Misstatements on the Michael Smerconish Radio Show January 30, 2007

2007-01-30T07:49:00.000-08:00

This morning Michael Smerconish interviewed Doctor Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist from Penn on the subject of 'surplus' embryos resulting from In Vitro Fertilization procedures. The following is an e-mail sent to both Michael and Arthur challenging two of the statements made during that interview.

Michael and Arthur

On this morning's radio show there were two statements made that I wish to contest, both of them in the context of solutions to the 400k 'surplus' embryos.

The first was essentially that there is no solution between accepting the discarding of these embryos and shutting down the IVF clinics. While shutting down the IVF clinics would be my choice I recognize that that horse has already left the barn. (As a side issue pro-lifers did fight that battle hard before losing so I resent charges of hypocrisy.)

However, contrary to Art's statement, there is an intermediate solution. The solution used in Germany and elsewhere is No More Eggs Fertilized Than Will Be Implanted In A Single Cycle. While this does not address the existing 400k embryos it would eliminate further growth of that number, to which Art alluded. Objections to such a solution would be based primarily on economics.

The second statement, again with associated charges of hypocrisy by Michael, is that pro-lifers do not object to the discarding of those 'surplus' embryos while we do object to their being killed in medical experiments. At this point Art, you shirked your responsibility as a bioethicist to point out to Michael and his audience that there is an important ethical difference between the action of killing and the inaction of allowing to die. The term 'discard' allows people to confuse that difference.

While this is a complex area the use of emotionally chrged terms such as hypocrisy and misunderstandable terms such as 'discard' and 'surplus' is less than helpful.

Incidentally I am going to publish this letter on our blog so I invite your comments.

Sincerely,

Brad O'Brien

Losing Our Sense of Shame

2006-12-22T07:12:00.000-08:00

Some months ago Dr. Joyce Brothers wrote an article for the Philadelphia Inquirer’s magazine Parade. The title of the article was “Shame May Not Be So Bad After All. Her basic point was that we, as a society, are losing our sense of shame, a major element of self-control. Self-esteem has become more important than self-control.

She illustrates the point with a series of vignettes starting with Adam being ashamed of being naked before God, through the outrage at Ingrid Bergman’s adultery in the 1940s, to Madonna’s “I have no shame” in the 1980s, to the tolerance of the grossness of Howard Stern in the 2000s.

This is a great example of a slippery slope. The more acceptable some practice becomes the easier it is to push the envelope a little further.

We are seeing the same thing in our society’s respect for human life. Forty years ago abortion was considered a shameful crime. Now society not only considers abortion acceptable but, with the license of the Supreme Court (if it is legal it must be moral), it is being treated as an almost benevolent medical practice.

The same focus on ‘self’ that is driving our loss of shame is now undermining our respect for human life beyond abortion to infanticide, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the many horrors being inflicted on the human embryo.

Life on the Slippery Slope

Misstatements on the Michael Smerconish Radio Show January 30, 2007

Losing Our Sense of Shame