DebateLabKIT/deepa2-corpus · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 1.71k
Appendix
Allowing these misconceptions to be stated did, at least, provide
an opportunity for reply. Someone else came to the platform
and said that he agreed that it was not necessary to use
intensive care medicine to prolong every life, but allowing an
infant to die was different from taking active steps to end the
infant's life. That led to further discussion, and so in the end
we had a long and not entirely fruitless debate. Some of that
audience, at least, went away better informed than they had
been when they arrived. 15
The events of the summer of 1989 have had continuing repercussions
on German intellectual life. On the positive side, those
who had sought to stifle the controversy over euthanasia soon
found that, as so often happens, the attempt to suppress ideas
only ensures that the ideas gain a wider audience. Germany's
leading liberal weekly newspaper, Die Zeit, published two articles
that gave a fair account of the arguments for euthanasia,
and also discussed the taboo that had prevented open discussion
of the topic in Germany. For this courageous piece of journalism,
Die Zeit also became the target of protests, with Franz Christoph,
the leader of the 'Cripples Movement', chaining his wheelchair
to the door of the newspaper's editorial offices. The editors of
Die Zeit then invited Christoph to take part in a tape-recorded
discussion with the editors of the newspaper and one or two
others about whether the paper was right to discuss the topic
of euthanasia. Christoph accepted, and the transcript was published
in a further extensive article. Predictably, as in Saarbriicken,
what began as a conversation about whether or not
marising my views on animals, so the response did indicate that most of
the protesters had not read the book on which they based their opposition
to my invitation to speak.
15 For this reason one of the protesters, reporting on the events in a student
publication, made it clear that to enter into the discussion with me was a
tactical error. See Holger Dorff, 'Singer in Saarbriicken: Unirevue (Wintersemester,
1989/90), p. 47.
348
Appendix
euthanasia should be discussed very soon turned into a debate
on euthanasia itself.
From this point the euthanasia debate was picked up by both
German and Austrian television. The outcome was that instead
of a few hundred people hearing my views at lectures in Marburg
and Dortmund, several million read about them or listened
to them on television. The Deutsche Arzteblatt - the major German
medical journal - published an article by Helga Kuhse
entitled 'Why the discussion of euthanasia is unavoidable in
Germany too', which led to an extensive debate in subsequent
issues. 16 In philosophical circles the discussion of applied ethics
in general, and euthanasia in particular, is much livelier now
than it was before 1989 - as is indicated by the special issue of
Analyse & Kritik to which I have already referred. In journals of
special education, as well, ethical issues are now being discussed
far more frequently than they were two years ago.
The protest also revived the flagging sales of the German
edition of Practical Ethics. The book sold more copies in the year
after June 1989 than it had in all the five years it had previously
been available in Germany. Now everyone involved in the debate
in Germany seems to be rushing to publish a book on
euthanasia. With the exception of two books by Anstotz and
Leist, which contain genuine ethical arguments, those published
so far are of some interest for those wishing to study the thinking
of Germans opposed to free speech, but not for any other
reason. 17 For the most part each of the books appears to have
been written to a formula that goes something like this:
16 Helga Kuhse, 'Warum Fragen der Euthanasie auch in Deutschland unvermeidlich
sind'. Deutsche iirz(eblatt, No. 16 (April 19, 1990), pp. 1243-9;
readers' letters, and a response by Kuhse, are to be found in No. 37 (September
13, 1990), pp.2696-704 and No. 38 (September 20, 1990),
pp.2792-6.
17 The list of books published between January 1990 and June 1991 devoted
to this theme includes: C. Anstotz, Ethik und Behinderung (Berlin: Edition
Marhold, 1990); T. Bastian, editor, Denken, Schreiben, Toten (Stuttgart: HirzeL
1990); T. Bruns, U. Panselin, and U. Sierck, TOdliche Ethik (Hamburg:
349
Appendix
Quote a few passages from Practical Ethics selected so as to
distort the book's meaning.
2 Express horror that anyone can say such things.
3 Make a sneering jibe at the idea that this could pass for
philosophy.
4 Draw a parallel between what has been quoted and what the
Nazis thought or did.
But it is also essential to observe one negative aspect of the
formula:
5 Avoid discussing any of the following dangerous questions:
Is human life to be preserved to the maximum extent possible?
If not, in cases in which the patient cannot and never has
been able to express a preference, how are decisions to discontinue
treatment to be made, without an evaluation of the
patient's quality of life? What is the moral significance of the
distinction between bringing about a patient's death by withdrawing
treatment necessary to prolong life and bringing it
about by active intervention? Why is advocacy of euthanasia
for severely disabled infants so much worse than advocacy of
abortion on request that the same people can oppose the right
even to discuss the former, while themselves advocating the
latter?
The irony about the recent pUblications, of course, is that
even those who are highly critical of my own position do, by
publishing their books and articles, foster a climate of debate

Appendix

Allowing these misconceptions to be stated did, at least, provide

an opportunity for reply. Someone else came to the platform

and said that he agreed that it was not necessary to use

intensive care medicine to prolong every life, but allowing an

infant to die was different from taking active steps to end the

infant's life. That led to further discussion, and so in the end

we had a long and not entirely fruitless debate. Some of that

audience, at least, went away better informed than they had

been when they arrived. 15

The events of the summer of 1989 have had continuing repercussions

on German intellectual life. On the positive side, those

who had sought to stifle the controversy over euthanasia soon

found that, as so often happens, the attempt to suppress ideas

only ensures that the ideas gain a wider audience. Germany's

leading liberal weekly newspaper, Die Zeit, published two articles

that gave a fair account of the arguments for euthanasia,

and also discussed the taboo that had prevented open discussion

of the topic in Germany. For this courageous piece of journalism,

Die Zeit also became the target of protests, with Franz Christoph,

the leader of the 'Cripples Movement', chaining his wheelchair

to the door of the newspaper's editorial offices. The editors of

Die Zeit then invited Christoph to take part in a tape-recorded

discussion with the editors of the newspaper and one or two

others about whether the paper was right to discuss the topic

of euthanasia. Christoph accepted, and the transcript was published

in a further extensive article. Predictably, as in Saarbriicken,

what began as a conversation about whether or not

marising my views on animals, so the response did indicate that most of

the protesters had not read the book on which they based their opposition

to my invitation to speak.

15 For this reason one of the protesters, reporting on the events in a student

publication, made it clear that to enter into the discussion with me was a

tactical error. See Holger Dorff, 'Singer in Saarbriicken: Unirevue (Wintersemester,

1989/90), p. 47.

348

Appendix

euthanasia should be discussed very soon turned into a debate

on euthanasia itself.

From this point the euthanasia debate was picked up by both

German and Austrian television. The outcome was that instead

of a few hundred people hearing my views at lectures in Marburg

and Dortmund, several million read about them or listened

to them on television. The Deutsche Arzteblatt - the major German

medical journal - published an article by Helga Kuhse

entitled 'Why the discussion of euthanasia is unavoidable in

Germany too', which led to an extensive debate in subsequent

issues. 16 In philosophical circles the discussion of applied ethics

in general, and euthanasia in particular, is much livelier now

than it was before 1989 - as is indicated by the special issue of

Analyse & Kritik to which I have already referred. In journals of

special education, as well, ethical issues are now being discussed

far more frequently than they were two years ago.

The protest also revived the flagging sales of the German

edition of Practical Ethics. The book sold more copies in the year

after June 1989 than it had in all the five years it had previously

been available in Germany. Now everyone involved in the debate

in Germany seems to be rushing to publish a book on

euthanasia. With the exception of two books by Anstotz and

Leist, which contain genuine ethical arguments, those published

so far are of some interest for those wishing to study the thinking

of Germans opposed to free speech, but not for any other

reason. 17 For the most part each of the books appears to have

been written to a formula that goes something like this:

16 Helga Kuhse, 'Warum Fragen der Euthanasie auch in Deutschland unvermeidlich

sind'. Deutsche iirz(eblatt, No. 16 (April 19, 1990), pp. 1243-9;

readers' letters, and a response by Kuhse, are to be found in No. 37 (September

13, 1990), pp.2696-704 and No. 38 (September 20, 1990),

pp.2792-6.

17 The list of books published between January 1990 and June 1991 devoted

to this theme includes: C. Anstotz, Ethik und Behinderung (Berlin: Edition

Marhold, 1990); T. Bastian, editor, Denken, Schreiben, Toten (Stuttgart: HirzeL

1990); T. Bruns, U. Panselin, and U. Sierck, TOdliche Ethik (Hamburg:

349

Appendix

Quote a few passages from Practical Ethics selected so as to

distort the book's meaning.

2 Express horror that anyone can say such things.

3 Make a sneering jibe at the idea that this could pass for

philosophy.

4 Draw a parallel between what has been quoted and what the

Nazis thought or did.

But it is also essential to observe one negative aspect of the

formula:

5 Avoid discussing any of the following dangerous questions:

Is human life to be preserved to the maximum extent possible?

If not, in cases in which the patient cannot and never has

been able to express a preference, how are decisions to discontinue

treatment to be made, without an evaluation of the

patient's quality of life? What is the moral significance of the

distinction between bringing about a patient's death by withdrawing

treatment necessary to prolong life and bringing it

about by active intervention? Why is advocacy of euthanasia

for severely disabled infants so much worse than advocacy of

abortion on request that the same people can oppose the right

even to discuss the former, while themselves advocating the

latter?

The irony about the recent pUblications, of course, is that

even those who are highly critical of my own position do, by

publishing their books and articles, foster a climate of debate