This morning, CNN’s American Morning tried to explain health-care rationing. Their guest? Princeton ethicist Peter Singer.
The network failed to mention anything about Singer’s extremely controversial background as a euthanasia advocate who defines “person” in such a way as to exclude newborn infants and others — such as elderly dementia patients — who lack self-awareness and the ability to make plans. The network promised a response to The Examiner”s inquiries, but finally offered a “no comment” this afternoon.
“Killing a defective infant,” Singer has written, “is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.”
Singer, who is respected for not shying from the controversy he creates in the philosophical world, confirms the accuracy of that quote on his own website, but wants to make sure it is taken in proper context. He is often paraphrased, inaccurately, as condoning the murder of any non-person. To be accurate, Singer does not believe that the killing of “defective” infants is permissible under all circumstances. With regard to “normal” infants, whom he also regards as “non-persons,” Singer believes merely that it is a lesser wrong to kill infants than it is to kill conscious adults.
“Although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby,” he writes. “It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed.”
But when the discussion is about health care rationing, “non-persons” certainly seem like excellent candidates for cost-cutting measures. That’s why Singer seems an odd choice to defend the practice of health care rationing, given that he considers many of those affected to be human “non-persons.”
This seems at least worthy of a mention when CNN brings him on as an expert guest.
