• home
  • bourbon
  • links
  • blog
  • bio
  • contact form
               donstacy.com

After-Birth Abortion 2

9/29/2013

 
Today's post concerns an article entitled "Concern for Our Vulnerable Prenatal and Neonatal Children: A Brief Reply to Giubilini and Minerva" penned by Charles Camosy, a theology professor at Fordham University.  Though his objections to after-birth abortion are religious in nature, his evaluation of after-birth abortion arguments do shed light on libertarian views of abortion, whether prenatal or antenatal.  Here we go.

The following statement in the essay is the most interesting for a libertarian bioethicist: "Human persons remain kinds of things that subsist over time whether (1) we are currently expressing specific traits like rationality or self-awareness, or (2) those traits are currently unexpressed or frustrated as a result of disease, immaturity, intoxication, unconsciousness, brain injury, and so on."  This view is very similar to the libertarian view I have expressed several times via this blog, specifically that personhood accrues when an organism (human or otherwise) develops the minimum equipment (biological or otherwise) necessary to engage in propositional logic whether or not this equipment is ever employed.  A point of disagreement would be that Professor Camosy asserts that his definition is equivalent to a species definition of personhood activated when a sperm fertilizes an egg.  I assert that the species definition of personhood is problematic for several reasons, including the incorporation of potential persons as persons (i.e. fertilized eggs) and anencephalic fetuses as persons.  Apparently he discusses his ideas in more detail in his book, which I need to read, entitled Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization.

To interrupt the flow of this article, I must note the following fascinating fact, which I learned from reading this essay: "Pigs have very sophisticated mental lives, and have even been taught to play video games."  Who knew?  The author pulled this fact from the PETA website.  

Professor Camosy also evaluates the logic of the pro-abortion argument extended to the infant, confirming that, if a person is not a person until certain capacities of personhood are expressed, then "those holding Giubilini and Minerva's position on child-killing would be forced to defend the practice well into the second or even third year of life, depending on how one defined rationality and self-awareness."  Unfortunately, this could also be the result if one follows the logic of my libertarian personhood principle, if scientists ultimately determine that humans do not develop the minimum equipment (biological or otherwise) necessary to engage in propositional logic until the 2nd or 3rd year of life.  I hope this is not the case, but one never knows until the facts are in.

This brings me to the final paragraph of this post.  Should we as libertarians care about the science of this issue?  It strikes me that evaluation of the science to determine a position on abortion/infanticide may not be appropriate due to the Humean "is-ought" problem.  In that scenario we still need a coherent, consistent "ought" argument that proceeds, via deductive logic, from a principle that originates as closely as possible to the root of this controversy.  The LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOGger shall continue to ponder on this issue.  

After-Birth Abortion

9/22/2013

 
One of the most controversial bioethics articles ever conceived was recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.  The authors were Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.  The paper was entitled "After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live".

After article publication, apparently the authors and the journal editors received voluminous amounts of correspondence, many containing death threats.

In the article the authors argue that, "when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth", "after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women".  They distinguish after-birth abortion from infanticide "to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child."  It is not hard to understand why this paper provoked vitriolic reactions.

The LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOGger experiences a mixed emotional reaction to this paper.  Personally I find the concept of after-birth abortion/infanticide) morally repugnant.  Philosophically, however, I find the concept of after-birth abortion/infanticide potentially viable.  I shall (and should) explain.  My current libertarian principle of personhood is the following: any organism with the minimum amount of mental equipment (biological or otherwise) necessary to engage in propositional logic (i.e. reason) is a person whether or not the equipment is ever employed.  This principle may or may not conflict with the after-birth abortion/infanticide idea.  If humans develop the minimum amount of mental equipment necessary to engage in propositional logic whether or not it is every employed prior to birth, then after-birth abortion/infanticide is a crime.  If humans do not develop the minimum amount of mental equipment necessary to engage in propositional logic until at some point in time after birth, then after-birth abortion/infanticide is justifiable (at least until the newborn develops the minimum amount of mental equipment necessary to engage in propositional logic whether or not it is ever employed).  The current state of science does not provide us this answer.  My best guess, however, is that future scientific discoveries will demonstrate that a human fetus develops the minimum amount of mental equipment necessary to engage in propositional logic regardless of whether it is ever employed at some point in time during the 3rd trimester of pregnancy.  But I could be wrong.

Good points of the article include the fact that it stimulated a large volume of philosophical discussion and skewered the potential person argument unfortunately utilized by Rothbard.  

A bad point of the article was the authors's definition of personhood which was the following: "an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her."

Classical Liberal Bioethics 3

9/15/2013

 
The second section of Lauren Hall's "A Classical-Liberal Response to the Crisis of Bioethics" article is entitled "The Crisis of Bioethics".  The author divides the bioethics crisis into 4 components: purpose, principles, expectations, and authority.  For each crisis component she details her concerns.

Regarding the bioethics crisis of purpose, Hall suggests a reasonable purpose, reports that others have promoted multiple conflicting purposes, and notes the schism between mainstream bioethics and conservative bioethics.  

Regarding the bioethics crisis of principles, Hall argues that the standard principles that have been used (such as autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence) are vague and, therefore, essentially useless.

Regarding the bioethics crisis of expectations, Hall claims that low expectations are more realistic than high expectations for all forms of ethical analysis.

Regarding the bioethics crisis of authority, Hall reports that, currently, multiple parties responsible for decision-making means no parties are responsible for decision-making.

What is the LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOGger's reaction to this section of Hall's article?  He believes the schism between mainstream bioethics and conservative bioethics is another reason to create a libertarian bioethics, the standard bioethics principles are vague and ill-defined, low expectations are appropriate for non-libertarian bioethics, and libertarian bioethics can clearly define the appropriate person or persons responsible for medical decision-making.  Yes, libertarian bioethics is ambitious.

Chapter 6 Principles of Biomedical Ethics Sixth Edition

9/8/2013

 
Chapter 6 of Beauchamp and Childress's Sixth Edition of Principles of Biomedical Ethics is entitled "Beneficence".  The LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOGger could post many, many, many blogs regarding the information in this chapter.  Frustration is the key emotion for a libertarian reading this chapter.

Due to time/life constraints I shall list rather than analyze the annoying portions of this chapter: the concept of obligatory beneficence, obligation to rescue even if one is not causally responsible for the life-threatening danger to the victim, endorsement of various versions of soft and hard paternalism, a discussion of antipaternalism does not mention libertarians, justification of various versions of paternalism based on the concept that many decisions made by people are not substantially autonomous and thereby rights are not violated, support for the FDA, generally positive discussion of the "precautionary principle", and the complete lack of understanding that all value is subjective and thus cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and risk-benefit analysis (RBA) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and health-adjusted life-years (HALYs) are economically unjustifiable.

I may spend the rest of my life refuting many of the arguments presented in this chapter.

Animal Rights 2

9/1/2013

 
The LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOGger originally commented on "animal rights" in an 04/21/13 post.  In that post I used a Carl Cohen anti-animal rights article in NEJM broach the subject.  Today I read a Roger Scruton article titled "Animal Rights" in the Summer 2000 edition of City Journal, which prompted me to post this blog.

Roger Scruton is a conservative English philosopher.  He opposes animal rights because the "concepts of right, duty, justice, ..., responsibility, and so on have a sense for us largely because we deploy them in our negotiations and can invoke by their means the ground rules of ... social life, but which we can only use when dealing with others who also use them."  Thus, he believes rights only apply to organisms that discuss rights, which is effectively equivalent to the argument that morality only applies to organisms that discuss morality.  Scruton does not address the marginal-humans argument in this essay, but does excoriate Peter Singer, a notorious proponent of that argument; he also mocks Richard Dawkins and the animal-rights movement for "anthropomorphic and magical ways of thinking that science is supposed to dispel."  This latter point is so obvious that, when I have mentioned it to acquaintances interested in the philosophy of "animal rights", several have gasped with astonishment that this concept had never occurred to them.

My current position is that an organism has rights when that organism has developed the minimum biological equipment necessary to engage in propositional logic (i.e. reason), regardless if the organism is currently utilizing propositional logic.  The second half of the definition solves the marginal-humans problem for immature and impaired humans.  At this time, homo sapiens is the only species with rights. 

    LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOG

    Author

    Don Stacy is a 47 yo libertarian writer and physician.  His articles have been published by multiple libertarian-themed websites.  He practices medicine as a radiation oncologist in Hazard, KY.     

    Archives

    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010

    Categories

    All
    4 Fundamental Principles
    4 Step Heathcare Solution
    Abigail Alliance
    Abraham Lincoln
    Afterbirth Abortion
    Afterbirth Abortion 2
    Ama Bioethics Principles
    Amnesty International
    Animal Rights
    Animal Rights 2
    Banning A Risky Product
    Beneficence
    Bioethics Consults
    Blog Name
    Blog Plan
    Brain-Dead Bioethics
    Brain Dead Bioethics 2
    British Health Care
    Cancer Drugs
    C.I.A. Doctors
    Circumcision
    Classical-Liberal Bioethics
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 2
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 3
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 4
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 5
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 6
    Classical Liberal Bioethics 7
    Clinical Trials Reporting
    Clinical Trials Reporting 2
    Code Of Federal Regs
    Contractarianism
    Cooperative Groups
    Economics Of Healthcare
    Economics Of Healthcare 2
    Engelhardt And Children
    Engelhardt And Children 2
    Euthanasia
    Evidence-Based Medicine
    Facebook Ethics
    Genetic Results Return
    Genetic Results Return 2
    Guatemala S.T.D. Study
    Influenza Vaccination
    Inst. Review Boards
    Inst. Review Boards 2
    Inst. Review Boards 3
    Inst. Review Boards 4
    Inst. Review Boards 5
    Justice
    Just Price
    Kidney Sellers
    Kidney Sellers 10
    Kidney Sellers 11
    Kidney Sellers 12
    Kidney Sellers 13
    Kidney Sellers 14
    Kidney Sellers 15
    Kidney Sellers 2
    Kidney Sellers 3
    Kidney Sellers 4
    Kidney Sellers 5
    Kidney Sellers 6
    Kidney Sellers 7
    Kidney Sellers 8
    Kidney Sellers 9
    Liberation Biology
    Liberation Biology 2
    Liberation Biology 3
    Liberation Biology 4
    Liberation Biology 5
    Liberation Biology 6
    Liberation Biology 7
    Liberation Biology 8
    Liberation Biology 9
    Libertarian Bioethics
    Libertarian Premises
    Libertarian Premises 2
    Liberty Bioeth And Relig
    Liberty Bioeth And Relig 2
    Liberty Encyclopedia
    Liberty Encyclopedia 2
    Liberty Engelhardt Crit.
    Liberty Engelhardt Crit. 2
    Lives At Risk
    Lives At Risk 2
    Lives At Risk 3
    Lives At Risk 4
    Lives At Risk 5
    Lives At Risk 6
    Lives At Risk 7
    Lives At Risk 8
    Lives At Risk 9
    Mandatory Research Biopsies
    Money May Matter
    National Cancer Institute
    National Cancer Institute 2
    Neuroethics
    Nonmaleficence
    Organ Donation
    P.G.D.
    Phys. For Human Rights 1
    Phys. For Human Rights 2
    Political Triage
    Principles For Allocation
    Principles Of Bioethics
    Principles Of Bioethics 10
    Principles Of Bioethics 2
    Principles Of Bioethics 3
    Principles Of Bioethics 4
    Principles Of Bioethics 5
    Principles Of Bioethics 6
    Principles Of Bioethics 7
    Principles Of Bioethics 8
    Principles Of Bioethics 9
    Rationing Cancer Care
    Respect For Autonomy
    RTOG & NSABP
    Secrecy And Radiation
    Showing That You Care
    Sigrid Fry-Revere
    Skid Row
    Soviet Medicine
    Soviet Medicine 2
    Test
    The Carriage-Trade Trend
    The Chemist's War
    The Expanding Circle
    The Expanding Circle 2
    The Expanding Circle 3
    The Expanding Circle 4
    The Expanding Circle 5
    The Expanding Circle 6
    The Expanding Circle 7
    The Expanding Circle 8
    The Expanding Circle 9
    The Nathaniel Centre
    Tuskegee Syphilis Study
    U.N.E.S.C.O.
    U.S. Human Experiments
    U.S. Medical Experiments
    Warning Labels
    What It Feels Like
    What It Feels Like 2
    What It Feels Like 3
    Why Health Is Not Special

    RSS Feed

    Picture
    ANARCHO-CAPITALIST FLAG
Web Hosting by IPOWER