Educational Media Reviews Online

Peter Singer is a soft spoken and articulate Australian philosopher; professor of bioethics at Princeton University; and prominent animal liberation proponent. Singer refutes traditional ethics on the questions of life and death. His controversial views on the sanctity of human life, infanticide, euthanasia and abortion are examined and challenged in this interesting and thought- provoking film.

The film begins with a visit to a neo-natal clinic where Dr. Mark Hiatt is explaining to a bioethics class of Singer’s the life and death decision making process that takes place in hospitals on a regular basis. Dr. Hiatt tells the students “philosophy is esoteric, medicine is pragmatic.” As a physician he cannot accept the utilitarian philosophy espoused by Singer, that until infants are attuned to their surroundings they are not viable. The students are also told that each time a decision is made it is with thoughtful discussion between parents and doctors. When a decision to remove life support is decided it is troublesome to all and a decision difficult to make. Singer’s position is that infanticide is still taking place but is masked in this dialogue of traditional ethics. He would feel easy making the decision if the parents are informed but rather than withdraw life support he would use a lethal injection. He does not believe that every life is equal and even approves of letting certain humans, those no longer conscious, to be used for experimental purposes. Singer opponents, such as Wesley Smith of the International Task Force on Euthanasia compare this philosophy as similar to that of Karl Brandt who was convicted of murder at Nuremberg.

The profile takes us to Great Britain where Singer interviews a mother who has fought to keep her disabled son from being injected with a life ending drug. She is fighting the economic policies that potentially place no value on severely disabled persons. Singer assesses this situation by determining whether the young man is happy. If he is happy than it is okay to continue living, if not than his life should probably be terminated.

Off to India where Singer has a vested interest in Oxfam. He contributes a great deal of money to this cause. He does advocate that more money should be directed from affluent societies to the third world. He promotes the view that the right thing to do in a moral dilemma is what is best for all involved, not necessarily in the best interests of individuals. Unless they meet certain criteria, they are basically expendable. On the issue of assisted suicide Singer advocates that if the person has determined that they have no hope left, are suffering too much, either physically or mentally, they have the right to end their lives.

Interspersed throughout the video are vignettes of Singer’s life and childhood. His grandmother escaped Nazi Germany. His grandfather was a victim. Singer’s own mother is a possible candidate for euthanasia. He is shown as husband and father.

Singer is a very complex person of influence. Whether he is a monster or luminary is up to those who view this video to decide.