‘Subpersonal’ — rebirth of terrifying notion from last century

IN HIS letter (November 17), Con Hayes presents a well-argued case for permitting the killing of human beings at various stages of development. However, in my opinion there are several flaws in his argument:

1. He calls the coming into being of a new human being at conception a belief on the part of Prof William Reville (Letters, November 1). It is, of course, a scientific fact.

2. Mr Hayes bases his whole argument on the idea of personhood rather than human life. Personhood is a notoriously slippery concept and — as his letter makes clear — highly adaptable in the hands of those fortunate enough to have been allowed to reach the stage of deciding the fate of their less fortunate co-humans. As Mr Hayes probably knows, there are modern philosophers who believe it is permissible to kill newborn babies, especially if they are handicapped. The eminent British ethicist, Baroness Warnock, suggests that permission be given to “put down” old people who are no longer able to look after themselves. Presumably these human beings are judged as not being, or as having ceased to be, persons in any meaningful sense.

3. Up to recently there was an attempt to say the earliest stages of human life were subhuman: the “only a ball of cells” argument. Now that science has undermined this approach, “subhuman” becomes “subpersonal”. To anyone who has lived through much of the 20th century, this is a positively terrifying notion.

4. Mr Hayes calls on the evolutionary argument, also used by Dr Moore and Prof Cotter of UCC. Do these three gentlemen really know for a fact that there is nothing special about human beings that entitles them to be treated differently to other animals? Until they can provide convincing evidence to the contrary, and not just self-serving evolutionary assumptions, I think we should stick to the ‘special case’ for humans. Otherwise, Mr Hayes and myself might end up in neighbouring cages in Dr Moore’s lab. Perhaps the good doctor might discover what makes us write letters to newspapers.

5. The argument that many fertilised ova are lost naturally appears to suggest to Mr Hayes a basis for allowing research on human embryos. Because we die, it should be permissible to kill us? Am I missing something here?

I commend Mr Hayes for his obvious sympathy and understanding for those families who have suffered a miscarriage. However, he is no doubt aware that many abortions are carried out well after the time at which a mother would be aware she had miscarried. From the approach he takes to miscarriages, I would like to think there are grounds for hoping he would disapprove of this.

Oliver Broderick

Montserrat House

Ashe Street

Youghal

Co Cork