Singer and Suffering
The philosophical lens is a perspective that analyzes the world view that is used to discuss the topic outlined. By viewing controversial situations from a purely objective standpoint, unintuitive solutions arise. Advancements in medicine have enabled scenarios that older schools of thought are unable to deal with. How does one deal with patients in a permanent vegetative state, or infants born with a crippling and painful disorder? As healthcare progresses, so must the philosophical ethics used to govern the implementation of medicinal technology. At the forefront of this debate is the philosopher Peter Singer.
Peter Singer’s Writings on an Ethical Life and his philosophy have one objective: the minimization of pain and suffering, regardless of whom or what the pain originates from. By applying this tightly focused ideology to medical situations, controversial solutions arise. Abortions and early infanticide are justified for “a life not worth living,” to minimize the suffering said child would go through because of a physiological disorder or unwilling parents (205). This in turn, could be extended even further to euthanasia and the acceptance of selective eugenics. Many will argue that the potential happiness that the aborted child could have had can and should override the parents’ will. However, the lack of consciousness and self-awareness of the child means the child’s nonexistent aspirations are negligible in weight compared to face of the conscious awareness of the parents. Patients in a persistent, irreversible vegetative state are a similar example; they lack consciousness and indirectly cause suffering to the family financially and to the hospital’s resources, which could be used to save lives and prevent the suffering of others who can actually experience it. For all intents and purposes, a irreversible vegetative state is the same as death, except the biological body is mechanically sustained. The central idea that death is not the defined border it once was forces a necessary re=evaluation of standard medical procedure where human life is sacred no matter the condition it is in.
Peter Singer’s Writings on an Ethical Life and his philosophy have one objective: the minimization of pain and suffering, regardless of whom or what the pain originates from. By applying this tightly focused ideology to medical situations, controversial solutions arise. Abortions and early infanticide are justified for “a life not worth living,” to minimize the suffering said child would go through because of a physiological disorder or unwilling parents (205). This in turn, could be extended even further to euthanasia and the acceptance of selective eugenics. Many will argue that the potential happiness that the aborted child could have had can and should override the parents’ will. However, the lack of consciousness and self-awareness of the child means the child’s nonexistent aspirations are negligible in weight compared to face of the conscious awareness of the parents. Patients in a persistent, irreversible vegetative state are a similar example; they lack consciousness and indirectly cause suffering to the family financially and to the hospital’s resources, which could be used to save lives and prevent the suffering of others who can actually experience it. For all intents and purposes, a irreversible vegetative state is the same as death, except the biological body is mechanically sustained. The central idea that death is not the defined border it once was forces a necessary re=evaluation of standard medical procedure where human life is sacred no matter the condition it is in.
