Daniel
Herbster reporting
Wesley
J. Smith is an influential writer and commentator who has dedicated his career
to preserving human dignity and educating his fellow man on the principles of
bioethics and justice. He is a senior
fellow at the Discovery Institute and a
special consultant to the Center for Bioethics
and Culture. He has also written a
number of books, and he blogs at Secondhand
Smoke. Smith was kind enough to
share with AdvanceUSA’s readers about important bioethics issues facing our society
today and about his work.
DH: Why are bioethics issues so important?
WJS: Bioethics is a contraction for “biomedical
ethics.” It is a field that has profound influence over core areas of human
endeavor that help establish and define the morality of society, and indeed,
the meaning of human life itself. Should elderly people have their health care
rationed? Is assisted suicide a proper
medical service? Is it right to create
cloned human embryos for use in research or to bring to birth? Is it wrong to abort fetuses because they
test positive for Down syndrome? Should parents be able to genetically enhance
their children? Are there morally relevant differences between humans and
animals? What should happen if a nurse
refuses to participate in an abortion or a physician wants to cut off wanted
life-sustaining medical treatment because the patient has a poor “quality of
life?” These and other equally important
bioethical issues are much larger than the sum of their parts because they
establish philosophical norms that exert tremendous influence upon society
beyond the policies themselves. Indeed,
I can think of few fields more important than bioethics in determining the kind
of society we shall become in the 21st century.
DH: What is “human exceptionalism” and how does
it relate to issues of life and justice?
WJS: Human exceptionalism refers to the sheer
moral importance and unique value of being human. I believe strongly that adhering to human
exceptionalism is the predicate to defending universal human rights. Indeed,
whether we accept or reject human exceptionalism may be the most important
issue we face as a culture. For if we say that simply being human is not what gives value to life, we have to
ask a second question: What does? That
second question leads directly to a system wherein those with power decide
which of us has greater--and which lesser—value, and who decides those who
don’t make muster. Thus, many in bioethics support “personhood theory,” which
denies the objective moral value of being human and claims that what matters morally
is being a “person,” a status earned
by possessing minimal cognitive capacities. In this view, there is such a thing
as a human “non person,” such as fetuses, newborns, and people who have lost
these capacities, such as Terri Schiavo.
Worse, because the human non person is defined as having lesser value,
they lose the right to life and, can be used instrumentally such as in medical
experimentation or as sources of organs.
Indeed, there is much agitation in bioethics and within the organ
transplant community to redefine death to include a diagnosis of persistent
vegetative state—meaning that if this view prevails, severely compromised
people could essentially be killed for their organs. This isn’t happening—yet—but the only way to
make sure that such policies are never instituted is to adhere to human
exceptionalism.
DH: How did you become interested in bioethics
and how has your legal training helped in your work?
WJS: My legal training and experience as a
lawyer have been essential to my current work because I developed a way of
thinking that is invaluable in analyzing arguments, connecting dots, and in
powerfully advocating for my beliefs. Whether or not one wishes to practice
law, when in doubt, go to law school. It was the best formative experience of
my life.
I
didn’t plan on getting into these issues, that’s for sure. I had quit
practicing law—which is a story in itself—and was writing books with Ralph
Nader. Then, in 1992, an elderly friend committed suicide under the influence
of Hemlock Society literature. When I saw this material, I was outraged—it was
literally proselytizing for suicide. The literature had “witnessing” stories,
told readers what drugs to take, and how to use a plastic bag to make sure they
died. My friend underscored all of this text in yellow ink. That was how she
killed herself. I was furious: These people who didn’t even know her had given
her moral permission to commit suicide and taught her how to do it! As I
mentioned, I wasn’t thinking of going into this work, but was upset enough to
write a piece warning against the euthanasia movement for the “My Turn” section
of Newsweek. “The Whispers of Strangers”—which I thought
was utterly uncontroversial—was published in the June 28, 1993 edition. Well,
you should have seen my hate mail—and this was before e-mail! I was accused of
being cruel. I was told I wanted people to suffer. Many letters wished for me to get cancer or
hoped that I lived a long and “suffering” life. I was told that euthanasia was
noble and suicide was the way of the future. I was floored; stunned. I remember thinking, “What happened to my
culture and where was I when it happened?” At that time I was contacted by the
International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, headed by Rita
Marker, wanting to reprint my piece in the Task Force’s newsletter. I read Rita’s book Deadly Compassion, which
described the goals of the euthanasia movement.
I have never been so profoundly impacted by a book. At that point, I knew I had to enlist in this
fight and my life changed forever.
DH: What kind of work do you do for the Discovery Institute and for the Center for Bioethics and Culture?
WJS: It’s not quite accurate to say I work
“for” the Discovery Institute. I am a senior fellow in the Human Rights and
Bioethics project. The DI is a think tank that helps underwrite my work simply
because its administrators believe in what I am doing. It also provides
intellectual help and advice if I need it, as well as promoting my work. I am
very proud to be associated with The Discovery Institute and we hope to build
the project into one that will one day have a permanent staff and a sufficient
budget to allow us to be more proactive on these issues than is the case
today. I consult for the Center for
Bioethics and Culture, that is, I give its leadership advice, I am available
for speeches, and I write for its newsletter. You might say I am on call to the
CBC to help it in its work that focuses primarily, but certainly not
exclusively, on biotechnological issues. I also serve as an attorney and
consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.
DH: Scientists are making great strides in adult
stem cell research and induced pluripotent stem cell research (iPSC). Do you think these developments will dampen
the enthusiasm for unethical research (ex: embryonic research and human
cloning)?
WJS: Yes and no. I think among the general
public, people want treatments and cures. They would prefer that it be from
adult and IPSC type cells. The more successful those fields are, I think, the
less public support there will be for pursuing contentious areas such as
embryonic stem cell and human cloning research.
However, I don’t think most scientists are unwilling to be so limited.
They want to pursue all areas of research, and indeed, view those of us who
raise significant ethical concerns as somehow being “anti science.” We are not, of course. Indeed, I am a strong supporter of science,
but believe that like all powerful endeavors, there should be reasonable
ethical parameters to guide its activities.
In the end, these are not science disputes. They are ethical
controversies: Too many of those who push for ESCR and cloning intentionally conflate
these two distinct concepts.
DH: What do you think are the motives of those
who promote unethical embryonic stem cell research and forms of human cloning
(besides those with a genuine but misguided desire to help people with diseases
and injuries)?
WJS: I think most have a genuine desire to help
people and ameliorate disease. But I also worry that a level of hubris has
entered the field, a sense of entitlement, if you will. I think that the
leadership of the science sector—as distinguished from the bench scientists—believe
that they, and they alone, should decide what is right and wrong, ethical and
unethical, in science. Our job as society is to provide resources for the
important work and get out of the way so that we can garner the benefits. I disagree strongly. I think that democratic processes have a very
important role to play here—particularly when the public’s money is funding
much of the work.
DH: What are the most important bioethics issues
facing us today and what issues are the next generation of bioethics issues
that you see on the horizon?
WJS: Actually, it is bigger even than
bioethics. I think humanism is mutating into an explicit and misanthropic
anti-humanism. Indeed, I now believe
that we are in the midst of what I call a “coup
de culture” in which the social order founded in Judeo-Christian/humanistic
view that upholds the unique importance of human life is being supplanted by a
philosophical system steeped in utilitarianism—which is where bioethics comes
in and the potential of creating disposable castes of people—hedonism—by which
I mean the presumed right to indulge almost every urge and desire and not be
judged—and radical environmentalism. Thus, Ecuador’s new constitution just
granted “rights” to “nature” that are co-equal to those of people and Spain is
about to pass into law the Great Ape Project that creates a “community of
equals” among humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and other apes. The new movie The Day the Earth Stood Still, a remake of a great old science
fiction film from the 1950s, has the aliens coming to earth not to save mankind
from self destruction, but to obliterate humanity—a complete genocide—in order
to save the earth. Think about it! An A-List Hollywood extravaganza explicitly
sends the message that we are the vermin species on the living planet, which is
the heart of the Deep Ecology ideology.
I think the goal is to knock us off the pedestal of human exceptionalism
so that we will be so humbled and self-degraded that we will willingly
sacrifice our own welfare and prosperity to “save the planet.” In this light, the problem of bioethics is a
part of a larger overarching threat.
Sorry if I went deeper than perhaps you intended for me to go.
DH: Not at all. This is important information.
What actions do you expect President Obama and the 111th
Congress to take on bioethics issues?
WJS: I think they will federally fund
abortions. I think they will move toward passing the Freedom of Choice Act that
would obliterate state regulation of abortion, such as it is. I think they will
also try to destroy the “conscience clause” rights that the Bush Administration
established protecting health care workers from discrimination if they refuse
to be complicit in acts such as assisted suicide or abortion. Think about that:
There is a danger that medical professionals who adhere to the Hippocratic Oath
will be declared persona non grata in
health care! I think we will see moves to establish federal control over health
care on a national level, leading to fights over health care rationing. I think
that on the international stage, the cause of human exceptionalism will suffer
in support of more utilitarian and supposedly feminist reproductive and other
health care policies. On the other hand, I think that President Obama will
continue President Bush’s commitment to help people with AIDS, particularly in
Africa, and will work mightily in the fields of disease prevention.
DH: How can our readers stay informed on these
issues and how can they make a positive difference for human dignity?
WJS: If you don’t mind a plug, I think the
single easiest way is to read my blog Secondhand
Smoke, at www.wesleyjsmith.com I call SHS, “Your 24/7 Seminar on
Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human,” and intend it to be a one-stop
information factory helping people who wish to engage these issues obtain the
facts and analyses they need to impact the debate. I think it is so important,
that I spend several hours a day perusing stories and writing posts, and trying
to sort out what it all means. The blog is also a great research tool that
allows people trace important stories over time. I use my own blog for that
purpose, as a matter of fact. I also
think that people should read books, visit the Websites of groups such as the
CBC and the International Task Force, as well as attend lectures. There is no dearth of information on these
issues; that is for sure. The main thing
is to know that while some like to pretend these issues are over the heads of most
people, I think they are readily understood once you get past some of the
jargon. Then, once they are informed, I really
hope people will share what they have learned every chance they get, with
friends, colleagues, family, etc. They
should write letters to the editor, engage in Internet debates, call radio talk
shows, educate, educate, educate. I don’t think these issues can be won among
the intelligentsia—they are already too far gone. But we can definitely prevail
on Main Street and in the public square if enough people learn about these
issues and make it their jobs to inform others.
DH: I recently read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and 1984 by George Orwell. Do
you think there are important lessons for our generation in these books (particularly
Brave New World) in the realm of
bioethics and human dignity?
WJS: BNW
is probably the most prophetic novel ever written and is more relevant today
than it was in 1932 when it was first published. I think we are already on the
path to the inhuman society Huxley depicts, which not coincidentally, is
utterly utilitarian and hedonistic. The only aspect he missed was the radical
environmentalism that has come to the fore in recent years. Huxley’s characters believe in nothing. But I don’t think humans can believe in
nothing. We seem to be hard wired to seek
the transcendent. With theism under attack, a new form of earth religion based
on deep ecological principles could well fill the developing belief gap. I also
think 1984 is well worth reading
because of how vividly Orwell depicted the power of word engineering—a hallmark
of the coup de culture today.
DH: Thanks for sharing this information with our
readers and for your dedication to preserving human dignity. Please let us know of any important issues
and developments you see in the future.
Note: The views of any interviewee do not
necessarily reflect the views of AdvanceUSA.