3. THE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF HUMAN DIGNITY, ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES, AND THE
3.7. CONJUGATION OF THE MORAL/ETHICAL JUDGEMENTS AND THE PROCESS OF THE
3.7.1. VIABILITY OF THE LIFE OF THE CHILD WITH DISABILITIES: IS IT WORTH
The borderline of viability732 starts by looking at the life of the person or human being. In consideration to the circumstances involved around the birth of a child, there are some indications of prematurity of the child, high rate of neurosensory disability i.e. cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness, and extreme pattern of mental disorders.733 These might give some hints on the degree of viability of the child with disabilities. Besides the medical conditions outlined above, there is also another important aspect i.e. the beginning of human life of the child with disabilities. The argument is that the beginning of human life may assist us in the determination of who the person is. Some theologians, particularly in the Roman Catholic school of thought, hold the opinion that human life starts at conception.734 From that point onwards, what is in the mothers’ womb is a person no matter how complicated other medical conditions might be. The borderline in this school of thought in terms of the determination of the personhood of the child is put at the stage of conception.735 The understanding is that, no matter the condition of the person, he or she is still a person, with an inherent right to life.
When the child is born with physical and mental disabilities, he or she remains a human being.736 The process of ensoulment, though disputed in terms of the time factor, is believed
732 Msall, M.E., (2009), The Limits of Viability and the Uncertainty of Neuroprotection: Challenges in Optimizing Outcomes in Extreme Prematurity, in American Academy of Paediatrics Journal, Chicago:
American Academy Publishers, Volume 119, Issue 1, Borderline Viability in cases of child disabilities implies the rate of survival of the child i.e. how long would the child live with such a severe disability. It also implies the threshold of life of the child where either death or life is possible.
733 Ibid.
734 Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, (2004), Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Nairobi:
Paulines Publications Africa, Art. 237, 135.
735 Ibid. To this note, there is an implication that the time of conception determines the humanity of the child hence there is no time when one could disqualify the personhood of the child. Medical conditions too, are not enough reasons to terminate the life of the child with disabilities.
736 Ibid.
to take place at conception, giving the foetus a sacred status.737 The child does not lose his or her status as a person based on his or her condition. This being the case, it would be unlawful to take away the life of the child. Contrary to this understanding, David Brown revealed another criterion in determining the personhood of the child. He devised up with the theory of viability.738 The theory starts by questioning the time factor, saying: When does, someone become a person entitled to be accorded the same value as you and me?739 He then went on to define the phrase: human being.740 He discovered that scholars differ tremendously. Some scholars see a human being as completely distinct from a person while Brown defined a human being as that point at which there is definitive presence of one’s potential for personhood.741 Per Brown, scholars referred to a person as “someone with an existing capacity and character that indicates moral status, i.e. containing certain worth.”742 From the above discussion, we come to realise that there is a diverse understanding of who the person or human being is. We see conflicting attributes that negate the personhood of the child with disabilities, when the latter definition of the person is used as a criterion for the determination of whether the child is a person or not yet a person. The theory of Brown defined viability as a point at which the foetus is capable of independent existence outside the mother’s womb.743 This implied that there is an element of potential life in the child who is born. We could as well make use of the theory of viability and potential life in the child as major determinants of the personhood of the child with disabilities. If the child is viable and has the potential for life, then with this fact on its own, the child with disabilities is worthy of living. One of the major questions would be: How does one determine viability and potential in the life of a child? The moment we define personhood based on such theories, we stand the risk of making exclusive conclusions. Considering medical conditions of the child as criteria for the determination of personhood, then children who are born with
737 Pope John Paul II, (1995), Evangelium Vitae, an Encyclical Letter on the Gospel of Life, Article No. 58 states: ‘Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the mother nor father. It is rather the life of a new human being with his or her own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspect already well determined. (……..) Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning using reason a personal presence now of the first appearance of a human life.
738 Brown, d., (1985), Faith and the Future: Choices, Ethics and the Christian, New York: Basil Blackwell Publishers, 116.
739 Ibid.
740 Ibid.
741 Ibid.
742 Ibid.
743 Ibid.
physical and mental disabilities, will be deemed as human beings who have no value in life, since they may be lacking the potential for life. In the same line of thought, it is out of such kind of thinking that some people categorise children with disabilities as non-beings or none- persons and other pejorative names.
Understanding person and personhood in relation to human dignity and identity, we will consider studying one of the prominent orthodox figure in the name of Zizioulas who changed the traditional Christian view of Western theology. For him, person and personhood are applied in the same manner with little variations. He stressed the relational character of personhood rendering one’s identity in relation to others.744 He describes the concept of personhood in two terms namely: ‘ekstasis’ and ‘hypostasis’.745 In this case, the dignity of a person resides in the recognition of one’s own nature. Children with disabilities have their own unique human identity that ought to be acknowledged and dignified as it is. Regarding Zizioulas thought pattern, personhood, person and the individual, are terms that are used interchangeably sometimes. Specific to the term ‘person’ in Zizioulas thought refers to the person of the trinity while personhood has mainly been applied to anthropology.746 Further to the above discussion, Papanikolaou in trying to resolve the tension between personal freedom and subordinationism argued:
“This mutually constitutive relationship between communion and otherness means for the trinity that the Son causes the Father and the Spirit to be; that the Spirit causes the Father and the Son to be; as much as the Father causes the Son and the Spirit to be. The identity of each person is dependent on the other persons. On the level of freedom, each person being the cause of the existence of the other persons means that each person freely confirms their free will to exist in communion with other persons and by so doing, cause the existence of the other as persons.”747
Taking into account the above line of thought by Papanikolaou, analogically it implies that the identity of each person is dependent on the other persons. This further could be applied to the context of children with disabilities that their personal identity is dependent on other persons who by their very existence, affirms their identity as persons imbued with human dignity. Their personhood ought to be understood in relational terms. In this case, the
744 Gunton, C.E., (2007), Person and Particularity in Knight, D., (Ed), The Theology of John Zizioulas:
Personhood and the Church, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Co., 97-108.
745 Ibid. By ‘Ekstasis’ he meant a movement towards communion. By ‘Hypostasis’ he meant a particular being.
In this sense he implied that through hypostasis, it signifies that in and through his or her communion, personhood affirms one’s own identity and particularity. One supports his or her own nature in a particular unique way.
746 Russell, E., (2003), Reconsidering Relational Anthropology: A Critical Assessment of John Zizioulas’
Theological Anthropology, in International Journal of Systematic Theology, 5., No.2. 168-186.
747 Papanikolaou, A. (2006), Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism and Divine – Human Communion, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 151.
concepts namely: ‘person’ and ‘personhood’ ought to be interpreted in a relational manner.
In reference to the term ‘Hypostasis’, each person is unique and particular implying that one’s own personal identity is unique and particular to himself or herself. To this effect, we can as well say that the identity and the dignity of each individual person resides in the recognition of the particularity and uniqueness of each person per se. We can therefore conclude that the understanding of the concept of person and personhood in Zizioulas thought pattern, we acknowledge two different view-points of which both are a true reflection of the reality at hand. First, we recognize through the concept of ‘Hypostasis’ that each person is unique and particular to himself or herself. To this effect, one gains human identity and dignity by virtue of his or her existence. Secondly, Zizioulas brought about the idea of ‘Ousia’ that means being in communion with others hence bringing the idea that we gain human identity and dignity through others.
Further to the above discussion, we gain human identity and dignity through the continuous potential of becoming the image and likeness of God.748 God created humankind in his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:27). In this sense, Zizioulas states that God the Father is the ultimate giver of personhood and each single person acquires personal otherness i.e. absolute other. All humanity owes its existence from God the Father hence by virtue of our existence we deserve human identity and dignity no matter how different our biological bodies may look like. We therefore gain personhood from God the Father who creates us in his own image and likeness. With regard to the existential problem at hand, when children with disabilities are abandoned, dumped in inhuman conditions and sometimes instant death is induced on them, such acts of violence are tantamount to the violation of God’s will for them. The will of God presupposes that all live to the full.749
The discussion above has laid down some links to people’s perceptions that may lead someone to justify the act of abandoning the child, dumping the child in inhuman conditions or killing the child, without having any remorse. The justification would be that it is not a person based on some notions presented above. For instance, modern science has come with certain notions that define and simplify things for the human being.750 It has led to a change in people’s perceptions towards reality hence we interpret reality in a unique way, leading
748 Nonna Verna, H., (1998), Zizioulas on Communion and Otherness, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 42, 273-300.
749 Schroeder, C.P., (2001), Suffering Towards Personhood: John Zizioulas and Fyodor Dostoevsky in Conversation on Freedom and the Human Person, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 45, No.3, 243-64.
750 House, J.S., (2001), Understanding Social Factors and Inequalities in Health: 20th Century Progress and 21st Century Prospects, in Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, Michigan: American Sociological Association, Volume 43, No. 2, June Issue,125-142.
to certain violations of the inherent right to human life, especially in the context of children who are vulnerable and lack means of self-defence. On the positive note, we can attribute development and progress to the advancement of science and technology.
3.7.2. DIRECT KILLING OR LETTING THE CHILD WITH DISABILITY TO DIE A