According to the Hebrew Bible Prophets, societies are judged by three Societal Rails-in Truth, in Justice and in Righteousness. These categories remain relevant to present.
Within each rail, a societies confront policy issues with solutions. To be effective, these processes take into account the human factor. The choices to be made are not always black and white; decisions often involve a choice of shades of gray. For some, the guidance in this decision making is moral authority. For some, moral authority is derived from scripture.
Sometimes, a government’s choice tests humanity’s very core. In Canada, according a news account, the nation is marching towards state sponsored infanticide.
The Dailymail reports a faction of Canadian academia endorses infanticide.
“In 2022, Louis Roy from the Quebec College of Physicians raised the notion of euthanasia for babies up to a year old ‘who are born with severe deformations, very grave and severe medical syndromes, whose life expectancy and level of suffering are such that it would make sense to ensure that they do not suffer.’ Dailymail.com
The article noted that currently it is permissible that treatment for these children can be stopped. The present issue raised is whether it is permissible to “accelerate” an infant’s death. Dailymail.com. Given that Canada’s medical system is nationalized, arguably the state itself is an agent in the commission of infanticide.
Issue Spotting
Definitions play a key role in policy execution. Thus, legitimate questions are: “What is a severe medical syndrome?”, “What is one year of age?”, and “What does ‘accelerate’ mean?”
The reality is that these definitions will eventually mutate either expansively or restrictively. Thus, a slippery slope is inevitable.
The Issue
Should eliminating innocents “who are incapable of helping themselves” an act of righteousness?
Analysis
For those favoring infanticide, there are many reasons. Eliminating these profoundly ill children unburdens society of resources. The governmental sponsored medical care system can devote services elsewhere. Likewise, the parents would be unburdened. They could devote their time to workplace and generate taxable income. Also, they could generate services or manufacture products that would benefit the state. Finally, for some, it is perceived an an act of compassion to the child’s perceived suffering.
In contrast, does such an action endanger righteousness itself? Would this type of legislature embolden further acts of elimination? Should all those who are perceived as being a drain on society be targeted for the sake of efficiency? Finally, is it possible that such a supposed restrictive system be an invitation to sadists? Could certain individuals who find satisfaction in taking other people’s lives gravitate towards this field of medicine? While that proposition sounds absurd, the nursing profession has suffered from this problem, i.e. Charles Cullen, Genene Jones, and Heather Pressdee.
In conclusion, multiple factors have created a societal conundrum concerning life itself. Medical advancements extending life have created societal costs and burdens. In reaction, governments sponsoring medical treatment are reacting by becoming more open to radical solutions. This includes the termination of innocent babies. The issue is to whether such governments accept that there is a moral authority. Are there matters that are the purview of the creator of mankind?
Be well!!
Please like, follow, comment or share.
T
The Ten Commandments Project 