The Interim had the opportunity to interview keynote speaker Wesley J. Smith following his address during the recent Ontario pro-life conference in Richmond Hill, Ont. An edited version of that interview follows. Smith practised law from 1976-1985, during which time he was a partner in his own law firm and served on several bar committees. He left the full-time practice of law in 1985 and pursued a career in writing and public advocacy. Since then, he has authored or co-authored eight books. His most current books are of interest to pro-life advocates – Forced Exit and Culture of Death. Smith’s writing and opinion columns on medical ethics, legal ethics, and public affairs have appeared in national and regional publications throughout North America. He has also appeared on more than 1,500 television or radio talk and interview shows. He is a lecturer and public speaker, appearing frequently at political, educational, community, and professional gatherings. Smith has also become a sought-after speaker, internationally.
The Interim: In your talk, you raised a number of points that were quite significant. In a nutshell, can you describe some of the currents running through bioethics, and what we should be concerned about in that area?
Wesley J. Smith: Bioethics is the new philosophy of health care and medical ethics that is trying to create ethics and values that will apply into the 21st century. The problem with bioethics is that it doesn’t believe in the sanctity of human life. It doesn’t believe that all human life is equal, which is what the sanctity of human life is about. What many in the bioethics movement are trying to do, with some exceptions, is create an explicit hierarchy of human life; that is, some people are deemed to have greater value than other people do. The people with higher value have what you and I call “universal human rights.” This is incredibly dangerous to our elderly, people who are disabled, people who are dying or people who, for whatever reason, are viewed as having a life less worthy of living than other people.
The Interim: You mentioned that there is a money-making effort on this. Some corporations are jumping on the stem-cell and embryo-cultivation bandwagon.
Wesley J. Smith: It strikes me that there is an unholy nexus between the philosophy that primarily prevails in the bioethics movement … and the big-money people. In health care, as an example, the people who are least valued in bioethics – those castigated as not even being persons – may also be the most expensive to care for … You have an issue that goes beyond health care. In embryonic stem-cell research, you have companies saying they’re going to patent human life and use it to create marketable products. They’re quite explicit about that. I hope your (readers) will reflect quite deeply about what it will mean to us and our perception of humanity if we decide that some human life can be marketed as if it were a mere natural resource such as a timber forest, corn field, copper mine or cattle herd. This is very dangerous, because it will lead … to oppression, exploitation and even killing.
The Interim: You also mentioned there is an agenda to redefine what it means to be human. To what end is that being done?
Wesley J. Smith: What many in bioethics believe, is that it’s not human life that matters, it’s being what they call “a person.” In order to be a person – and it may even be an animal that is a person – you have to have certain cognitive capacities … By saying that there is nothing special about human life simply because it’s human, you move away from an objective view of human life to a subjective one, where we will come up with the criteria by which we will judge which lives have greater value than others. In the end, that becomes nothing but a matter of power and political hegemony, because those who are in power will say, “We’re the ones with the good lives,” and the people who don’t have power will be the ones castigated as having lives of lesser value.
The Interim: You said the pivotal question of the 21st century will be: is human life valuable simply because it is human?
Wesley J. Smith: It strikes me that what the embryonic stem cell and cloning debates have brought us to is that very question … In embryonic research, no woman is forced to do anything with her body. So we have taken that “filter” (of a woman’s control over her body) out, and we have to look at whether human life has value simply because it is human. If the answer is “yes,” we will have one future – one that is more likely to value all people … but if the answer is “no,” I fear we’ll have a completely different future, because only some humans will be valued. Those who have the power or the cultural dominance will decide who is worth living and valuing based on subjective criteria that they create.
The Interim: This sounds a lot like the Nazi vision for civilization. Can we draw any parallels between the two?
Wesley J. Smith: It’s always risky (to say) that this is the Nazis, although there are some parallels that can’t be avoided. But it didn’t start with the Nazis, which is what people have to really understand. It started with eugenics, in my view. The eugenicists of the late 19th- and early-to-mid-20th centuries said there were the “fit” and the “unfit.” The unfit could be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing … In Germany, it went to the ultimate mother of all cultures of death, with the destruction of 250,000 disabled people by doctors who did it because they thought it was the right thing to do, not because they were forced to do it by Nazis. So to say that one accepts embryonic research is not to say that one is a Nazi by any stretch. But you have to look back and see where the division of human lives according to value leads. Is there any logical way, once you accept that premise, to keep from going off the cliff? I submit that some want to go there faster and some slower, but once you accept the premise that human life is not valuable simply because it’s human, you are heading in a direction that leads to a very dark place … There’s really no way to stop it once you go down the road. One can be the most liberal minded, anti-Nazi in the world and still end up going off a cliff. There are a lot of ways to do that – a lot of paths lead into the chasm … I think we’re in great danger of moving into some very immoral and unethical approaches that will discriminate against vulnerable human lives based on power. I don’t think that’s escapable once you say some human lives have lesser value than other human lives.
The Interim: Can we identify which elements are pushing toward this dark vision of the future?
Wesley J. Smith: I think it comes from both the liberal and conservative perspectives. The liberals say, “It’s my body. I can do what I want with it.” But conservative libertarians also accept that same premise, saying we shouldn’t spend money on these people (who are seen as having lesser value). It is also coming from the bioethics movement, which says that, “As a matter of philosophy, we can’t accept that human life has value simply because it’s human,” because they perceive that as a religious value. They don’t believe religion has any place in the marketplace of ideas. They come up with: “What is it that makes human life so special?” They say it’s because we’re rational and capable of thought … The most dangerous is the untangling of human community. We don’t interact in the same way we once did. We don’t see grandpa dying in bed with the grandkids playing at the bedside. We don’t reach out to people as we once did in terms of the joys and tragedies of life. We’ve become very insulated. When we’re insulated, it becomes easy to look at other people and think of them in terms of “the other,” instead of realizing there’s no such thing as “them,” there’s only “us” … To say we can discriminate based on age, health or disability is to engage in wrong behaviour, just having different victims. That has to be understood. We should not discriminate or harbour illusions that there is such a thing as a human “them.” Unless we’re all “us,” we end up with tragedy …
The Interim: You alluded to media distortion, if I can use that term, especially in regard to stem cell research. Do you see that as a problem?
Wesley J. Smith: I think the media have fallen into a terrible trap. Instead of being objective journalists, they see themselves as moulders of human and societal attitudes. There is a reluctance among many, not all, in the media to report stories that do not reflect the dominant belief systems of people who work therein. For example, I’ve noticed in (coverage of) the stem cell issue that if there is an embryonic stem cell breakthrough, it will get tremendous media coverage. If there is an issue that shows embryonic stem cell research isn’t necessary because we can get the same benefits from adult or umbilical cord stem cells, there is much less play. I don’t think it’s necessarily a conspiracy, but I think there is a belief among many in the media that if they play the wrong side too high, they’re helping the wrong people … Many in the media view the pro-life movement as anathema. To give any credence to pro-lifers … would damage the kind of society they believe they’re moulding and help create.
The Interim: We come to the question of: what do we do? You said during your talk that we have to be dynamic and multi-faceted to succeed, and take one step at a time.
Wesley J. Smith: I believe (people) have to be willing to move outside the usual lexicon and thought system that they’re used to when dealing with life issues. Be willing to work with people who may disagree with you about abortion, but do agree that we shouldn’t allow human cloning or do agree that we should not have euthanasia. Don’t insist on an ideological purity, if you will. You have to be willing to create alliances and coalitions that may not exist on the abortion issue. Otherwise, all you’ll end up doing is speaking to the choir … If you want to stop cloning, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia, it’s going to take a dynamic, multi-faceted approach. Some people may talk religion, but you have to be able to talk secular … Be willing to speak where the audience is, rather than where you are. That’s where effective communication is … Pro-lifers should say, “Let’s open ourselves up to working with people who disagree with us about abortion.” That doesn’t mean you change your position on abortion … Have some faith in your message. If you can’t get them on abortion, get them on euthanasia or stem cells. You never know what will happen from there. There is such a wide range of issues beyond abortion … Unless the pro-life movement is willing to expand beyond its somewhat self-imposed limitations on approach, there will be two burned-down houses … That is how society is changed and improved, and how the things that are threatening us can be prevented from coming to reality.
The Interim: If people want more information, where can they go?
Wesley J. Smith: The book that would help them the most in terms of the widest range on these issues is called Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America … That would really describe the danger of the bioethics movement in an honest and open way, which people can understand. It’s not a philosophy book or high-brow. It’s for real folk to be able to read and understand. They have to be able to understand if they’re going to be able to engage.
The Interim: You’ve mentioned that researchers want to get to the embryo for reasons that transcend medical ones. Why is that?
Wesley J. Smith: That’s a good question, one that I haven’t fully worked out in my mind. I do believe there is a desire on the part of many in science and bioethics to, in essence, take control of human evolution. They see this as a eugenic enterprise that can make a better race. We’ve been down that road before. I would point out to these folks: the human race is the group that made the “unsinkable” ship Titanic. We are an imperfect species and to play with the literal building blocks of life is to go down a path so fraught with peril that it seems to me only the arrogant and haughty would think they could do it safely. That isn’t to say you can’t have genetic healing. You can, if you don’t engage in messing with the germ cells – that is, what gets passed down from generation to generation … Saying you’re going to start picking and choosing those aspects of humanity that you like … is to engage in a subjective value judgement that will again lead to the powerful getting their way … They never talk about love, improving the capacity to be gentle or compassionate or empathetic. It’s always about a greater mental capacity … But the best human beings I’ve ever met were developmentally disabled, who did not have high IQs but did have the capacity to love unconditionally, which I think is the most important value of human life. I don’t think you can bring that out through genetics.
The Interim: I’m sure I speak for everyone concerned about these issues when I say we appreciate the work you’ve done and the light you’ve shed. We wish you all the best as you can continue in your future endeavours.