Abortion and euthanasia deserve equal debate

25 Oct 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum

IT IS curious to note the contrasting approaches taken by the Ministry of Health on the issues of euthanasia and abortion. The euthanasia issue elicited extensive on-going discussions initiated by Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan who viewed it as a moral dilemma. On the other hand, the abortion issue was definitively concluded, with Mr Khaw saying we should base the decision purely on science and take emotion out.

I suggest the two issues are merely two sides of the same coin, depending on which side one chooses. Euthanasia and abortion are discussions of the relative importance of sanctity (or viability in the case of abortion) of life versus the rights of the individual.

I find it mistaken for the authorities to frame the two issues in such contrasting manner. If viability of life is the dominating principle, we should restrict access to euthanasia and have the same level of safeguards we have for those seeking abortion, that is, simply mandatory counselling. If, however, the individual's rights are paramount, then we should embrace euthanasia and simply allow individuals to decide.

The only difference is that abortion, unlike euthanasia, had been debated at length and decided. To be consistent, we should approach the euthanasia issue as we did with abortion in the 1970s. Convene a Select Committee and determine the viability of people who are suffering from terminal illness.

Recalling then health minister Chua Sian Chin's response regarding the slippery slope of allowing abortion that 'no community anywhere in the present world has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit', the previously unimaginable could become a reality in the foreseeable future.

Recalling also Ms Lynn Lee's column against those calling for a review of the abortion law ('Banning abortion won't mean more babies', July 31), I would like to quote portions with allusion to the present euthanasia debate:

'How many babies suffering from birth defects (elderly suffering from terminal illnesses) should society be prepared to look after?

'Every child (person) deserves a chance at the best possible quality of life... Allowing women (them) the option of abortion (euthanasia) helps ensure that as many babies (people) as possible are wanted and healthy (living quality life).

'In Singapore's case, no adequate secular reason has been advanced in the recent calls to ban abortion (disallow euthanasia).'

On Abortion

My latest foray into ST Forum writing that didn't get published, probably because there were many similar letters castigating the writer for her "emotive" outburst. Looking forward to see her next piece on this issue, if ever.

I refer to Ms Lynn Lee (ST, 31 Jul 08) response to Ms Tan Seow Hon (ST, 24 Jul 08) on the subject of abortion legislation.

Taking Ms Tan’s commentary at face value, Ms Lee’s response seemed almost as emotive as what she had charged A/P Tan’s article for.

Nowhere did Ms Tan allude to banning abortion as her desired end-state for Singapore. In fact, beyond the first paragraph which mentioned rendering access to abortion harder as one avenue of boosting birth rates in Singapore, it was a concise piece revisiting the original basis for legalising abortions and putting forth arguments why a review is timely.

Upfront, I agree with Ms Lee that limiting access to or banning abortion to boost birth rates is a non-starter. However, Ms Lee failed to address A/P Tan’s counter-arguments to the three social goods originally advocated by the government then to support the legalisation of abortion. Saying that abortion option helps ensure that as many babies as possible are wanted and healthy is a personal affront both to the many Singaporeans who respect the sanctity of life enough to commit to bringing up less “healthy” children, and to these children, that their quality of life is somewhat less fulfilling than healthy ones.

There is no need for Ms Lee to steer the debate into one of religion and secularism. Rather than pointing the finger at Ms Tan’s views as religiously motivated, we should ask what secularism’s dogmas on abortion and the beginning of life are. If secularism’s stand is that the woman alone is the final arbitrator on this issue, then we should allow for abortion beyond the current 24-weeks window since medical advances can ensure the physiological well-being of the woman beyond this current limit.

The 24-weeks window was originally articulated based on the medical community’s ability to sustain life outside the womb. Given the medical advances in the last 40 years, it is plausible for us to refresh the legislation based on this medical “definition” from which life “begins”.

Secularism does not have all the answers. If it was the sole basis from which the society makes all decisions, then we would not need to have this debate on the ethicality of stem-cell research. We could, in good conscience, grow petri-dish foetuses for up to 24-weeks for the good of the rest of the living Singaporeans who were fortunate enough to be given the right to life.