The proposal of the so-called
post-birth abortion, in the article by
[
Giubilini and Minerva ], is
astonishing but not surprising. As the
journal editor pointed out, this issue
has been largely discussed in the past,
after it was formally advocated for the
first time by Prof. Michael Tooley in
1972.
The option of killing the human fetus
has been part of medical practice in
most western countries over the past
decades. As we agree with the authors
that no substantial difference is
present in the individual before and
after birth, we recognize that killing
babies 'after birth' only increases the
total number of individuals being
eliminated, but not the matter at stake.
The authors are well aware of this, and
conclude that since abortion is commonly
permitted, even infanticide should be.
Our question for the authors is, who
would be entitled to decree the death of
an infant or any individual who 'might
be an unbearable burden on the family
and on society' (line 1, page 2) or is
anybody at all entitled to make such a
decision?
No one of us decided to be born, when
to be born and where to be born, it
happened in a specific time in history,
in a precise geographical place, and in
a family we did not choose. We are
indeed confronted with an unavoidable
question, who decided of our existence
and who called us to existence? The fact
of our own birth and our own life brings
about, whether we like it or not, that
we are not 'in charge' of our life and
even less of the life of others. Life is
given to us.
A famous Italian writer, Cesare
Pavese, notes in his diary, after he had
obtained the most highly prized Italian
literary award, "You also have the gift
of fertility. You are the master of
yourself, of your fate ... yet all that
will come to an end. This profound joy
of yours, this glow of super-abundance,
is made of things you did not take into
account. It was given to you. By whom?
Whom should you thank? Whom will you
curse when it all disappears?" (*)
The 'I', the human being, is that
level of nature in which nature becomes
aware of 'being made' and of 'not being
made by itself', therefore this
existential observation implies the
presence of a mysterious relationship,
what people historically call 'god'.
Thus, we hold that each individual
has an untouchable value exactly in
virtue of this mysterious relationship
and no one, whether the person itself,
the family and nevertheless the
physician is entitled to end their life.
Moreover, we argue that, since
medicine was started in human history in
order to heal illnesses, alleviate
suffering and comfort patients, the
answer to a present or future disability
or to parents' anxiety should not be
death but solidarity.
We propose that any patient, whether
aware or unaware, capable or incapable,
young or old, potentially disable or
chronically ill, even when is incurable,
holds an unconditional value and
therefore should be object of profound
respect and care.
(*) Cesare Pavese,
The Burning Brand: Diaries 1935-1950,
translated by A.E. Murch (New York:
Walker & Company, 1961:345).