Sunday, September 12, 2004

"Wrongful Life" lawsuits

Last week Los Angeles Times included this story, "If Only We'd Known," about two parents who are filing a "wrongful life" lawsuit because "they were denied the opportunity to decide whether to abort the pregnancy, something they would have weighed had they known the child would be born with a disabling defect that can result in paralysis, profound learning disabilities and fluid on the brain." The articles notes, among other things, that "the rise in wrongful-life suits and the threat of legal responsibility for a child's defects puts obstetricians in the uncomfortable position of recommending, if not insisting on, abortion when there is the slightest doubt, said one physician." (Note: The LA Times requires registration).

Friday, September 10, 2004

Body, Soul, and Moral Anthropology in Today's Times

Last week's New York Times featured a short piece by Yale's Paul Bloom on, among other things, "the great conflict between science and religion in the last century"; "the conclusion that our souls are flesh"; our "mistaken" "common-sense dualis[m]"; and the "scientific view of mental life."

Bloom's opening paragraph is consonant with many of the discussions we've had here on MOJ:

What people think about many of the big issues that will be discussed in the next two months - like gay marriage, stem-cell research and the role of religion in public life - is intimately related to their views on human nature. And while there may be differences between Republicans and Democrats, one fundamental assumption is accepted by almost everyone. This would be reassuring - if science didn't tell us that this assumption is mistaken.

In Bloom's view, most people today -- and, in particular, religious people -- embrace a comforting but indefensible "dualism", believing that "bodies and souls [are] separate." Bloom quotes the President's Council on Bioethics report of December 2003, "Being Human": "We have both corporeal and noncorporeal aspects. We are embodied spirits and inspirited bodies (or, if you will, embodied minds and minded bodies)."
This is all wrong, says Bloom. "The qualities of mental life that we associate with souls are purely corporeal; they emerge from biochemical processes in the brain. . . . As the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker points out, the qualities that we are most interested in from a moral standpoint - consciousness and the capacity to experience pain - result from brain processes that emerge gradually in both development and evolution. There is no moment at which a soulless body becomes an ensouled one, and so scientific research cannot provide objective answers to the questions that matter the most to us."

The correct view of mental life, Bloom insists, can only overpower religion:

The conclusion that our souls are flesh is profoundly troubling to many, as it clashes with the notion that the soul survives the death of the body. It is a much harder pill to swallow than evolution, then, and might be impossible to reconcile with many religious views. Pope John Paul II was clear about this, conceding our bodies may have evolved, but that theories which "consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

This clash is not going to be easily resolved. The great conflict between science and religion in the last century was over evolutionary biology. In this century, it will be over psychology, and the stakes are nothing less than our souls.

Bloom is right in this, I think: The stakes are very high.

Friday, September 03, 2004

Campus Connection

The campus ministry of Catholic Relief Services has put together an effective website called Campus Connection to help students, faculty, and staff engage the world around them.

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Creating a Pro-Parent Society

We hear a lot in the media about the legal viability of certain family structures, but significantly less about the practical viability of family structures, traditional or otherwise. Yale law prof Anne Alstott has made available sample chapters of her book, No Exit: What Parents Owe Their Children and What Society Owes Parents. It certainly should be of interest to those concerned with facilitating a concept of parenting based on single-minded devotion and care. Here's the abstract (link courtesy of Larry Solum's Legal Theory blog):

America's public policies have not kept pace with our rising standards for child-rearing. Child-rearing was once an economic bargain for parents who received a little worker and a retirement policy with each child. But thanks to technological and social change, parenthood has become a uniquely costly pursuit: we expect parents to protect their children's developmental chances, even at the expense of their own opportunities. Today, parenthood requires a decades-long restructuring of one's economic and personal life. Society expects parents to provide the continuity of care that is critical for children's development. Put succinctly, we tell parents Do Not Exit, and the great majority of parents - especially mothers - comply.

But the economic costs of this No Exit obligation are enormous, and borne primarily by mothers. In every income class, mothers work less, earn less, and achieve less (in economic terms) than childless women and than men. Mothers interrupt their working lives at high rates, and as a consequence, they enter middle- and old-age with less financial independence.

The libertarian reply is, essentially, So what? Mothers know - or ought to know - what they are getting into, and they should plan for the economic burdens of parenthood by saving, marrying, or remaining childless if need be. On this view, it is unfair to ask the childless to subsidize their peers who choose parenthood.

This book aims to demonstrate that the libertarian assertion of equality between parents and nonparents is superficial, because it overlooks the child in the picture. Once we recognize the social importance of parents' No Exit duty, we can begin to understand society's special obligation to parents.

The book also proposes a set of public policies that would offer practical assistance to modern families. Caretaker resource accounts would provide parents with $5,000 per year, to be used for child care, parents' own education, or retirement savings. For the average family, this program would mark a major new commitment of resources that could improve parents' own economic fortunes. At the same time, the program would permit parental choice, leaving it up to individuals to decide whether to stay in the workforce or take time out or in part-time work. Moreover, the initiative would direct resources to individuals, avoiding the partiality and potential side-effects of some family-friendly workplace initiatives.

Another set of policies, termed life-planning insurance, would enrich the resources offered to parents of special needs children - a group for whom the No Exit obligation is especially costly. Today, public policy underwrites special education and health care for children with disabilities - but largely ignores the economic plight of their parents, who often find their own working lives permanently disrupted.