Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Kermit Gosnell, Murdered Newborns, and the Media

Kermit Gosnell, Murdered Newborns, and the Media
< Prev   |   1   |   |   3   | 

Imagine a clinic in the United States that murdered hundreds of newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors, had jars of severed baby feet, and engaged in racist medical malpractice—with massive government oversight failures allowing this to continue for well over a decade. Sound like front-page material for the United States? It wasn’t.

Isn’t the Kermit Gosnell Case Newsworthy?



A man named Kermit Gosnell ran the clinic accused of the horrible crimes I mentioned, and is now on trial for those crimes. The case didn’t get that much media attention until Kirsten Powers wrote her op-ed piece about the lack of media coverage in USA Today on 2013-04-11-TH. The op-ed article noted that since the trial began March 18, there has been very little coverage of the case, and that a Lexis-Nexis search confirms that none of the news shows on the three major television networks mentioned the trial, with the only exception being where Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment in Meet The Press to briefly mention it. Quoting from the op-ed:
The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial's first day. They've been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony.

Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams intoned, "A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh," as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed — a major human rights story if there ever was one — doesn't make the cut.
Another thing about the clinic was the gross medical malpractice, e.g. it had only one bona fide doctor (Kermit Gosnell himself) and not even one nurse. From the grand jury report on the case:
There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs....Investigators found the clinic grossly unsuitable as a surgical facility. The two surgical procedure rooms were filthy and unsanitary – Agent Dougherty described them as resembling “a bad gas station restroom.” Instruments were not sterile. Equipment was rusty and outdated. Oxygen equipment was covered with dust, and had not been inspected…. Employing unlicensed, untrained workers in a facility that was grossly inadequate and unsanitary, his operation made a pretext of providing health care.
If nothing else, government oversight agencies that are supposed to monitor such health care situations should have caught on to this years ago. There were women “moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets.” The unqualified staff, dirty and unsanitary conditions, shoddy medical equipment, and other factors made the clinic a deadly threat to women, in some cases resulting in death, including a woman named Karnamaya Mongar. The medical malpractice was also tinged with racism. The report:
Only in one class of cases did Gosnell exercise any real care with these dangerous sedatives. On those rare occasions when the patient was a white woman from the suburbs, Gosnell insisted that he be consulted at every step. When an employee asked him why, he said it was “the way of the world.”…. Tina Baldwin told the Grand Jury that the untrained medical assistants, without supervision by Gosnell, routinely administered even the final dose of sedation just before the procedure – unless the patient was white…. Tina Baldwin also testified that white patients often did not have to wait in the same dirty rooms as black and Asian clients. Instead, Gosnell would escort them up the back steps to the only clean office – Dr. O’Neill’s – and he would turn on the TV for them.
The grand jury report says that among the reasons nobody acted to investigate the clinic was “because the women in question were poor and of color, [and] because the victims were infants without identities.” All this strikes me as pretty newsworthy (not to mention that one of the ironies behind Gosnell’s racist medical malpractice is that the man himself is African-American).

One More Thing...



One more thing I’ve left out of this case: the accused man, Kermit Gosnell, was running an abortion clinic called the “Women’s Medical Society.” I’ve already mentioned my views on abortion when I wrote about Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous violinist thought experiment, but really one’s views on abortion shouldn’t matter here. Even if you are pro-choice, to keep abortions legal and safe we should be concerned that some abortion clinic got away for so long endangering so many women, and we should be concerned about the failure of government oversight agencies to protect these women.

It shouldn’t matter whether this man was running an abortion clinic; the murdered babies, racist medical practices, endangered and exploited women, and many government failures not only make the case extremely newsworthy but also constitute something we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to. Americans should be concerned (among other things) about the failure of oversight that didn’t catch this horrible thing sooner. This is also the sort of newsworthy case that Americans should have known about sooner when the trial first started. So why didn’t this happen? Before answering that question, I’ll go into a bit more detail about the case so we can see how bad the problem is. I’ve already mentioned the crimes, but I’ve so far been vague about how exactly the government dropped the ball here. I’ll briefly sketch that next.

< Prev   |   1   |   |   3   | 

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Abortion and the Famous Violinist

Home  >  Philosophy  >  Ethics And Morality  >  Abortion

Intro

The abortion controversy often centers around where personhood begins as a good indication of whether to outlaw abortion. The philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson boldly claims that even if abortion entails killing innocent human life, abortion remains morally permissible. She does this with her famous violinist thought experiment.

Extremes

Abortion is a controversial topic, and I confess I find it intellectually interesting, albeit a bit puzzling. That is, I’m not sure what the best solution is as to where to legalize and outlaw abortions. I find the extreme pro-choice position (making it legal for all pregnancies at all stages of pregnancy) unpalatable, but I’m also skeptical of the extreme pro-life position (outlaw it at conception).

Consider the extreme position that human personhood begins at conception, when the human being starts off in a single-celled stage of development called a zygote. A single-celled zygote is no more plausibly sentient than an amoeba, and there are understandable difficulties with thinking that any single-celled organism or any human body is a bona fide person when there is no kind of brain (to illustrate, if an adult human’s brain were annihilated, we would think that human person qua person ceased to live).

The other extreme—personhood begins at birth—doesn’t seem much better. Consider a woman eight months pregnant with her fetus and gives birth, thereby making what was a fetus into a person, but then kills it after it is born. Even on this extreme view, she has killed a person. Now suppose instead of giving birth, she kills the fetus inside her when it is as the same stage of development. On the “personhood begins at birth” view, she has not killed a person. But this hardly makes sense; does the location of the human being at eight months really decide whether it is a person?

It seems implausible to me that the location of a human being determines its personhood. If the mad scientist Professor Evil shrunk me and put me inside his body, would I cease to be a person? Could Professor Evil then kill me without having committed murder? It seems not.

The Famous Violinist Thought Experiment

Maverick atheism brought this up in his Joe Biden and Abortion article. Judith Jarvis Thomson tries to short circuit the issue in her famous article A Defense of Abortion. An excerpt from it:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. “Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.”
I’m not quite convinced that it would be morally permissible for me to kill the famous violinist, but let’s set that aside. Two things that are missing here in the case of pregnancy are (a) that the victim is the son or daughter (there do appear to be at least some parental duties to children); and (b) a bodily inconvenience more akin to pregnancy. To illustrate why this might matter, consider the following scenario. A mad scientist infects a mother with something that causes bodily inconveniences identical to pregnancy for nine months (including the small medical risks associated with pregnancy), after which she will return to normal. The mother knows that the mad scientist has a serum capable of curing her immediately, but the scientist won’t give it to her unless she kills her newborn son. Is it morally permissible for the mother to kill her son to get the cure? I think most people, pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, would answer in the negative.

So what relevant difference would there be between this analogy and abortion? Perhaps because her newborn son is someone she’s already committed to supporting, whereas she wouldn’t have any commitment to supporting the fetus she wants to abort (the same could be said for the famous violinist). I do not think this is a relevant difference, but we can modify the scenario accordingly. Suppose while being pregnant with her first son she decides to abort it, but on her way to the abortion clinic she gets in a car accident and the doctors, not knowing she wants to abort the preborn child, deliver the child prematurely to save his life. While regaining consciousness she abdicates all legal responsibility for the child, giving it up for adoption while the newborn is in intensive care. The next day the mother begins working at the same hospital her newborn son is in, and she is in a position to kill her newborn son to get the cure. It still does not seem morally permissible for the mother to kill her newborn son.

One might object saying that in the case of pregnancy and the famous violinist, physiological support is being given to the victim, and this makes it morally permissible to end the life of the victim for bodily convenience. I do not think such a factor is relevant, but let’s add that to our scenario anyway. Suppose the mad scientist implants a small micro-wormhole device that teleports some nourishment from the mother’s body to her infant, and that the providing of nourishment to the newborn harms the mother no more and no less than when she was pregnant, but the device causes bodily inconveniences at the same level as pregnancy. The are only two ways to stop the device: (1) wait nine months; or (2) kill her son. Both cases would result in the device being deactivated and passing harmlessly through the pseudo-pregnant mother’s digestive tract. Is it morally permissible in this case for the pseudo-pregnant mother to kill her son? The answer still appears to be no.

But if it’s not morally permissible for the pseudo-pregnant mother to kill her son even when her body is providing the person nourishment etc., about the only relevant difference there might be to justify a Thomsonian abortion defense is the location of the person. But when all other relevant factors (e.g. bodily inconvenience) are held constant, it would seem rather arbitrary to think that it’s the location of a person that determines whether it’s morally permissible to kill them, just as it seems arbitrary that the location of a human being determines its personhood.

Conclusion

Thomson’s argument from her famous violinist thought experiment is unsuccessful. Two factors missing in Thomson’s scenario play a part in the failure: (a) that the victim is the son or daughter (there do appear to be at least some parental duties to children); and (b) a bodily inconvenience more akin to pregnancy. When a better analogy is given (asking whether it is morally permissible for a mother to kill her newborn son to immediately cease her pregnancy-like inconveniences), the failure of her argument becomes apparent. By my lights, we’re left with the difficult and thorny issue of where human personhood begins regarding the ethical and legal controversy of abortion.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

If You Think Abortions Kill...

Home  >  Philosophy  >  Ethics And Morality  >  Abortion

This might be a little late to comment on a remark made by Joe Biden in the 2012 U.S. Vice Presidential debate, but here goes. Joe Biden said this:
With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a -- what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor.
When you think about it, this is a very interesting position. It would seem that Biden agrees with the pro-life view that human personhood begins at conception, yet disagrees that abortion should be outlawed. But as philosophy professor Francis J. Beckwith points out in an article I recently read,
if the unborn [child] is a full-fledged member of the human community, and if a community’s end is justice for all persons under its authority, then a community that were to permit the unjustified killing of such beings would not be doing justice. But not just any injustice, but a deeply serious one, an injustice that says that members of one segment of its population may kill members of another segment without any public justification whatsoever.[1]
By my lights, Biden has some explaining to do regarding the ethical coherency of his position. If one thinks abortions really do kill innocent people, why condone its legality?




[1] Beckwith, Francis J. “Zygotes, Embryos, and Subsistence” Philosophia Christi 14.1 (Summer 2012) p. 210