HUMAN BEING OR PERSON ?- By Averthanus L. D’Souza

GOA, Jan. 05, 2010, 16.15 Hrs (Averthanus L. D’Souza / CBCI News):

An earlier article “Is Abortion a Human Right?” which questioned the legitimacy of the claim by some Irish women that their country’s Constitution should be changed to permit them to terminate their pregnancies arbitrarily, evoked a very interesting and vigorous discussion on the internet. The women in question have appealed to the European Court of Human Rights claiming that the Irish Constitution violates their human rights because it does not provide them with the facilities to terminate their pregnancies. Some of the opinions expressed in the internet discussion were totally irrelevant; some others (particularly by one contributor) were juvenile and snide. These can safely be ignored because they only confuse the issue.

The discussion (rightly) focused on the vital question of whether an embryo or a foetus was a person or not. One argument advanced the view that a human being is not a “person” until some time after birth. The contributor (presumably a medical doctor) contended that a person is a human who is fully (please note) self conscious, who has an awareness of the world around him, and who freely exercises his will. When confronted with the specific cases of Christopher Reeve who became a quadriplegic due to a riding accident, and that of the well known physicist Stephen Hawkin who has lost total control of his bodily functions because of a motor neurone disease, he argued that both these cases did not invalidate his argument because they could both speak and could communicate with the world around them. He evaded the pointed question, however, whether these two cases represented only partial “personhood” since they did not entirely fit into his own definition.

This doctor, however, made his basic argument clearer when, in response to the question of whether a human being who is in a coma and has no self consciousness or awareness of his surroundings, and who has no control over his own physiological functions, and is certainly unable to exercise his will is still a person, responded that: “He loses his personhood.” (N.B.) He went on to inform us that: “The latest developments in neuroscience indicate that personhood is a dynamic state continuously created every waking moment.” (sic). Interestingly (but consistently), this good doctor also asserted that an Alzheimer’s patient, in severe cases, ceases to be a “person.”

We have finally arrived at the basic assumptions from which our good doctor proceeds. The definition of a person by his neurological functions is the queerest argument that has ever been propounded. It is like saying that an aeroplane is an aeroplane because it flies. This means that if it is grounded, it is no longer an aeroplane; or again, it is like saying that a gun is a gun because it shoots, which means that if it is locked up in a gun cabinet, it is no longer a gun. By the weirdest twist of logic, we are asked to accept the argument that personhood is a kind of “on again”/ “off again” phenomenon; that under certain circumstances we are persons and under other circumstances we are not persons. By this weird logic, if a human being is undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia (when he is not conscious and cannot exercise his will freely), he is not a person, and the surgeon is merely operating on a chunk of human flesh. According to this absurd logic, if the patient dies without regaining consciousness, the surgeon can claim that he did not kill a “person” but that he merely destroyed a human being. This is consistent with the claim that destroying embryos or foetuses does not constitute murder.

The good doctor went on to assert that some (higher) primates had developed “almost” complete personhood, while some of the lesser primates, such as baboons and chimpanzees, had acquired “a great deal” of personhood. According to his argument it appears that “personhood” can be quantified and therefore measured in animals. The doctor does not favour us with any details of when a gorilla or a baboon can be said to be a full person. Neither does he explain at what stage such an animal would qualify to be described as a “human” being. He only asserts that: “Indeed, in most developed countries, the new knowledge is already leading to the enactment of new laws to treat the great apes and other primates as persons.” (sic). It is widely recognized, even though, perhaps, not adequately articulated, that when we attribute “intelligence” to animals, this is done only in an analogical manner. The common man speaks of horses being “more intelligent” than dogs; or of elephants being more intelligent than horses. We often hear that whales and dolphins are far more intelligent than horses and primates. Even about domestic animals, there is much discussion on whether a Doberman Pinscher is as “intelligent” as a Labrador or a German Shepherd. In all common parlance, it is implicitly admitted, that the term “intelligence” which is attributed to animals is not used in the same sense in which it is attributed to human beings. To take this analogy even further, we attribute intelligence even to insects such as ants and bees, because they exhibit extremely intricate and complex social organizations. Zoologists and biologists have not yet exhausted their search of these “intelligent” creatures. Our good doctor seems to overlook the fact that the study of “Primates” is still a study of “Primates” and not of “humans.” The distinction between primates and humans remains clear and recognizable. To cite primatologists in support of his argument denying that “personhood” is the exclusive preserve of human beings, therefore, is simply inane and totally unconvincing.

Which brings us to the argument that the concept of “personhood” is derived, not from science, but from Philosophy. We shall gladly concede his argument on this point. There are realities which are much, much beyond the domain of Science (note that Science is spelt with a capital S). Every intelligent pursuer of truth recognizes this fact. The discipline of Metaphysics (which means “meta”=beyond + “physica”=physics) was elaborated brilliantly by Aristotle in the fourth century before Christ. It is simply ingenuous to hold the view that every explanation of reality has to be made solely according to known scientific criteria. This understanding of the comprehensiveness of science has been abandoned by most scientists today. Science has its legitimate place in human understanding; it also has its limitations. To dismiss explanations which are beyond the scope of science is to be obtuse and also unscientific. Arguments, such as those advanced by our good doctor are precisely those which led to massive human tragedies in the very recent past. Nazi doctors and biologists advanced the view (like our good doctor is doing) that human embryos are not “persons.” This led to the widespread practice of eugenics which was calculated to eliminate “undesirable” elements from the glorious “Vaterland” which the Nazis were endeavouring to build. From genetic “engineering” they proceeded to physically eliminate adult persons (?) who had particular traits – physical, racial, cultural or intellectual - which did not conform to their own specifications. Human “beings” were not recognized as “persons” because they did not fit into the politico-scientific definition of Nazism. The criteria were defined by the reigning political philosophy, and the social and human consequences which followed, is history.... as the common expression has it.

Our good doctor would do well to study some history, if he is not overly-absorbed in his medical sciences, to see whether his “scientific perspective” is the only valid perspective on the question of whether a human embryo is a “person” or a mere aggregate of cells. He could not do worse than examine, objectively and dispassionately, the claim by philosophers and ethicists that an human embryo is sacred and inviolable, and should never be, for whatever reason, treated as “something” instead of “someone.” Science may not yet have definitively established the exact stage at which the embryo becomes a person, but that the embryo, undeniably, is a potential person should cause every doctor to be extremely cautious about how s/he treats the human embryo. Embryology as a science is itself only in its embryonic stage. It would be crass and extremely unwise to presume that doctors have found explanations for everything in the universe. As it is, we can whole-heartedly agree with Ivan Illich who asserts that “The medical establishment has become a major threat to health. The disabling impact of professional control over medicine has reached the proportions of an epidemic.” (Limits to Medicine, Penguin Books, 1976). In discussions of this nature, there is, all too often, evidence of arrogance on the part of the “professionals” who think that they know more than everyone else. They tend, maybe unwittingly, to be condescending and patronizing in their responses to perfectly legitimate questions. This does not augur well for healthy debate and for the enlightenment of those who are not as well instructed as themselves in scientific matters

Averthanus L. D’Souza