Matters of Life and Death - Book Report/Review Example

Beckwith, Francis J, and Norman L. Geisler. Matters of life and death: calm answers to tough questions about abortion and euthanasia. In their bookBeckwith and Geisler (1991) present contrasting and intriguing viewpoint about the right to live focusing on abortion and the right to die - concentrating on euthanasia. Both authors have a long and profound interest in this perspective and in cooperation with other scholars have published various books dealing with similar biting topics. Presumably, the purpose of their book Matters of Life and Death: Calm Answers to Tough Questions About Abortion and Euthanasia was to elucidate to the general public some specific moral, ethical and scientific concerns regarding the matter. Other possible reasons are to fill in the gap of their previous publications where they did not entirely dwell on the social specificities of abortion and euthanasia. Filling the knowledge gap is challenging, since there are serious controversies involved and both for and against argumentation have to be addressed. The abortion theme is a complicated moral dilemma with social, medical, psychological and even political dimensions. Beckwith and Geisler (1991) try to argue in favor of the ethical considerations involved. What they are trying to communicate in their book is that there are intrinsic ethical issues at stake which can not be overjumped. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the ambivalence of abortion and this is what the authors are doing. They outline the basic line of anti-abortion argument which characterized their respective positions. It appears to me that the method of argumentation that Beckwith and Geisler (1991) apply is rather one-sided. Even though the resent the counter arguments of the other side of the debate, they do not accept them, but attempt to argue back against them. In this situation it looks like the book is one-sided written which spoils the attempts of the reader to really understand the reasons for author's positions. In the light of the argument of abortion, Beckwith and Geisler (1991) insist on the anti-abortion perspective drawing substantive literature review why they support this. They examine the ethical evidence in detail and critically evaluate the various opinions of those supporting abortion. The existential question that interests Beckwith and Geisler (1991) is when a human being becomes to be acknowledged as a person with its own identity and unique features. The summarized viewpoint is that full humanness starts with the moment of conception. Both authors are supporters of the pro-life thesis which is oriented to protect life in all its extreme forms - for example denying conception pills, since they kill life (sperm and ova). The evidence adducted in favor of this argument is plenty, however there are dozens of other counter arguments. The prolife writers such as Beckwith and Geisler (1991) generally accept in their book that the unborn is an individual, as stated above. The opposite point of view would be the philosophical one which asked when exactly personhood begins. The prochoice supporters argue that the unborn is simply a new developing human life, but does not enter into human world until it was brought out of the mother's womb. Thus, the unborn does not possess the essential characteristics of being a person and do not oblige us to act morally. Beckwith and Geisler (1991) actively criticize such viewpoints and contemn the ethical concerns which could not be applied prior human birth. Our actions towards life should protect the unborn and classify his status as a "person". Early human life has a certain value and this is what Beckwith and Geisler (1991) try to communicate to their readers. Though, prochoice followers claim that the value of the preborn at the moment of conception equals zero and the value of mother prevails, until at least the delivery. Major (1989) agrees with Beckwith and Geisler (1991) that many modern societies and their members nowadays decide affirmatively upon that quality of life is more important than the mere existence of human life. Another point which Major (1989) makes is that nations that have advanced health care system value human life more than those who do not. And this is not solely because of secular reasons, but rather because they believe life has an inherent, God-given holiness. The counter argument goes that the unborn is not a person since it is not conscious or self-aware. For Bonnie Steinbock (cited in Warnock) if we are to take his stand this means that the preborn has the same moral value as grass or paintings, but these moral interests change when the baby has been born. The point here is arbitrary, because we might have comatose patients who are unconscious, or infants of 1-2 months old who lack self-awareness (Beckwith and Geisler 133). Major (1989) refers to a Court case Roe versus Wade, where the unborn is not granted legal personhood, tough it is recognized as having the potential to increase human life viability towards its term. The Court decided that the fetus is nonviable during the first trimester, since it will not survive a premature birth. Consequently, the State decided not to interfere with the woman's final decision to have an abortion in the first three months of the pregnancy. In addition the State regulates and even bans abortion in the last trimester, under the assumption that the fetus is capable of surviving and has reached the necessary viability as human person. Beckwith and Geisler (1991) claim that the viability criterion is constantly moving and quite unreliable when deciding upon human life from the medical point of view. Joseph Fletcher famous for his situation ethics and James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA molecule who were cited by Beckwith and Geisler (1991) say that modern discoveries have allowed such reasoning and therefore deserve the logical conclusions that they brought in. They argue that human life is devaluated and not measured by personhood criteria, thus permitting infanticide, abortion, euthanasia. The work euthanasia origins from Greek and means "happy death" or "good death". Beckwith and Geisler (1991) provide a definition of euthanasia as "the intentional taking of a human life for some good purpose, such as to relieve suffering or pain. Commonly the word denotes the taking of an adult life, though it can refer generally to taking any life after birth for supposed benevolent purposes" (141). This clearly states the author's position about euthanasia. There are two terms "active" and "passive" euthanasia. The former refers to taking life usually through injecting lethal drugs and the latter involves withdrawal of medical assistance which causes death. In addition, there is other terminology such as "voluntary euthanasia" where the patient requested by himself to end his life and "involuntary euthanasia" where a third party, often a close relative decides upon the life of his beloved. Beckwith and Geisler (1991) openly express their opinion about euthanasia and being pro-life activists they do not perceive this act as humane. The issue of euthanasia stirred many provocative and controversial opinions during the 20th century. Beckwith and Geisler (1991) claim that euthanasia is a by-product of our modern society and because of the medical advancement people can choose when the kill life either through abortion or euthanasia. People who would normally die a century ago by untreatable disease are now kept alive thanks to the developed medical treatments. Along with the prolonged life opportunities and the choice to end your life whenever you feel like it, people face difficult ethical decisions. In their book Beckwith and Geisler (1991) argue against intentionally depriving oneself of the right to live, even if he undergoes agonizing pain and suffering. One side of the coin is that "doctor-assisted suicide" contradicts first with the Hippocratic oath and then with the intrinsic value to preserve life. There are many moral dilemmas that I believe that the authors of the book do not address. Their anti-euthanasia persuasion do not dwell on the fact that medical treatment in most of the fatal illnesses is simply prolonging death and that the person should have the choice to choice whether to continue the treatment or not. The key questions that Beckwith and Geisler (1991) did not include in their debate and did not answer were to what extend the victim of euthanasia is a victim of a fatal and irreversible ailment, isn't this a natural death, or it is artificial, we can not avoid death, but why not end life prematurely, if living doesn't make sense for the endlessly suffering patient. Prolonging life is moral, though is it moral to prolong the immeasurable pain out of selfish desire not to lose our beloved, and then inflict pain on ourselves. Beckwith and Geisler (1991) emphasize their position in stronger terms, "Active euthanasia, however good the motives, is in the same category as shooting someone with a gun or slitting the throat with a knife. Most moral people recognize it as a form of murder, regardless of the alleged merciful motives (142)". The Committee on Medical Ethics (1997) disagrees about the assisted suicide or euthanasia for 2 reasons one is that they do not wish to take God's judgement and power in the light of human life and the second is that their policy is to safeguard and value not, but kill it. Geisler and Moreland (1990) proposes the following reasons for active euthanasia which were not included in Beckwith and Geisler (1991) Everyone should hold the moral right to die with dignity. For some death is undignified and dehumanizing, therefore one deserves to have the right of death by euthanasia. Euthanasia is a deed of mercy to the person who is suffering. Why do you have to prolong the suffering of someone when his condition is hopeless Euthanasia is a deed of mercy to the family of the dying person. It might relieve the family of the additional financial cost, when there is no hope to chance the circumstances. When we judge the morality of someone's deeds we evaluate their intentions towards the person on whom the action will take place. If a criminal intentionally kills another person, he will be guilty of a murder. Another case is when a relative stops the respiration machine of a beloved person just to spare him agonizing and painful suffering. Then morally speaking, our intentions are what makes action a morally justifying or not and make the different at the end. Beckwith and Geisler (1991) differentiate two moral insights - one is the importance of intentions and the attempt to avoid applying bad means to achieve our goal. Beckwith and Geisler (1991) put euthanasia into the column with bad means, because the consequences of the act lead to the death of a person, therefore there are bad means involved. Euthanasia has bad intention - to take the life of someone just because we or the individual thinks that he can not live through the pain of incurable disease. There are many views of the argument about euthanasia and Beckwith and Geisler (1991) try to briefly present us with them. There is the autonomy view which states that since biological life is not the moral, real issue, than life is not intrinsically worth or sacred just because it is human life. Consequently, if someone chooses to end his life, this is his own autonomous decision and he has the right to do so. The equivalent argument proposes that there is no moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia. The mercy argument observes that it is cruel and inhumane to refuse the request of terminally sick individual to put an end to his life in order to spare him unnecessary agony. The golden rule argument says that if I don't want someone to impose actions on me, I should not impose them my decisions too. This one supports the active euthanasia. The best interests argument promotes the best interests of everyone and do not violate the rights of people, if they are morally acceptable. What I would provide as critical point to Beckwith and Geisler's (1991) book is that they present their point of view on one-sided perspective. Although, they provide information and details about the other points of view, they rather stick to their understanding about abortion and euthanasia without taking the matter beyond their limited concepts. They did not give many examples of the opposite opinion. If someone is aching and howling like a dog, because the pain is so devastating and the family members just stay helpless aside, anyone would prefer to choose euthanasia, then to live 5 days longer, but in unrecognizable state of mind and physical misery. In my opinion the authors succeeded in delivering an excellent propaganda memoir of pro-life doctrine, preaching that any kind of life is preferable then the non-existence. Beckwith and Geisler (1991) have affirmative view of life, even if the child is doomed to suffer from incurable disease, have physical anomalies or is mentally retarded. For them such meaningless life, filled with sorrow for both family and child is better option than to make abortion. The authors accomplished their goal in producing a material for those already persuaded into the anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia policies. However, those who hold the opposite opinion would not find a ground to support the pro-life stands. Therefore, the significant weaknesses and faults in the book were connected with the one-sided point of views and examples. The book lacks the in-depth explanation why it is more important to keep the life of mentally retarded embryo, than to spare the psychological suffering of the child, parents and society. The answer "simply because any human life is sacred" does not seem exhaustive. The authors miss to address what benefits society members will gain if they are to choose the pro-life doctrine. The strengths of the book concern mainly the detailed literature review so as to why we are to follow the pro-life choice. Some of the most valuable aspects of the book are related to its complex and explanatory manner. The reader learned about the other side of the mirror, seeing for himself which opinion is more valuable and which stand he would be holding. The book is also valuable due to its compound content and different ways in approaching the reader. Generally Beckwith and Geisler's (1991) purpose was to re-confirm their negative positions about abortion and euthanasia, bringing at the same time more broad perspective why it is morally good to support this view. The authors did not surprise the reader though with some statistical figures or comparison about the two diametrically different viewpoints about abortion and euthanasia. This I consider the major gap in their study. Works Cited: Committee on Medical Ethics, Episcopal Diocese of Washington, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia : Christian Moral Perspectives, The Washington Report.Harrsburg, PA : Morehouse Publishing, 1997. Print. Beckwith, Francis, and Norman Geisler. Matters of Life and Death: Calm Answers to Tough Questions About Abortion and Euthanasia. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991. Print Geislser, Nornam and Moreland, J. The life and death debate: moral issues of our time, Praeger, 1990. Print Major, Trevor, "Life: Sanctity or Quality," Journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine, 3:75-76, Fall. 1989. Print Warnock, Mary, "Unborn Interest," Nature, 362:421, April 1. 1993. Print. Read More