John Henry Newman: Education, Wisdom and the Gentleman

 

A talk by Dr Angelo Bottone. Universidad CEU San Pablo Madrid, 28 February 2020

New poll shows public misgivings about euthanasia

 

A new poll highlights significant public concerns about the potential legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the UK. It also highlights contradictory attitudes. There is broad support for allowing the procedures but nervousness about how it may work out.

While a majority may support “assisted dying” in principle, many feel that the complexities and risks involved make it unsafe for implementation in Britain. A substantial 60pc worry that pro-euthanasia legalisation would alter the doctor-patient relationship, and 56pc fear it could normalise suicide.

Concerns also include the possibility of pressuring vulnerable people, especially under the strain of NHS budgets, to choose death. 43pc fear it could incentivise health professionals to encourage some patients to take their lives.

The poll found that most people supported legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide but believed it would backfire in practice. (Curiously, the poll found that the 18-24 age cohort is the only in which the majority of respondents does not support a change in the legislation.)

Moreover, 70pc of respondents believe that countries like Canada and the Netherlands have “gone too far” with similar laws.

In both of these countries some of the worst fears of euthanasia critics have been confirmed (see here and here) and these fears are confirmed by a new report about Canada titled “From exceptional to routine”.

This study shows that “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) was introduced in 2015 as a rare option and it is now the fifth cause of death in Canada.

While the number of denied requests continue to decrease every year, approved cases went from 1,028 in 2016, the first year of operation, to 13,241 in 2022. This represents a thirteenfold increase. No other country has seen such a dramatic rate of growth.

Unlike other jurisdictions, the criminal prohibition in Canada on euthanasia and assisted suicide was overturned not through new legislation but through the courts. It was originally intended for exceptional cases and then, in a few years, most of the initial safeguards have been removed by judges or by legislators.

For instance, there was a minimum ten-day assessment period for MAiD but a government bill removed it in 2021. The median time between written request and death in 2022 was only eleven days, and it is possible for requests to be assessed and provided in a single day.

Moreover, the previous requirement that the patient give final consent before administration of death is now no longer mandatory.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide became initially available to persons whose death was “reasonably foreseeable” and later it was extended to anyone considering that their physical suffering, from a disability for example, is intolerable to them.

One of the few restrictions still in place is again under attack. Currently, people suffering solely from mental disorders are not eligible for MAiD but a very recent case aims at removing this safeguard as it is considered discriminatory.

If it is offered to those who are in physical pain, why not to those who are in mental pain, argue the pro-euthanasia campaigners.

The growing acceptance and expansion of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, including the potential for its use solely in cases of mental illness, raises alarms about the inevitable slippery slope such legalisation would create. Something worth considering before any attempt to change the law, here or in the UK.

Unlike Ireland, Britain can see the problem with international surrogacy

 

Ireland has recently passed one of the most permissive surrogacy law in Europe. To appreciate how extreme this law is, it can be compared with what is in the report issued last year by the Law Commission of England and Wales, in collaboration with the Scottish Law Commission.

This report reviews the current legislation and case law in the UK, which is already liberal by international standards, and proposes recommendations, including a draft bill for potential implementation. Unlike us, it recommends against international surrogacy.

Currently, in the UK, surrogacy is permitted, but the commissioning parents can apply for a parental order only after the child is born. The report recommends a new pathway so that the commissioning parents do not need to make an application to the court but, instead, their pre-conception agreement with the surrogate mother is registered by a newly proposed regulatory body, and they become legal parents as soon as the child is born.

The report repeatedly specifies that the pre-conception agreement is not a contract and is not enforceable by the parties against each other as a matter of contract law. The gestational mother can withdraw her consent before birth and up to six weeks after the baby is born.

In Ireland, the regulatory authority approves the surrogacy agreement before birth, and the application for a parental order is made after birth. This is the case for domestic and international arrangements.

The UK law reform, however, recommended against including international surrogacy arrangements in their proposed pathway, using the same arguments presented in Ireland—unfortunately without success—by the few members of the Oireachtas who opposed the new legislation.

“We have concluded that international surrogacy arrangements should be excluded from the new pathway, as we are concerned by the risks of exploitation since international surrogacy is beyond the jurisdiction of surrogacy regulation in the UK. … Such international surrogacy arrangements are almost invariably commercial in nature,” the report says.

The report highlights ethical, legal, and practical challenges. It acknowledges that international surrogacy often occurs in countries with weaker regulations, increasing the risk of exploitation of surrogate mothers. These women may face inadequate legal protections, poor healthcare, and financial arrangements that are not transparent or fair. The disparities in legal standards between countries can also create significant legal uncertainties for intended parents, particularly when bringing the child back to the UK.

“The risks of exploitation will depend on the effectiveness of regulation provided by national laws in different countries, and the impact that the payment available to women to be a surrogate can have on the lives of the surrogate and her family. Concerns may be greatest where regulation is inadequate, the sums of money payable to women who act as surrogates are life-changing, and where women do not have equal access to employment, education or other opportunities. While we do not consider that all international arrangements will necessarily be exploitative, we consider that the risk of exploitation is considerably higher than in domestic agreements and that those risks cannot be controlled by domestic laws”, says the report.

The UK Law reform document also notes the potential risks to the welfare of the child, including issues related to legal parentage, citizenship, and the child’s right to know their origins. The lack of international agreements on surrogacy standards exacerbates these risks, leading to inconsistent practices and outcomes.

Similar concerns were raised at the hearings of the Special Oireachtas Committee, even by some state officials, but they have been completely ignored by the Government. It is not an exaggeration to say that Ireland new surrogacy legislation is extreme, with no concern for the exploitation, commodification, and psychological harm caused, here and abroad.

Applied Ethics Primer

My latest publication

Applied Ethics Primer, by Letitia Meynell and Clarisse Paron - Reviewed by Angelo Bottone - Teaching Philosophy (Philosophy Documentation Center) https://www.pdcnet.org/teachphil/content/teachphil_2024_0047_0003_0440_0444

Libri nuovi e usati

«Capelli sul cuscino»

L’amico si affrettò a posare sulla tavola il volume coperto di bella carta color torlo d’uovo; il
volume sul cui frontespizio aveva letto questo titolo eccentrico: Capelli sul cuscino; e, torcendo la
bocca: «Fa un certo effetto» mi disse «come trovare uno (un capello, intendeva) nella minestra».
È il guaio dei titoli a tinte forti, e intenzioni, diremo così, sviscerate. Impazzano come la crema; e,
passato un po’ di tempo, non hanno più affatto sapore, o hanno preso sapori inquietanti.
In un grosso libro del dottor Eugenio Duehren: Le Marquis de Sade et son temps (Etudes relatives a
l’histoire de la Civilisation et des Moeurs au XVIII.me siècle),2 pubblicato in francese, a Berlino,
dall’editore Barsdorf, nel 1901, si impara che i titoli sul genere Sciogli la treccia, Capelli sul
cuscino, etc., etc., erano di gran moda in pieno incendio rivoluzionario. E il Duehren ce ne procura
un elenco, il quale potrebbe prestarsi a raffronti utili con i titoli in corso nella letteratura erotica e
frenetica che imperversò, or sono pochi mesi, durante quella che, secondo molti pronostici, pareva
dovesse essere la nostra vigilia rivoluzionaria.3
Mi preparavo, tempo fa, a sviluppare appunto cotesti raffronti in un articolo, quando una mattina,
guardando in giro, non ritrovai più i sintomi della rivoluzione, né la letteratura eroticorivoluzionaria.
In Italia i mutamenti storici avvengono con tale urgenza, che non si fa a tempo, il più
delle volte, a consacrarli non dico in un libro, ma in una colonna di giornale!
Sarebbe tuttavia ingiusto identificare, per via del titolo: Capelli sul cuscino, queste novelle di Auro
d’Alba4 (Edit. Mondadori, Milano, 1921), con la novellistica testé scomparsa. Il titolo può essere
sforzato ed oltrepassato. E le novelle, che del resto non dovrebbero nemmeno considerarsi,
strettamente, come novelle, possono non mancare di mende, nell’ideazione e nello stile. Ma
rappresentano un progresso marcato, sugli scritti precedenti del d’Alba. E si ornano continuamente
dei segni d’una sensibilità assai fresca e sincera. È facile, così, dimenticare anche quel tanto di
romantico, che l’autore non ha saputo risparmiarsi, tratteggiandoci alcuni dolenti episodi del
riassestamento postbellico.
Ciò che sopratutto importa, è che, con questo libro, lasciando le convenzionali bravate del
futurismo, il d’Alba mostra di volere impegnarsi in una via di lavoro serio. Un’altra pecorella torna

all’ovile. C’è posto anche per lei: e sia la benvenuta.

Emilio Cecchi

«La Tribuna», venerdì 18 novembre 1921.

A new critique of ‘Comprehensive Sexuality Education’

 

A major new paper criticises so-called “comprehensive sexuality education”, raising concerns about its content, effectiveness, impact on parental rights, and psychological effects on young people.

Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) focuses on the broader concept of ‘sexuality’ rather than just ‘sex’. It is promoted by international institutions such as the UN, the World Health Organisation (WHO), and the European Parliament, and also by major international NGOs.

CSE has also inspired the most recent updates of Relationships and Sexuality Education here in Ireland. (See for instance the 2022 background paper for Senior Cycle SPHE)

The report from Dr Joanna Williams, a British academic and former director of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at University of Kent presents a detailed critique of CSE, expressing numerous concerns about its implementation and impact.

Dr Williams argues that CSE promotes values and behaviours that may conflict with the cultural, religious, or moral beliefs of many families and communities, as it goes beyond providing basic knowledge about human sexuality and reproductive health, serving as a tool to advance a specific political agenda.

CSE is often expressed in the language of political activism. For instance, Planned Parenthood, the main abortion provider in the US, claims that CSE can “provide an important forum for building solidarity between young people with varying degrees of access to privilege and sexual rights. It can also strengthen active citizenship skills for working towards a sexual culture that is more just and equal.”

A primary concern highlighted by Dr Williams is the age-appropriateness of the material in CSE programs. She argues that children are exposed to complex sexual information at a very young age, potentially leading to confusion and inappropriate behaviour.

For example, in its paper “Standards for Sexuality education in Europe”, the WHO states: “In this document, it was deliberately decided to call for an approach in which sexuality education starts from birth. From birth, babies learn the value and pleasure of bodily contact, warmth and intimacy. Soon after that, they learn what is ‘clean’ and what is ‘dirty’. Later, they learn the difference between male and female, and between intimates and strangers. The point is that, from birth, parents in particular send messages to their children that relate to the human body and intimacy. In other words, they are engaging in sexuality education.”

This is clearly an extremely broad concept of ‘sexuality education’. Why use this term to describes activities that have nothing at all to do with sex?

Dr Williams stresses the importance of protecting children’s innocence and argues that parents should play the primary role in educating them about sex, according to their maturity and readiness.

Dr Williams also questions the effectiveness of CSE in achieving its stated goals, such as reducing teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. She presents data and studies suggesting that CSE may not be as successful as its proponents claim. This is backed up by ESRI data from Ireland. An ESRI report from 2020 said there is “little relationship between receiving Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) or not and young people’s sexual behaviour and competence”.

Concerns about the infringement of parental rights and family autonomy in children’s education are also discussed. Dr Williams argues that CSE programs often bypass parental consent and involvement, imposing a one-size-fits-all approach that does not consider the diverse values and beliefs of families.

Another critical point raised is the potential psychological impact of CSE on children and adolescents. The exposure to explicit sexual content and discussions about sexual diversity at a young age can lead to psychological distress, confusion about gender identity, and an increase in risky sexual behaviours, she argues. Dr Williams calls for more research and evidence to assess the long-term impacts of CSE on mental and emotional health.

She also criticises the philosophy behind this approach, maintaining that CSE is rooted in a particular worldview that emphasises sexual freedom and autonomy, and promotes a relativistic approach to morality, where all sexual behaviours are seen as equally valid.