the participation of physicians
and of the medical profession will be essential in planning and decision-making
at many levels. No other discipline has the knowledge of human nature, human
behavior, health and disease, and of what is involved in physical and mental
well-being which will be needed. It is not too early for our profession
to examine this new ethic, recognize it for what it is and will mean for
human society, and prepare to apply it in a rational development for the
fulfillment and betterment of mankind in what is almost certain to be a
biologically oriented world society.