Okay. What I have here is a very kickass paper.
The paper itself is here .
The works cited are here. If anybody feels like a good read, let me know... it's for American Perspectives on Medical Ethics, and is both persuasive and reflective in nature. Enjoy!
Okay, the world hates me. Let me quote the paragraph on slippery slope here so I can go home and use it from there. Maybe.
"The fallacy of slippery slope consists of objecting to a particular action on the grounds that once theat action is taken, it will lead inevitably to a similar but less desirable action, which will lead in turn to an even less desirable action, and so on down the "slippery slope" until the horror lurking at the bottom is reached. (....) The slippery slope fallacy is committed when we accept without further argument the idea that once the first step is taken, the slide all the way down is inevitable. In fact, the first step sometimes does and sometimes doesn't lead to more steps. Further argument is needed to determine the facts in particular cases. "
Actually now that I look at it, I'm not even sure this is going to help me much. Grr. Back home now to see if it will. ::sigh::
It did not. Therefore. Here is the paper. Hand-formatted. By me. 20 minutes before class. GRRRRR.
September 10, 2001
Fr. Ron McKinney Phil 316
After two years of working as a Recreation Assistant for the disabled, I remain firmly convinced of the value of every human life. If anything, my work with these individuals has strengthened that belief. Every day of interaction brought me new insight into these individuals’ lives. Therefore I disagree with Katie Lyle’s thesis, as presented in “A Gentle Way to Die”. Lyle advocates the prudent use of euthanasia in situations when all other options can be predicted to cause the patient undue suffering.
Lyle describes the case of Henry, a profoundly retarded man who seems to have run out of viable living options. His increasingly unacceptable behavior may lead Henry’s caretakers to remove him from the group living facility where he currently abides. Speculation leads Lyle to the conclusion that Henry will probably either end up in “a drugged hell of an existence behind bars” or “street life, an agonizing death in a filthy alley.” I suspect Lyle may be setting up a false dilemma by presenting these as the only two options aside from “gentle death”. More importantly, I believe that her suggestion of gentle death overlooks the intrinsic value of human life.
Lyle describes Henry’s two options – deinstitutionalization and commitment to an overcrowded state institution – with the assumption that each of these will be entirely negative experiences. Humans cannot predict the actual outcome of a situation like this. Not all institutions fit the description of the hellish places she describes. As someone who has worked with clients who live in a large understaffed institution, I understand Lyle’s reservations about such places. However, let us consider Henry’s situation for a moment. A lover of routine such as Henry might actually find great comfort in the day-to-day consistency such facilities provide. Even if the facilities themselves lack the resources to care for Henry best, implementation of supplementary programs can ensure an increase in Henry’s quality of life. The state can address and correct facilities’ inadequacies. In order to accomplish this goal, states must commit themselves to serving this very important but often under-represented population. I find it surprising that Lyle, a volunteer on three boards that advocate on behalf of the handicapped, does not even mention the possibility of institutional reform. Addressing the budget cuts that lead to this sort of situation would eliminate the dilemma that leads Lyle to advocate death for these persons.
The author recognizes another of the flaws in her argument. Lyle states “I know mental incompetents were the Nazis’ first victims”, but fails to reflect on the significance of this fact. If we allow for the sort of “gentle death” Lyle advocates we fall into the dilemma of slippery slope. Slippery slope is the argument that once a particular action is taken it will lead to a similar but less desirable reaction, which will lead to an even less desirable reaction, and so on. In this case that risk is very real, as illustrated in Lyle’s reference to the Nazis’ practices.
My summer job has, no doubt, strongly influenced my views in this situation. I have worked for United Cerebral Palsy for two summers. Each summer I served roughly 75 clients in the capacity of Recreation Assistant. My job entailed daily outings with small groups of disabled adults. Some clients had physical disabilities, some instead dealt with mental handicaps. Each had his or her own unique needs, and my job required me to find the best way to meet those needs while maintaining a fun and socially acceptable atmosphere. We took day trips to New York City, local restaurants, amusement parks, theatres, and museums. Each summer also included several “away trips”. Each of these trips lasted between three and five days, and involved each Recreation Assistant sharing a hotel room with two clients for the duration of the trip. Our destinations ranged from historic Williamsburg VA to the bustling city of Baltimore.
During my two summers of employment with UCP I worked with people affected by a multitude of various ailments. I can think of several individuals who are in situations eerily similar to Henry’s. However, I have also seen the positive effects of my work with these individuals. Persons who appeared completely unreachable suddenly smile, or even just calm down a bit, and all the effort that person’s care requires suddenly seems entirely worth it. I’ve learned a great deal about life from the handicapped people I worked with. I cannot reconcile Lyle’s disregard for the potential Henry and others like him possess.
In examining the situation from the perspective of a Neuroscience major, I find yet further reason to dispute Lyle’s suggestion. The field of Neuroscience teems with new discoveries; researchers seem to discover more about human behavior each day. Preliminary studies suggest that gene therapy will someday allow scientists to manipulate factors that were previously unalterable. Research has already provided examples of this; A research team led by Richard D. Palmiter, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the University of Washington, recently used gene therapy to induce eating behaviors in mice that had been genetically programmed to not desire food . Therefore I find it completely conceivable that, while modern medicine may not be able to address Henry’s condition, there may come a time in the near future when Henry will receive the treatment he needs in order to lead a more integrated lifestyle.
My philosophy background gives me further cause for argument with Lyle. I am more inclined to favor Deontological thinking over Utilitarian viewpoints. This probably has a great deal to do with the results of my personality test. As an introverted intuitive feeler/perceiver, I rely heavily on emotion and abstract ideas when making decisions, and can be quite idealistic. Thus, my great regard for the value of human life outweighs the more practical considerations of this issue.
My father’s wisdom sometimes fails to penetrate my thick head, but I recall hearing a particular phrase from him in my youth. Working with me on a difficult project, he allayed my frustration with the following saying: “A G****** never gives up”. I think, more than any other of his sayings, that phrase stays with me because it applies to so many aspects of my life. Now that I reflect on it, it applies to much of his life as well. My father grew up very poor; my grandfather worked three jobs in order to support his wife and three children. Though he squandered his talent by not applying himself in college, he did not let his expulsion from university stop him from achieving his goals. At some point he realized that in order to get where he wanted to be, he would have to work quite hard. So he became partners with a man named DP, and the two embarked on a journey that, 25 years later, has resulted in a highly prosperous situation. The business they started took years of nurturing to build it to its current success; in fact, neither partner took any salary at all for the first six months of operation. Thankfully, I have inherited some of the sense of determination that served him so well during that difficult time. My own struggles occur mostly in the realm of academia, but I apply the same philosophy to my studies as I do the rest of my life. My thoughts and actions are fortified with the mantra: A G****** never gives up. As a pre-med, I find this philosophy applying to the people I encounter as well as the situations I meet. I cannot and will not give up so easily in any situation I see a glimmer of hope in. In my eyes, Henry’s case holds a little of that hope. All is not lost for this man. As long as there is life, there is hope. Euthanization ends the possibility of hope. Removing the possibility of improvement may be a quick solution, but I cannot accept it as the ethical or morally correct thing to do.
My goals as a future doctor undoubtedly affect my views on this matter. I hope to bring to my practice a sense of respect for human life that will allow me to serve my patients in the best manner possible. I strive not for truth, but wisdom. If I can find a way to treat all those I encounter in my practice with wisdom, I can be satisfied that I am doing the best job I can possibly do. My goals for the community are altruistic, as well as idealistic. I wish for a sort of utopia, where all persons can be treated with dignity and respect. I do believe that the community has the responsibility to take care of those who are unable to care for themselves. If the community truly recognized the inherent worth of each of its members, it would be unable to honestly reconcile the neglect of any person. Perhaps I expect too much from my fellow humans, but I will cling to the hope that humanity still is in contact with its conscience.
Theology remains an additional aspect of my life that influences my feelings about this issue. As a Catholic I believe that we cannot know God’s reasons for allowing things to happen the way they do. I struggle daily to embrace this belief, and must remind myself that He does everything for a reason. In the gospel of John Jesus’ followers ask Him if a man was born blind because of his sin or because of his parents’ sin. Jesus answered “His blindness has nothing to do with his sins or his parents’ sins. He is blind so that God’s power might be seen at work in him.” (John 9:3 TEV) As someone who has struggled to accept certain events in my life, I find this passage enormously comforting. It reminds me that God does not inflict an illness or cause a tragedy without very good reason; everything that happens occurs so that God’s power might be shown. My belief in this passage makes it impossible to agree with Lyle’s position. To agree would be to deny one of the most fundamental truths of my faith: God always has a reason.
Upon considering all of these different aspects of my background and my factual knowledge of the subject matter, I conclude that I must disagree with Lyle on this matter. The decision to take a life is not ours, but rests with God alone. We can only hope to treat our fellow humans as we ourselves would hope to be treated, were the roles reversed.