Singer on parental rights, cognitive disability, and Ashley X

I dont doubt that you have read Singers extensive work in biomedical ethics but evidently we did not interpret it the same way. Furthermore, obviously I think my interpretation captures Singers meaning for his work in biomedical ethics.

Singer simply argues that as severe mentally disabled people may not be self aware (which again, can be empirically determined by medical science) those who are directly impacted by the individuals life (parents) should be able to determine if that life should be preserved or euthanized.

DoriMc,

Lack of awareness is an empirical fact, does not require Singer's judgment. The only thing required for the determination of lack of awareness is empirical data.

Furthermore, Singer does not say that your grandson should be euthanized or that he does not contribute to society. If your grandson bring happiness into the lives of your children and your own life than you grandson is making a tremendous contribution.

I cannot stand this man. At the end of this segment, he refers to a young 9 yr old developmentally disabled girl as having no dignity. If you read in the dictionary what dignity is, it's not only one's concept of self, but as a noun dignity, is the word that describes that one has "worthiness". Dr. Singer, you have no dignity OR worthiness in MY book!

This is just a random clip in the middle of a presentation. Singer is a utilitarian, meaning he regards suffering as the only thing inherently bad. I recommend that you read at least something that he's written before you dismiss him. Try the book "Rethinking Life and Death" on this issue, or his most famous essay "All Animals Are Equal," which is online.

And you shouldn't assume that I haven't read anything by this man. He is the Professor of Bioethics at Princeton and has debated with an acquaintance of mine on the topic of eugenics. In essence with his system of beliefs, my grandson should have been euthanized after birth because of his diagnosis of Trisomy 13. He thinks that those with profound birth defects lack"awareness" of self and cannot contribute to society. He's dangerous IMHO as young minds in medical school are listening to him.

P.S.  I hope you're not planning a career in medicine.

And....I think that was the point of this Conference was it not? How can socialized medicine help those with disabilities better?

in my understanding of his position, he advocates euthanasia for severely disabled infants - those with disabilities so extreme as to render them incapable of developing beyond a vegetable-like state. He also advocates allowing doctors to administer a lethal injection to patients who, due to the seriousness of their state, would have had treatment taken away from them anyway and been allowed to die, some of whom suffer needlessly and for too long

I TOTALLY agree with you. This man is a blunt imbecile.