DebateLabKIT/deepa2-corpus · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 1.71k
about the topic. Even Franz Christoph, despite chaining his
wheelchair to the offices of Die Zeit because they published
reports of my views on euthanasia, has now published his
own book on the topic. At the outset he protests vigorously
Verlag Libertare Assoziation, 1990); Franz Christoph, Todlicher Zeitgeist (Cologne:
Kiepenheuer und Witsch, 1990); E. Klee, Durch Zyankali Erlost (Frankfurt:
Fischer, 1990); A. Leist, editor, Urn Leben und Tod (Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp, 1990); and o. Tolmein, Geschiitzles Leben (Hamburg: Konkret
Literatur Verlag, 1990). They will soon be joined by what is likely to be the
best book on the current German debate: R. Hegselmann and R. Merkel,
editors, Zur Debatte uber Euthanasie (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, expected September
1991).
350
Appendix
that his book is not a contribution to the debate about euthanasia,
but a book against this debate; it is self-evident,
though, that one cannot publish a book on whether or not
to have a debate on euthanasia without stimulating thought
among one's readers and reviewers about the issue of euthanasia
itself. 18
The negative aspects ofthese events are, unfortunately, probably
more weighty. Most threatening of all are the incidents described
at the beginning of this essay, and the atmosphere of
repression and intimidation that they have evoked. Anyone who
offers a course based on Practical Ethics in Germany now risks
the same protests and personal attacks that Professor Kliemt
faced in Duisburg. One Berlin philosopher told me recently that
it is not possible to offer a course in applied ethics in that city
- whether or not it makes reference to my book - because such
a course would be bound to be disrupted.
A sinister aspect of this atmosphere is a kind of self-censorship
among German publishers. It has proven extraordinarily difficult
to find a publisher to undertake a German edition of Should
the Baby Live? the updated and more comprehensive account of
my views (and those of my co-author Helga Kuhse) on the
treatment of severely disabled newborn infants. In view of the
current controversy, there seems no doubt that a German edition
of the book would have good commercial prospects. Yet one
after another, German publishers have declined to publish it,
18 See, for instance, the way in which Rudi Tarneden, a reviewer from an
association for the disabled, and very sympathetic to Christoph's position,
is drawn in the course of his review to raise such questions as: 'Aren't there
in fact extreme situations of human suffering, limits to what is bearable?
Am I really guilty of contempt for humanity ['Menschenverachtung: a term
often used in Germany to describe what I am supposed to be guilty ofPSI
if I try to take this into account?' Rudi Tarneden, 'Wo alles richtig ist,
kann es auch keine Schuld mehr geben' (a review of Franz Christoph,
Todlicher Zeitgeist and Christoph Anstotz, Ethik und Behinderung), Zeitschrift
fur Heilpiidagogik Vol. 42, No.4 (1991), p. 246.
351
Appendix
even after it had been recommended by editors whose advice
they normally accept without hesitation.
For those interested in studying or teaching bioethics or applied
ethics in Germany, the consequences are much more serious
still. Because he had invited me to lecture at the University
of Dortmund, Professor Christoph Anstotz became the target of
a hostile campaign aimed at having him dismissed from his
teaching duties. Petitions were circulated and letters written to
the minister of science and research for the state of NordrheinWestfalen,
in which Dortmund is situated. These letters were
signed by both teachers and students in special education. Although
Professor Anstotz has a tenured position from which it
would scarcely be possible for him to be dismissed, the government
took the complaints seriously enough to ask him to explain
why he had invited me, and what implications he drew from
my ethical position for his work in special education.
Throughout this campaign, the rector of the University of
Dortmund and his office remained silent. The highest officers
of the university took no action to indicate their concern that
threats of protest had forced an academic lecture to be canceled;
nor did they come to the defense of one of their professors when
he was under attack for inviting a colleague to give a lecture
on the campus ofthe university. That was typical ofthe reaction
of German professors. There was no strong reaction among them
on behalf of academic freedom. With a handful of exceptions,
Anstotz's colleagues in special education either joined the campaign
against him, or remained silent. A number of philosophers
signed declarations of support for the principle of free debate,
and one of these was published in the Berlin newspaper taz. 19
At Professor Meggle's instigation, 180 members ofthe German
Philosophical Association signed a similar declaration, but the
association has since failed to publish the list of the signers,
despite giving an undertaking to do so.
19 taz (Berlin), January 10. 1990.
352
Appendix
All this does not augur well for the future of rational discussion
of controversial new ethical issues in Germany and Austria.
Outside the German-speaking nations, study and discussion of
bioethics is expanding rapidly, in response to the recognition
of the need for ethical consideration of the many new issues
raised by developments in medicine and the biological sciences.
Other fields of applied ethics, such as the status of animals,
questions of global justice and resource distribution, environmental
ethics and business ethics, are also getting much attention.
In Germany and Austria, however, it now takes real
courage to do work in applied ethics, and even more courage
to publish something that is likely to come under the hostile
scrutiny of those who want to stop debate. Academics who do

about the topic. Even Franz Christoph, despite chaining his

wheelchair to the offices of Die Zeit because they published

reports of my views on euthanasia, has now published his

own book on the topic. At the outset he protests vigorously

Verlag Libertare Assoziation, 1990); Franz Christoph, Todlicher Zeitgeist (Cologne:

Kiepenheuer und Witsch, 1990); E. Klee, Durch Zyankali Erlost (Frankfurt:

Fischer, 1990); A. Leist, editor, Urn Leben und Tod (Frankfurt:

Suhrkamp, 1990); and o. Tolmein, Geschiitzles Leben (Hamburg: Konkret

Literatur Verlag, 1990). They will soon be joined by what is likely to be the

best book on the current German debate: R. Hegselmann and R. Merkel,

editors, Zur Debatte uber Euthanasie (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, expected September

1991).

350

Appendix

that his book is not a contribution to the debate about euthanasia,

but a book against this debate; it is self-evident,

though, that one cannot publish a book on whether or not

to have a debate on euthanasia without stimulating thought

among one's readers and reviewers about the issue of euthanasia

itself. 18

The negative aspects ofthese events are, unfortunately, probably

more weighty. Most threatening of all are the incidents described

at the beginning of this essay, and the atmosphere of

repression and intimidation that they have evoked. Anyone who

offers a course based on Practical Ethics in Germany now risks

the same protests and personal attacks that Professor Kliemt

faced in Duisburg. One Berlin philosopher told me recently that

it is not possible to offer a course in applied ethics in that city

- whether or not it makes reference to my book - because such

a course would be bound to be disrupted.

A sinister aspect of this atmosphere is a kind of self-censorship

among German publishers. It has proven extraordinarily difficult

to find a publisher to undertake a German edition of Should

the Baby Live? the updated and more comprehensive account of

my views (and those of my co-author Helga Kuhse) on the

treatment of severely disabled newborn infants. In view of the

current controversy, there seems no doubt that a German edition

of the book would have good commercial prospects. Yet one

after another, German publishers have declined to publish it,

18 See, for instance, the way in which Rudi Tarneden, a reviewer from an

association for the disabled, and very sympathetic to Christoph's position,

is drawn in the course of his review to raise such questions as: 'Aren't there

in fact extreme situations of human suffering, limits to what is bearable?

Am I really guilty of contempt for humanity ['Menschenverachtung: a term

often used in Germany to describe what I am supposed to be guilty ofPSI

if I try to take this into account?' Rudi Tarneden, 'Wo alles richtig ist,

kann es auch keine Schuld mehr geben' (a review of Franz Christoph,

Todlicher Zeitgeist and Christoph Anstotz, Ethik und Behinderung), Zeitschrift

fur Heilpiidagogik Vol. 42, No.4 (1991), p. 246.

351

Appendix

even after it had been recommended by editors whose advice

they normally accept without hesitation.

For those interested in studying or teaching bioethics or applied

ethics in Germany, the consequences are much more serious

still. Because he had invited me to lecture at the University

of Dortmund, Professor Christoph Anstotz became the target of

a hostile campaign aimed at having him dismissed from his

teaching duties. Petitions were circulated and letters written to

the minister of science and research for the state of NordrheinWestfalen,

in which Dortmund is situated. These letters were

signed by both teachers and students in special education. Although

Professor Anstotz has a tenured position from which it

would scarcely be possible for him to be dismissed, the government

took the complaints seriously enough to ask him to explain

why he had invited me, and what implications he drew from

my ethical position for his work in special education.

Throughout this campaign, the rector of the University of

Dortmund and his office remained silent. The highest officers

of the university took no action to indicate their concern that

threats of protest had forced an academic lecture to be canceled;

nor did they come to the defense of one of their professors when

he was under attack for inviting a colleague to give a lecture

on the campus ofthe university. That was typical ofthe reaction

of German professors. There was no strong reaction among them

on behalf of academic freedom. With a handful of exceptions,

Anstotz's colleagues in special education either joined the campaign

against him, or remained silent. A number of philosophers

signed declarations of support for the principle of free debate,

and one of these was published in the Berlin newspaper taz. 19

At Professor Meggle's instigation, 180 members ofthe German

Philosophical Association signed a similar declaration, but the

association has since failed to publish the list of the signers,

despite giving an undertaking to do so.

19 taz (Berlin), January 10. 1990.

352

Appendix

All this does not augur well for the future of rational discussion

of controversial new ethical issues in Germany and Austria.

Outside the German-speaking nations, study and discussion of

bioethics is expanding rapidly, in response to the recognition

of the need for ethical consideration of the many new issues

raised by developments in medicine and the biological sciences.

Other fields of applied ethics, such as the status of animals,

questions of global justice and resource distribution, environmental

ethics and business ethics, are also getting much attention.

In Germany and Austria, however, it now takes real

courage to do work in applied ethics, and even more courage

to publish something that is likely to come under the hostile

scrutiny of those who want to stop debate. Academics who do