The Radio 4 programme Beyond Belief is one that I sometimes catch when I get home from school. It provides a more thoughtful reflection on questions of religion, and religious controversy.
Last night Zero phoned me as the programme was about to begin - to tip me off to a programme about nuns. As it happens, she could probably hear Radio 4 in the background ... There is a synopsis of the programme, and it can be listened to on the BBC i-player, from this page; a podcast can be downloaded from here.
I do think that this programme is worth listening to. There are one or two lively exchanges between Sr Myra Poole and Sr Roseanne Reddy, and, from the point of view of Catholic teaching, one can feel that some of Sr Myra's positions are not one's that are readily agreed with. A female Buddhist Lama also takes part in the programme, and it is interesting to see the dialogue between Catholicism and Buddhism. A range of issues relating to religious life in the Catholic Church are well debated in the programme, and the difference between the experience of the religious life before the Second Vatican Council and that after the Council is also well portrayed. Do listen to the whole programme, since my selective comments below are not going to give a complete picture of it.
I do think that Sr Myra gives a good witness to the place of prayer in the religious life, perhaps most markedly when she recognises that the younger sisters now joining her order do not benefit from the contemplative foundation that she was able to have. I think the question of obedience, raised by the programme presenter in the context of Sr Myra's advocacy for the ordination of women in the Catholic Church (the introduction to the programme gives the impression that this now constitutes Sr Myra' s work), could have an added element. The point is that Sr Myra's subjective sense that she is following the Holy Spirit in advocating women's ordination is, in obedience, subjected to an objective judgement by her religious superior, and that these two should not be in conflict.
Other questions - such as that of the place of celibacy/chastity in religious life, raised by the negative judgement on it offered by an inserted testimony by Marian Dante, who has left religious life, and then debated by Sr Roseanne - are well debated. What I did find interesting in Marian Dante's testimony was the account of the move from a Convent life with traditional style habit to life lived in small houses wearing a modern style habit that took place in the lady's religious order following the Second Vatican Council. Marian describes herself as moving from a "very institutionalised", isolated existence to one for which she was simply not prepared - deciding to leave as she found herself teaching alongside lay teachers in London with whom she seemed to have little in common. She talks about the "scaffolding of my life" falling away.
At a purely pragmatic level, one can ask whether it was really necessary for her order to so rapidly restructure the experience of its members in the interests of renewal. Might not the transition from Convent based to community based ministry have been more gradually introduced, perhaps with the younger generation leading the transition and the older generation being allowed to retain the previous form of life? But, at the level of principle and, admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, one can ask whether or not this movement "from the Convent" towards "the world" was the right "direction" for a religious order to be taking at all. The style of small community living to which it led is now typical of the communities of the new (lay) movements in the Church, for whom the "direction" it represents is the exact opposite. For these new movements, it represents a movement "from the world" towards "the Church". The styles of life resulting from these two quite opposite "directions" of movement may be very much the same in practical import; but which is the "direction" of movement that most authentically represents Christian living?
But do listen to the whole programme.
Showing posts with label Radio 4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Radio 4. Show all posts
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Friday, 24 December 2010
God is always faithful to his promises
God is always faithful to his promises, but he often surprises us in the way he fulfils them.
I missed Pope Benedict's "Thought for the Day" this morning - I didn't wake up in time. [ZENIT have the text of the transcript here, in case the BBC page is not permanent.]I did catch Archbishop Nichols speaking on Radio 2's "Pause for thought" just after 9 am. As Archbishop Nichols referred to Pope Benedict's earlier address, citing the strap line - "God is always faithful to his promises, but he often surprises us in the way he fulfils them" - I was struck by the number of different situations I have been involved in over the last year or so to which those words could be applied.
Pope Benedict's address is a straightforward and confident teaching of the event of the birth of Jesus Christ and of its significance for the world. Archbishop Nichols' remarks, the influence of Blessed John Henry Newman very apparent in them, asked those who do not share Christian faith to be open to the intuition, to the instinct, that underlies the Christmas story. That trust in our intution is completely in accord with reason, and not contrary to it.
The full text of Archbishop Nichols remarks is below, and available (but not, I suspect, permanently) on the BBC Radio 2 website:
"Last night I kicked off my shoes and watched the last episode of ‘The Nativity’ on BBC One. I hope you did too. It was such a beautiful portrayal of the birth of Jesus.This last paragraph goes very well with Pope Benedict's own words.
Then, this morning, I was all ears as broadcasting history was made over on Radio 4: Pope Benedict giving his lovely thought for this day, Christmas Eve. He reminded us of his gracious and encouraging visit to the UK in September and he promised to remember us in his prayers.
He also said this: ‘God is always faithful to his promises, but he often surprises us in the way he fulfils them.’
These words were dramatically illustrated in the TV Nativity.
We followed the story of Thomas, a young hot-headed shepherd, brimming with anger and resentment at the tough circumstances he faced. He found peace beyond his dreams as he kissed the tiny foot of the baby Jesus.
The three wise men came, searching for the ‘Light of the World’, astonished to find him in a stable. They bowed low to honour him, presenting their gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, no doubt prepared for a palace!
And Joseph, too, finding love at Mary’s side, precisely where he thought he had been betrayed. God fulfils his promises in surprising ways!
Of course, some want to mock this story, insisting that faith in God is an illusion, offensive to our reasoning minds. But is love an illusion, or beauty, even if we can’t explain them in terms of reason alone? Certainly not! Christmas is a time to learn again to trust these instincts of ours, to recognise in these intuitions a way of knowing which is neither an illusion nor unreasonable. Then we can come to God-made-man, when he comes to us in poverty and vulnerability for our sake. From him, surprisingly, we too can receive peace, light and love.
Happy Christmas everyone!"
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Reith Lecture: Morality in Politics
One of the benefits of my flexible working arrangements is that I sometimes catch a radio programme I would otherwise miss. Sometimes it is Woman's Hour, and sometimes it is something interesting. This morning, it was the second of this year's Reith Lectures on Radio 4.
The Reith Lectures are an annual series of broadcast lectures, on a question of significant contemporary interest. The 2009 lectures are about "A New Citizenship". The lecturer, Professor Michael Sandel, has studied the idea of a "politics of the common good". This page on the Reith Lectures website gives an introduction to the lecturer.
A transcript of the first lecture can be downloaded from this page. I listened to this last week, but have not yet studied it in detail. I think it would be interesting to read this transcript along with my posts earlier this year about Professor Philip Booth's lecture at Westminster Cathedral: here and here. I think the question of "self-interest" and "selfishness" which Professor Booth addresses particularly in the second of these posts is also addressed by the Reith lecture.
A transcript of the second lecture can be downloaded from this page. This is a very interesting lecture, arguing as it does for a proper place for a moral and religious discourse in the political sphere. Professor Sandel argues against the idea of a moral space in the political sphere that is "neutral".
I hope that, with the following quotation, I am successfully extracting the essence of Professor Sandel's argument, whilst abstracting from his exemplification:
The advocacy of reason here is a theme that is reminiscent of Pope Benedict XVI, speaking for example, in the context of the university (cf the La Sapienza controversy). Professor Sandel continues:
And this is, of course, something to which equalities advocates wish to remain, at a best interpretation, indifferent and at a worst interpretation, hostile. Professor Sandel follows this argument through in a detailed discussion of the question of legal recognition of same-sex relations. Well worth reading in the transcript of the lecture.
Another interesting point made at the very end of the lecture is an argument for a more robust recognition of difference or disagreement in society.
In the discussion after the lecture, a question was asked by one Dr Evan Harris MP, who represents a constituency near the Oxford venue of this second lecture.
Professor Sandel might have answered more strongly on the grounds of reason providing the common ground for a contribution of a religious believer just as much as the contribution of the secularist. But, on air, his answer came over ever so wonderfully ...
The Reith Lectures are an annual series of broadcast lectures, on a question of significant contemporary interest. The 2009 lectures are about "A New Citizenship". The lecturer, Professor Michael Sandel, has studied the idea of a "politics of the common good". This page on the Reith Lectures website gives an introduction to the lecturer.
A transcript of the first lecture can be downloaded from this page. I listened to this last week, but have not yet studied it in detail. I think it would be interesting to read this transcript along with my posts earlier this year about Professor Philip Booth's lecture at Westminster Cathedral: here and here. I think the question of "self-interest" and "selfishness" which Professor Booth addresses particularly in the second of these posts is also addressed by the Reith lecture.
A transcript of the second lecture can be downloaded from this page. This is a very interesting lecture, arguing as it does for a proper place for a moral and religious discourse in the political sphere. Professor Sandel argues against the idea of a moral space in the political sphere that is "neutral".
Many people shudder at the prospect. “Isn’t it dangerous?”, they ask, “to bring morality and religion into politics? Isn’t it safer for a government to try to be neutral and avoid taking sides on the moral and religious convictions its citizens espouse?” I say no, not necessarily, for two reasons. First, it’s often not possible for government to be neutral on substantive moral questions; and, second, the attempt to do so can make for an impoverished public discourse.
I hope that, with the following quotation, I am successfully extracting the essence of Professor Sandel's argument, whilst abstracting from his exemplification:
So this idea that there are certain proper ends or purposes to social practices, this idea suggests that to determine the right way of valuing things, we have to figure out the purpose, the end of the social practice in question. And this idea is an idea that goes all the way back to Aristotle. ....
Most people would agree that flutes are for the sake of producing music. What happens if people disagree about the purpose of the activity in question? Is it possible to reason about the purpose of social practices in the face of disagreement? Aristotle believes that it is, and I think he’s right.
The advocacy of reason here is a theme that is reminiscent of Pope Benedict XVI, speaking for example, in the context of the university (cf the La Sapienza controversy). Professor Sandel continues:
.... debates about rights are often unavoidably debates about the purpose of social institutions, the goods they allocate, and the virtues they honour and reward.
And this is, of course, something to which equalities advocates wish to remain, at a best interpretation, indifferent and at a worst interpretation, hostile. Professor Sandel follows this argument through in a detailed discussion of the question of legal recognition of same-sex relations. Well worth reading in the transcript of the lecture.
Another interesting point made at the very end of the lecture is an argument for a more robust recognition of difference or disagreement in society.
But if, as I’ve argued, it’s not possible for government to be neutral on these disagreements, is it nonetheless possible to conduct our politics on the basis of mutual respect? The answer, I think, is yes. In recent decades, we’ve come to assume that respecting our fellow citizens’ moral and religious convictions means ignoring them, leaving them undisturbed, conducting our public life in so far as possible without reference to them. But this stance of avoidance makes for a spurious respect. Often it means suppressing moral disagreement rather than actually avoiding it. This in turn provokes backlash and resentment, as we see in the rise of religious fundamentalism. A more robust public engagement with our moral disagreements could provide a stronger, not a weaker basis for mutual respect. What would that look like? Well rather than avoid the moral and religious convictions of our fellow citizens, we should attend to them more directly - sometimes by challenging and contesting them, sometimes by listening and learning from them. It is always possible that learning more about a moral or religious doctrine will lead us to like it less, but we cannot know until we try. A politics of moral engagement is not only a more inspiring ideal than a politics of avoidance. If it’s true, as I’ve tried to argue, that our debates about justice are often inescapably arguments about the good life, then a politics of moral engagement is also a more promising basis for a just society. Thank you very much.
In the discussion after the lecture, a question was asked by one Dr Evan Harris MP, who represents a constituency near the Oxford venue of this second lecture.
HARRIS: Thank you. I do a lot of public policy on abortion and gay rights and assisted dying and embryos, and it seems to me that it’s not the morality that’s missing on either side. I come from the non-religious side and I would say that I bring morality - the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of not harming someone unless there’s evidence that your policy creates harm. Obviously the religious side bring their morality. But one side, I think, tends to bring evidence and an acceptance that their position might change with evidence; whereas another side, the religious side, is much less likely to accept and consider evidence and bring that to the table because their moral position is relatively absolute. And so shouldn’t we be arguing that we should bring evidence into the moral arguments, where appropriate, not bring morality in when it’s already there on both sides?
MICHAEL SANDEL: I agree with what may be the impulse behind your worry, which is that if people simply assert dogmas rather than offer reasons and listen to the reasons given by their interlocutors in public debate, that’s not a very valuable contribution. Where I think you and I may disagree is on this. I don’t think that those who enter into public discourse and advance moral arguments that may be informed by faith traditions, I don’t think they have a monopoly on dogmatic assertions. I think there are dogmatic secularists, just as there are dogmatic religious fundamentalists.
Professor Sandel might have answered more strongly on the grounds of reason providing the common ground for a contribution of a religious believer just as much as the contribution of the secularist. But, on air, his answer came over ever so wonderfully ...
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
Bishop O'Donoghue and Catholic Caring Services on Radio 4
Bishop O'Donoghue, and the director of children's services at the Catholic Caring Services in his diocese of Lancaster, Jim Cullen, appeared on Radio 4's Today programme today. They discussed the response of the Catholic Church to equalities legislation. For the rest of today an audio clip of the package can be found here. The full progamme (I think you would have to search through to find the relevant few minutes) should be available on the "listen again" function for the coming week.
Jim Cullen gave a couple of interesting indications about the work of the Catholic Caring Services. When asked about how the work of the CCS had changed in response to the legislation, his response was that there had been no changes made to comply with the legislation. This was because the charity was already non-discriminatory at the point at which people accessed its services. Talking about a situation where a gay or lesbian couple might approach the charity seeking assessment for adoption, Jim Cullen's response was that a same sex couple approaching the charity in order to make a political point would be treated in exactly the same way as a married couple who wished to adopt a child in order to solve problems in their marriage - and, I assume here, that this is a situation where the charity/good practice would decline to recommend the couple as adoptive parents. He also commented on a scenario where a same sex couple, two women, had fostered a child, maintained good contact with the birth family and had a good relationship with their fostered child. The couple then sought to adopt the child in order to maintain the good and positive bond they had established with the child and to avoid it being severed. Jim Cullen's observation was that, in this situation, "what Christian would break that bond" between the fostering couple and the child? I found this interesting for what it revealed about the way in which Catholic Caring Services are already operating. The position of Catholic Caring Services is that complying with the law will enable the charity to preserve the whole range of its work, which goes beyond adoption services.
Bishop O'Donoghue highlighted his wish to see a legal challenge to the equalities legislation that has led to this present situation. He also referred to his setting up of a support service, funded from the diocesan collections that would previously have gone to Catholic Caring Services, in order to meet his concern for the young people who might be adversely affected by his policy on this issue. He described the position being presented by Jim Cullen as "naive". He gave a clear account of the Catholic view that male and female are complementary in the marriage relationship. Bishop O'Donoghue did well in presenting himself as concerned and caring towards children; he could have presented more explicitly the position expressed in his most recent letter about Catholic Caring Services, viz, the view that it is in the best interests of children to be placed with a married male/female couple.
Jim Cullen offered a concluding observation that he recognised the role of Bishop O'Donoghue as a teacher of Catholic faith, but that his role was different. His role was to preserve the work of the charity, and that was what he was doing. This sounds very reasonable, but the question that it fails to address is that the charity, as a Catholic charity, can be expected to work in accordance with Catholic teaching. This does not permit the readiness of separation between the teaching of the Church and the practice of a Catholic charity that is an unwritten assumption of Jim Cullen's observation.
On the one hand, we are no longer in the days when a Bishop can dictate the activity of his lay collaborators - a quite unhealthy clericalism is possible in that sort of situation - and so I think that there is a rightful expertise and autonomy that belongs to an organisation like Catholic Caring Services. However, it does not follow from this that a declaration of independence from Catholic teaching is appropriate either.
Jim Cullen gave a couple of interesting indications about the work of the Catholic Caring Services. When asked about how the work of the CCS had changed in response to the legislation, his response was that there had been no changes made to comply with the legislation. This was because the charity was already non-discriminatory at the point at which people accessed its services. Talking about a situation where a gay or lesbian couple might approach the charity seeking assessment for adoption, Jim Cullen's response was that a same sex couple approaching the charity in order to make a political point would be treated in exactly the same way as a married couple who wished to adopt a child in order to solve problems in their marriage - and, I assume here, that this is a situation where the charity/good practice would decline to recommend the couple as adoptive parents. He also commented on a scenario where a same sex couple, two women, had fostered a child, maintained good contact with the birth family and had a good relationship with their fostered child. The couple then sought to adopt the child in order to maintain the good and positive bond they had established with the child and to avoid it being severed. Jim Cullen's observation was that, in this situation, "what Christian would break that bond" between the fostering couple and the child? I found this interesting for what it revealed about the way in which Catholic Caring Services are already operating. The position of Catholic Caring Services is that complying with the law will enable the charity to preserve the whole range of its work, which goes beyond adoption services.
Bishop O'Donoghue highlighted his wish to see a legal challenge to the equalities legislation that has led to this present situation. He also referred to his setting up of a support service, funded from the diocesan collections that would previously have gone to Catholic Caring Services, in order to meet his concern for the young people who might be adversely affected by his policy on this issue. He described the position being presented by Jim Cullen as "naive". He gave a clear account of the Catholic view that male and female are complementary in the marriage relationship. Bishop O'Donoghue did well in presenting himself as concerned and caring towards children; he could have presented more explicitly the position expressed in his most recent letter about Catholic Caring Services, viz, the view that it is in the best interests of children to be placed with a married male/female couple.
Jim Cullen offered a concluding observation that he recognised the role of Bishop O'Donoghue as a teacher of Catholic faith, but that his role was different. His role was to preserve the work of the charity, and that was what he was doing. This sounds very reasonable, but the question that it fails to address is that the charity, as a Catholic charity, can be expected to work in accordance with Catholic teaching. This does not permit the readiness of separation between the teaching of the Church and the practice of a Catholic charity that is an unwritten assumption of Jim Cullen's observation.
On the one hand, we are no longer in the days when a Bishop can dictate the activity of his lay collaborators - a quite unhealthy clericalism is possible in that sort of situation - and so I think that there is a rightful expertise and autonomy that belongs to an organisation like Catholic Caring Services. However, it does not follow from this that a declaration of independence from Catholic teaching is appropriate either.
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor edits "Today"
This morning, the guest editor on BBC Radio 4's flagship current affairs programme, Today, was Cardinal Murphy O'Connor. This page on the Today programme site, summarises the programme, and includes audio clips of the Cardinal's contributions.
I heard part of the programme, and rather enjoyed it. A visit to the English College in Rome, with the story of the seminarians gathering in the chapel before the Martyrs' Picture to sing the Te Deum ... As I listened to this, it occurred to me that, for many people in England and Wales, this would be an almost unknown part of our history.
The programme included a very useful interview, conducted by the Cardinal, with Gordon Brown.
And I was rather amused by the thought of a Cardinal setting off to learn how to cook for himself - at an Italian restaurant, of course - as he approached retirement. I suspect this is a generational thing, as I expect that the younger clergy now have such hectic lives that a fixed meal time in a day, with a meal prepared by a housekeeper, is rare.
I got the impression that Cardinal Murphy O' Connor had enjoyed the experience of conducting the interviews and producing the packages for the programme. I thought the programme was an excellent example of bringing Catholic life to the attention of a wider public, of the encounter between faith and culture. And, as the Cardinal said in his short review video, there was something about it being radio rather than television. What people hear (and so have to give just that bit more attention and engagement to) is a bit special ...
Not that I (not owning a television) am at all biased ...
Do look at the page on the Today programme site!
I heard part of the programme, and rather enjoyed it. A visit to the English College in Rome, with the story of the seminarians gathering in the chapel before the Martyrs' Picture to sing the Te Deum ... As I listened to this, it occurred to me that, for many people in England and Wales, this would be an almost unknown part of our history.
The programme included a very useful interview, conducted by the Cardinal, with Gordon Brown.
And I was rather amused by the thought of a Cardinal setting off to learn how to cook for himself - at an Italian restaurant, of course - as he approached retirement. I suspect this is a generational thing, as I expect that the younger clergy now have such hectic lives that a fixed meal time in a day, with a meal prepared by a housekeeper, is rare.
I got the impression that Cardinal Murphy O' Connor had enjoyed the experience of conducting the interviews and producing the packages for the programme. I thought the programme was an excellent example of bringing Catholic life to the attention of a wider public, of the encounter between faith and culture. And, as the Cardinal said in his short review video, there was something about it being radio rather than television. What people hear (and so have to give just that bit more attention and engagement to) is a bit special ...
Not that I (not owning a television) am at all biased ...
Do look at the page on the Today programme site!
Thursday, 18 December 2008
A topsy turvy world?
I heard an item on Radio 4's Today programme this morning about the animal research centre in Oxford. Amongst other things, the item referred to the state-of-the-art facilities for housing the animals and to the commitment to reduce as far as possible the need to experiment on animals. Much of the research referred to was into illnesses such as Parkinson's Disease and Alzheimer's, progressive neurological illnesses that currently have no known cure.
At one point a scientist referred to work she was doing with embryonic stem cells, which could be made to grow into the same type of cells as occur in heart tissues. This work would reduce the need to experiment on animals.
I cannot remember (and at the time of posting Today is still on air so I cannot access the listen again function to check) if these were human embryonic stem cells, though I assumed they were as I listened.
The ordinariness with which the scientist made her comments is very thought provoking ...
At one point a scientist referred to work she was doing with embryonic stem cells, which could be made to grow into the same type of cells as occur in heart tissues. This work would reduce the need to experiment on animals.
I cannot remember (and at the time of posting Today is still on air so I cannot access the listen again function to check) if these were human embryonic stem cells, though I assumed they were as I listened.
The ordinariness with which the scientist made her comments is very thought provoking ...
Monday, 19 May 2008
Radio 4 "World at One": interview on saviour siblings
I have just listened to a (long) interview on BBC Radio 4's World at One lunch time current affairs programme. The interview is part of a programme that can, at the time of posting, be heard again at the Radio 4 website. In this interview, an anonymous doctor spoke about how a saviour sibling child would be able to provide a sufficiently close tissue match to save his already existing child from an unusual illness. Without this saviour sibling treatment, the older child would be "condemned to death by a thousand knives", to quote a phrase used more than once by the doctor.
After this interview, a much shorter time was allowed for Archbishop Vincent Nichols to respond. I think he would be forgiven for feeling that he had been set up, though I do not want to suggest that the World at One did that deliberately. Archbishop Nichols really did find himself in a position that only the most outstanding of media skills would have coped with successfully. John Smeaton has posted critically on Archbishop Nichols response.
However, as I listened to the anonymous doctor, I was struck by how many of his remarks reflected a "self-focussed" rather than an "other-focussed" attitude.
When asked by the interviewer, the doctor's reaction to the suggestion that a saviour sibling was "the only way that you can guarantee your son will live" was to say: "We have no other choice". [The doctor had, in fact, just discussed the other options and their risks.] The doctor made some comments about why they would want another child, as well as the saviour sibling aspect. Among the remarks, he talked about the second child "who we can love, who can give us hope, and will keep us going and will provide us with a child that will outlive us, every parent's wish". Later in the interview: "....we are hoping to have another child that is unaffected by the condition, because it is a genetic condition, and if we were to have a pregnancy again naturally then there is a high chance that we could be put in a similar situation and put a second child through all the pain and the repeated procedures .... We would love to have another child to give us hope, (who) we could love, and be with us as we get older ourselves."
The doctor also referred to situations where a family might already have siblings who could act as tissue donors for a sick brother or sister, suggesting that very few such brothers or sisters would decline to donate tissue. He completely ignored the question of consent on the part of the donating brother or sister ... And, related to this, the doctor indicated that the family would say as little as possible to the created saviour sibling about what had happened, with the intention of achieving as much "normalcy" in the situation as possible.
So, what I want to say is that the anonymous doctor presented a position that, objectively and philosophically speaking (and not intending any moral judgement on the doctor's subjective intentions which must be assumed to be the best), was "self-focussed" and not "other focussed", that did not show love in its objective/philosophical meaning (defined as wanting what is "right for the other", even where that requires sacrifice of what I want for myself), and that this seems to apply to both the present child and the future saviour sibling. And I emphasise again that, in saying this, I do not intend any moral judgement of the doctor or of his motives, or of the geniuness of his intention to love his children.
After this interview, a much shorter time was allowed for Archbishop Vincent Nichols to respond. I think he would be forgiven for feeling that he had been set up, though I do not want to suggest that the World at One did that deliberately. Archbishop Nichols really did find himself in a position that only the most outstanding of media skills would have coped with successfully. John Smeaton has posted critically on Archbishop Nichols response.
However, as I listened to the anonymous doctor, I was struck by how many of his remarks reflected a "self-focussed" rather than an "other-focussed" attitude.
When asked by the interviewer, the doctor's reaction to the suggestion that a saviour sibling was "the only way that you can guarantee your son will live" was to say: "We have no other choice". [The doctor had, in fact, just discussed the other options and their risks.] The doctor made some comments about why they would want another child, as well as the saviour sibling aspect. Among the remarks, he talked about the second child "who we can love, who can give us hope, and will keep us going and will provide us with a child that will outlive us, every parent's wish". Later in the interview: "....we are hoping to have another child that is unaffected by the condition, because it is a genetic condition, and if we were to have a pregnancy again naturally then there is a high chance that we could be put in a similar situation and put a second child through all the pain and the repeated procedures .... We would love to have another child to give us hope, (who) we could love, and be with us as we get older ourselves."
The doctor also referred to situations where a family might already have siblings who could act as tissue donors for a sick brother or sister, suggesting that very few such brothers or sisters would decline to donate tissue. He completely ignored the question of consent on the part of the donating brother or sister ... And, related to this, the doctor indicated that the family would say as little as possible to the created saviour sibling about what had happened, with the intention of achieving as much "normalcy" in the situation as possible.
So, what I want to say is that the anonymous doctor presented a position that, objectively and philosophically speaking (and not intending any moral judgement on the doctor's subjective intentions which must be assumed to be the best), was "self-focussed" and not "other focussed", that did not show love in its objective/philosophical meaning (defined as wanting what is "right for the other", even where that requires sacrifice of what I want for myself), and that this seems to apply to both the present child and the future saviour sibling. And I emphasise again that, in saying this, I do not intend any moral judgement of the doctor or of his motives, or of the geniuness of his intention to love his children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)