|
NRL News
Opening
Session Speaker at NRLC 2007 Editor’s note. Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, is the prolific author or coauthor of 11 books, including most recently, Consumer’s Guide to a Brave New World, which can be purchased at www.amazon.com. His blog, www.wesleyjsmith.com, is must reading for pro-lifers, and, indeed, for anyone trying to keep track of the ever-changing scene in “bioethics.” When not writing books, updating his blog, or contributing magazine articles, in his spare time Mr. Smith is giving speeches. He has graciously agreed to give the opening general session speech at the annual NRL Convention, which takes place June 14–16 in Kansas City. Q: What is the best way to break through what seems to be the impenetrable media membrane that protects them from realizing the truth about “stem cell research”? Or, put another way, are logic and reason weak reeds to lean on? A. Logic and reason are never weak reeds, and integrity demands that our advocacy always be accurate and empirically founded. Too bad the same standard doesn’t seem to apply to Big Biotech’s advocates who often make scientifically unfounded or inaccurate assertions without challenge in the mainstream media. That being said, the debate over embryonic stem cell research and its first cousin, human cloning, isn’t a science debate so much as it is an ethics debate. The question before the house is whether human life has intrinsic value simply and merely because it is human, and whether it is acceptable to use human life as if it were a corn crop to be harvested. However, it is hard to focus on these crucial issues when scientists and bioethicists argue falsely that human embryos aren’t really human life. Such inaccurate “scientific” assertions made to win a political debate actually corrupt science by undermining its crucial role as an objective purveyor of factual information to society. It is also profoundly disrespectful of the democratic process because it prevents the people from being able to analyze the ethics of the controversies based on accurate data. Q: How do we “re-sanctify” life and what would we mean by that? A. If I knew the answer to that question, the debates would already be won. I think the key is to convince society to stop focusing so heavily on the “I” and think more about the “we,” to think of society as a forest rather than a bunch of trees standing next to each other. I also think that pro lifers need to learn to speak to the greater society in ways that are not overtly religious. For example, many people reject religious lexicon out of hand, that is, of human life being “sanctified.” But most accept, at least abstractly, the goal of achieving universal human equality. Both sanctity of life and equality of life express the same concept, which is, that human life is important and that it has intrinsic value. This understanding then leads to proper ways of analyzing issues, which is why I generally refer to the “sanctity/equality of life ethic” in my work. Q: What did we learn from Jack Kevorkian? What did the pro-euthanasia forces learn? A. Both sides learned the same things: First, most people are unwilling to stand up for principle. In today’s soap opera society, emotive arguments and sensationalism will prevail over firm concepts of right and wrong almost every time. Second, the tolerance of much of society for Jack Kevorkian’s assisted suicide campaign demonstrates how profoundly fearful most people are of illness, suffering, “being a burden,” and disability. And perhaps most importantly, I think, Kevorkian proves how hard it can be to recognize evil in one’s own time. After all, Kevorkian’s stated goal—as described in his book Prescription Medicide—was to obtain a license to engage in human experimentation upon people he was euthanizing. This is the true Jack Kevorkian, a man who is cold, brittle, and clinical. That was why his early coverage in the media was actually quite critical. But once he reframed the justifications for his “campaign” from harshly utilitarian terms into emotive concepts of “compassion,” the media and many people fell into line. Remember, Kevorkian was only brought down when he brought a videotape of himself murdering a man with Lou Gehrig’s disease to 60 Minutes for airing on national television. People came to see that he wasn’t in it for the “compassion,” but for his own ego. Q: What arguments are most effective against assisted suicide and who should present them? A. Most support for assisted suicide is relatively shallow and many see it as merely a liberal agenda item that promotes “choice.” It is crucial that people come to see that assisted suicide is actually illiberal and that its legalization would victimize the weak and vulnerable. Thus, I think it is most important to point out the context in which mercy killing would be carried out, issues that are important to everyone, including those not ideologically engaged in the issue either way: A health care system dominated by HMOs where cutting costs can prevail over quality care; tens of millions without health insurance; rampant elder abuse, family dysfunction, issues of life insurance and inheritance, etc. This argument is best made by a diverse coalition that encompasses secular liberals and religious conservatives, medical professionals and civil rights activists, people who are not pro-life on abortion and people who are. In this context, it is crucial for the pro-life leadership to impress upon the rank and file how important the issue is, since in my experience, some still don’t seem to “get it.” But in the broader debate, while pro lifers should certainly be in the room, the people up front should include those seen by the media and wider society as secular, and hence, non-threatening, e.g., disability rights activists, civil rights advocates, and medical professionals. Q: How would you respond to this “slippery-slope-is-silly” comment by Paul Root Wolpe? Writing on the blog of the American Journal of Bioethics, Wolpe wrote the following: Smith, drawing on the experience of the Dutch, argues that euthanasia results inevitably in a slippery slope: “Once we accept the killing of terminally ill patients, as did the Dutch, we will invariably, over time, accept the killing of chronically ill patients, depressed patients, and ultimately perhaps, even children.” Inevitably? Let’s try that logic on another case: “Once we accept the killing of murderers, as do the Americans, we will invariably, over time, accept the killing of embezzlers, shoplifters, and ultimately perhaps, even jaywalkers.” A. He seems to not want to be confused by the facts. It is undeniable that Dutch doctors now kill chronically ill people who ask for it, disabled people who ask for it, and depressed people who ask for it—the latter example having been explicitly sanctioned by the Dutch Supreme Court in a case involving the assisted suicide of a physically healthy woman who wanted to be buried next to her dead children. (The Swiss Supreme Court also just ruled that the mentally ill have a right to assisted suicide in Switzerland.) According to repeated Dutch government-sponsored studies, about 1,000 Dutch patients who have not asked to be euthanized are killed each year by doctors. The Dutch even have a term for such killings: “termination without request or consent.” Two studies in the British medical journal The Lancet showed that eugenic infanticide has seeped into Dutch pediatric wards, and not only is virtually nothing done about it, but the Parliament may soon formally legalize the practice. Thus worries about a “slippery slope” in the Netherlands are not conjectural or alarmist, but demonstrably true. In this regard, my favorite quote about the slippery slope comes from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things fame. When asked whether he believed in the slippery slope, Neuhaus replied, “Yes, like I believe in the Hudson River.” That sums it up quite nicely, doesn’t it? Q: What is the thread that runs through all your work? A. The importance of understanding that human life matters tremendously simply and merely because it is human. Without this profound understanding, there can be no such thing as universal human rights. Q: If you had the world’s ear, what would your five-sentence message be? A: The root meaning of compassion means to “suffer with.” Thus true compassion requires us to take others’ burdens upon ourselves so that theirs’ may be eased. This is not accomplished by abandoning our brothers and sisters by restricting membership in the human family and moral community. Rather, we all have the moral obligation to work toward an increasing ability to engage in radical self giving. In the end, the only real answer to the anguish, pain, loneliness, hopelessness, and despair that are the true causes for the moral crises we face, is love. Award winning author Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture |