(27/01/2004) Infanticide is justifiable in some cases, says ethics
professor
By Elizabeth Day
www.news.telephonic.com.uk.
Tuesday 27 January 2004
One of British medicine's most senior advisers on medical
ethics has provoked outrage by claiming that infanticide is "justifiable".
Professor John Harris, a member of the British Medical Association's
ethics committee, said that it was not "plausible to think that
there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth
canal" - suggesting that there was no moral difference
between aborting a foetus and killing a baby.
The professor's comments were made during an unreported debate last
week on sex selection, which was held as part of the Commons Science and
Technology Committee's consultation on human reproductive technologies.
Prof Harris, who is also a professor of bioethics at the University
of Manchester, was asked what moral status he accorded an embryo
and he endorsed infanticide in cases of a child carrying a genetic
disorder that remained undetected during pregnancy.
He replied: "I don't think infanticide is always unjustifiable.
I don't think it is plausible to think that there is any moral
change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal."
He declined to say up to what age he believed infanticide should
be permissable.
Prof Harris, who is one of the founders of the International
Association of Bioethics and the author of 15 books on the ethics of
genetics, was condemned for his remarks.
Julia Millington, the political director of the ProLife Party, who
posed the original question to Prof Harris, called the admission "absolutely
horrifying".
"Infanticide is murder and is against the law. It is
frightening to think that university students arebeing educated by
somebody who endorses the killing of newborn babies ( e "killing
a fetus" ???..) and equally worrying to discover that such a person is
also a member of the ethics committee of the British Medical Association."
She continued: "Prof Harris is the Establishment's preferred
bioethicist, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, and has acted as
ethical consultant to the Department of Health and to numerous
international bodies. In such a climate is it any wonder that a baby
has been aborted in the UK at seven months for a cleft palate?"
Prof Harris said that he stood by his remarks, which he claimed had
been elicited "in response to goading" from pro-life campaigners.
"People who think there is a difference between
infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question:
what has happened to the foetus in the time it takes to pass down the
birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I
don't think anything has happened in that time.
"It is well-known that where a serious abnormality is not picked up
- when you get a very seriously handicapped or indeed a very premature
newborn which suffers brain damage - that what effectively happens
is that steps are taken not to sustain it on life-support.
"There is a very widespread and accepted practice of infanticide in
most countries. We ought to be much more upfront about the ethics
of all of this and ask ourselves the serious question: what do
we really think is different between newborns and late foetuses?
"There is no obvious reason why one should think differently,
from an ethical point of view, about a foetus when it's outside
the womb rather than when it's inside the womb."
Prof Harris added that it was up to individual families to make a
decision on the future of their child and that he was not
concerned that such a course of action could lead to infanticide for
cosmetic reasons.
"I don't believe there is any such thing as a slippery slope,"
he said. "I think that we are always on one. It is our responsibility
not to avoid the moral choice.
"We shouldn't make a bad decision now because we fear it
will lead us to make another bad decision in the future. We should
make a good decision now and have the courage to believe we will
make a good decision in the future too."
The Rev Joanna Jepson, the Church of England curate who is going to
the High Court to try to block late abortions for "trivial reasons"
such as a cleft palate, said: "It is frightening to hear anyone
endorsing infanticide but it is shocking when the person is responsible
for teaching others."
"This affirms the need for an investigation into the practice of
abortion. We have already seen, in the cleft palate case, how the law
needs to provide more rigorous protection for such babies but, with
medical practitioners such as John Harris at work, there is no question of
our fundamental need to reaffirm the human value of every baby's life, no
matter what its sex or
disability."
A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association said: "These views of
Prof Harris are personal views and do not reflect the views of the
committee or the BMA, which is utterly opposed to the idea of infanticide."
Comments:
It’s painful for me to comment such an outrageous news. The modern
culture of death, not satisfied in killing innocent human beings inside
their mothers’ womb, now want also to kill them when they are defenseless
newborn babies.
It’s so sad for me to state how far the lack of faith in God has taken
our society, which looks for an alternative “ethics”, a human one, where
the concept of holiness of life is being replaced by the utilitarian
concept of quality of life.
It’s terrible to me to state that this heinous professor at last has
stated a truth: that there is no difference between killing a baby inside
his mother’s womb or outside of it. It is a murder, it doesn’t matter
whether the baby has been born or not.
It’s terrifying for me to think about the dark future that is expected
to this globalized world, which follows, little by little, the footsteps
of the Nazi Germany, while disposes of military power and propaganda much
more powerful than Hitler’s.
The iniquity is so big that it leads us to imagine that just a divine
intervention could put an end to the darkness we live now.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Paulo Sergio R. Pedrosa
|
