Nurturing Justice 23 (2007)
Let me refer you, once again, to a
well-regarded study: Bob Goudzwaard and Harry de Lange Beyond Poverty and
Affluence: Towards a Canadian Economy of Care (University of Toronto
Press 1994). As the title implies, the authors explore the implications
of redefining economics as a normative science concerned with care. Economics
cannot escape the demands of human stewardship for the creation, for nature,
for our bodies, for ourselves, for society. The book expounds six paradoxes that
need to be confronted as we work to meet the burgeoning problems that are
unfolding before our eyes with respect to our God-given responsibility to care.
Those who would like to read more
of Goudzwaard's economics are invited to explore his on-line archive at:
http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/Goudzwaard/BGAnnotatedBibliographyByBCW.pdf
There is no getting around the
significant theoretical and scientific work that is
required if public policy is to comprehensively confront genuine political
needs with well-worked out policies. All aspects of our social life have to be
critically examined if public policies are to address the very real political
needs present in our society in a comprehensive and justice-enhancing way. And
our economy at all levels - household, neighbourhood, local, regional, national
and global - is vulnerable, and so are we, the ones who are called to give an
account of our stewardship. How do we make a stand for justice in relation to
the issues of "body politics" without espousing a standpoint which in
some unanticipated way may exclude the most vulnerable? How can justice be
genuinely promoted and due respect given to authentic political needs?
I hazard the guess that there is no
area of public policy that is more subject to confusion, at a deep-down
spiritual level, than "body politics". To reiterate: "body
politics" here refers to public policies that relate to the just public
care for our bodies. I used the term "authentic political needs" in
the last sentence of the previous paragraph. The spiritual confusion that
dominates public discussion about "body politics" can be seen in the
intense competition between rival arguments and positions over the right
definition of "political need". Which definition is to prevail?
We also have to face the fact that
the task of identifying true and real political needs is continually subjected
to claims and counter claims from those who are defending "alleged
needs", or who are accommodating "imagined needs" and then of
course there are "false needs".
As we know, the public provision of
In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF), has in recent years been one prominent domain in
which this warfare has been waged. When he needed (sic!) to gain the support of
his electors on the issue, the former PM was clear in his opposition to
embryonic stem-cell research. This principled ethical standpoint was justified
by the need to safeguard the integrity of IVF programmes around the country
which were serving the bona fide aspirations of parents who wanted to
conceive children but could not. But then, as we know, after the election he
was confronted full-on by the alleged needs of science (Dr Trounson and
the anticipated needs of Monash University to maintain its "world's
best practise" bio-research programmes), as well as the speculative needs
of pharmaceutical companies claiming to be promoting basic research to meet the
real needs of the severely disabled and those afflicted by debilitating
diseases. And thus the political issue changed and no longer were IVF
programmes viewed simply as a means of service to aspiring parents. In the
public debate they became a means to another set of ends, and the
COAG agreement between the PM and the eastern state Labor premiers clearly
identified these ends with the needs of national economic development
and viability. The human embryos, eggs and seeds that had been
specifically gathered to do a specific work, were discussed in ways that
assumed they could henceforth be used to meet (allegedly) wider public
demands.
(But now a significant proportion
of the "touring capital" - a term coined by the German sociologist,
Zygmunt Bauman - has apparently left the country …)
And so, in that situation, where
the former PM - perhaps spurred on by his own need to offer the country leadership
in a vexing moral issue - actually undermined his own relationship with his
electorate by assuming he could dispense with one obligation in order to give
leadership on another. I have repeatedly drawn attention to this. The need
of the electors of Bennelong, to have an accountable representative in
Parliament was displaced by other perceived needs. Any candidate's political
platform in a Westminster Parliamentary system should be a capstone of
democratic accountability. But in this moral issue, personal values were
set against economic prosperity, and so the links of accountability became
seriously, perhaps irreparably, unhinged.
We have expanded this discussion
previously showing how the use of "free votes" (the latest
secularised update of "conscience votes") confirms a sustained
process by which Parliamentarians have actually come less and less accountable
to their electors in our parliaments. "Free votes" are vital if
political parties are to avoid coming down decisively on a range of contentious
moral issues. Candidates are thus accorded the liberty of making up their own
minds up on any particular issue. One has to ask what this then will mean for
any party's attempts to promote a comprehensive political programme that
addresses all the genuine political needs across the society. But it is this
political party problematic which helps us understand why the libertarian view
prospers and political parties shying away from a comprehensive policy
framework for dealing with the issues of "body politics".
But here again, if we are serious
about the work we intend to do to promote justice, we will see this as a
further confirmation that there can be no getting around the theoretical
work that is required. Public policy needs to be framed in a way that
comprehensively confronts all genuine political needs with well-worked out
policies. All aspects of our social life have to be critically examined if
public policies are to address the very real political needs that are present
in our society in a comprehensive and justice-enhancing way. I'll leave that there for the moment.
Let us return then to the issue of
safeguarding the moral integrity of IVF programmes. Readers will note that in
commending the stand taken by the former PM in the election of 2001, I joined
my voice to those opposing embryonic stem-cell research. To reiterate: This
principled ethical standpoint was justified by the need to safeguard the
integrity of IVF programmes which were serving the bona fide aspiration
of parents who wanted to conceive children. But the problem we have to consider
now is that the so-called integrity of such programmes was not "under
attack" solely from powerful proposals that would gain access to use
"spares" for such scientific purposes. The fact that there were
already "spares" should alert us to other aspects of this complex political
issue.
IVF, in cattle, has been developing
for many decades. Around the time of the initial parliamentary debate on
embryonic stem-cell research, I had an intriguing discussion with a
bio-engineer with some experience of working in the bovine-IVF field. He
alleged that the fact that there were "spares" left over after human
IVF procedures could not properly be evaluated without also examining the
overall research trajectory of human IVF and the initial research decision that
had, at an early stage, been made to forego research initiatives that would
develop the requisite one-on-one technology. Why? I asked. Well, he explained,
such technologies have long been available in the bovine-IVF field. Thus, he
said, the suspicion is raised that the alleged need for multiple
fertilised eggs is actually a false need, an artificially (sic!)
inflated requirement of human IVF programmes, in which the imagined future research
needs (and promised pharmaceutical industry finance) have become the (hidden)
main game. At this point in my discussion, I simply would say that I suspect
that such allegations have validity. But they have to be treated as matters
that need to be fully and expertly assessed if any public policy research
programme wants to promote public justice in relation to human IVF provision.
We can easily become very depressed because of the cumulative weight of the
issues and the a-normative developments. And so at this point we have to ask: How
are we to address this seemingly never-ending complexity with respect to the
issues of "bio-politics"?
Let me conclude. The above question
is one that cannot be avoided even if NJ is in no position to definitively
resolve it at this time. It just cannot be avoided. A broadsheet like this can
only nurture justice in a step-by-step way. We will need to take note of
developments in our society which relate to the apparent "free
availability" of human seed, and eggs, and embryos. In certain respects,
this discussion will be considered next time when we turn our gaze more
specifically to "Public Morality and the Mass
Media". A lot of our anxiety may well find its root in the
failure of our news services to properly inform us about the legal aspects of
legislation related to public morality. Nurturing Justice may advocate
Christian industrial organisations and Christians organizing for political
service. But these endeavours are not going to get very far without a sustained
effort in public education supported by authentically Christian journalism and
news services.
At this point, the intense and
seemingly bizarre economic-moral complexity prods us to compare our sense of
Christian responsibility with that which faced William Wilberforce, so
perceptively depicted in the recent feature film: Amazing Grace. How many of us,
when considering these issues, are willing to think about them in ways that
encourages the patient and persistent and humble push for justice for the rest
of our days? If you need added inspiration to get busy, go back to the film and
replay the exchange between Wilberforce and John Newton.
On our list of 12 issues we have been considering Number 8, "Issues Of Marriage and Family - Body Politics." These issues have also been dealt with in previous Nurturing Justice editions in 2007: 1. Human Seed, Law and Politics 14 March; 7. Respect for Race and Ethnicity All Along the Line 26 June; and 20. Body Politics (1) 8 November. Next time, we will consider No. 9 Public Morality and the Reform of Mass Media.
Nurturing Justice
November 2007
© The contents of this email are copyright. Documents may be photocopied or
retransmitted in their entirety but not otherwise reprinted or transmitted without
permission. "Nurturing Justice" is a project to encourage Christian
political reflection based upon wise and loving civic participation. Comments
are welcome and should be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au