Will Lloyd - The Battalion

Less human than human

Every person's value must be the same

By: Joshua Dwyer

Posted: 4/6/05

It takes a lot to be a person these days. According to some bioethicists, just being human does not cut it.

Some of the greatest inhumanities in history have been committed against individuals who were considered non-persons by those in power.
This alone proves that the difference between being a human and being a person is not just for philosophy classes.

If the civilized world wants to avoid future atrocities such as slavery and the Holocaust, it is imperative that all humans be considered persons based on their intrinsic value, not their cognitive abilities or mental status. Failure to do so will only prove that the world has learned nothing from the brutal lessons of the past.

For more than 200 years, slavery in this country was permitted because those enslaved were considered worthy of being bought and sold. Solely by virtue of their race, they were deemed to not be full persons. Some even relied on scientific explanations to justify their beliefs.

More recently, Europe suffered the consequences of condemning certain groups to the status of non-persons. First singled out were the mentally and physically disabled. Unfortunately, it was doctors and professors who paved the way for the extermination of "valueless lives," "useless eaters" and other non-persons before any Jews were killed.

The process was gradual. In 1920, two German professors wrote "The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life." In 1933, a New York Times headline read, "Nazi Plan to Kill Incurables to End Pain; German Religious Groups Oppose Move." In 1938, the legalized murder of a handicapped baby took place at the request of his father.

The parallels in America are chilling. Today, university professors and bioethicists openly claim that some people are not persons. While this version of the personhood debate centers on the mental status or cognitive abilities of the individuals rather than race or appearance, it is no less dangerous.

Peter Singer is considered the most influential philosopher alive by the New York Times and by other philosophers. A professor of bioethics at Princeton, Singer said, "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all."

Singer recently elaborated on his position. He said it is time to consider actively ending the lives of disabled babies, even if they "no longer might be dependent on intensive care." Literally, not let them die but make them die.

According to his Web site, Singer supports treating animals ethically, but redefines ethics to allow the murder of helpless humans that don't "have wants or desires for the future."

His sentiments are echoed by Bill Allen, a professor of bioethics at the University of Florida College of Medicine. He recently said, "I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood." This implies that those humans unfortunate enough to be labeled non-persons can and should be treated differently, even cruelly.

Individuals who endorse this distinction point out that anyone who can object to the mistreatment would qualify as cognitively able or aware enough to survive. But this application of survival of the fittest by killing the weakest does nothing to promote peace of mind for those who remember history.

While bioethicists may not suggest that these non-persons be eliminated, the mere notion that some humans are not persons permits others to rationalize the extermination of them. It is the weak and defenseless who should be protected from abuse, not those strong enough to resist or aware enough to object.

The media appears to have already accepted the non-person proposition. A Florida newspaper editorial criticized Gov. Jeb Bush for attempting to "prolong the non-life of Terri Schiavo." If the quality of life mantra replaces the sanctity of life as the driving force in ethics and medicine, it may be a few short years before other groups of people are deemed "unworthy of life" here in America.

In a future where the government pays for increasing amounts of medical care, it is conceivable that the worth of a person could correspond to the cost of his treatments. In such a case, the definition of non-person might be expanded to include those with incurable diseases and not just those who don't meet some cognitive standard. Murder may be seen as a way to cut expenditures.

Call it fostering a culture of life or simply learning from history. Future generations will judge whether Americans treated it like an alarm clock and hit the snooze button or like a fire alarm and rescued the inhabitants from a burning building.

If America accepts the bioethicists' theory that some people are non-persons, even if the distinction is based on scientific or philosophical justifications, we all lose some of our humanity and doom ourselves to repeat history.