Investigating Child Euthanasia Disapproval

The authors, Csilla Deak and Vassilis Saroglou, conducted an investigation on the religious, moral, emotional and cognitive factors behind the approval and disapproval of the legalization of child euthanasia in the modern society. The authors foundationally associated disapproval or such concern with factors such as religion, collectivistic morality and dispositions in terms of prosocial empathy and generosity, and not values. The authors made a basic finding that inclinations as to prosocial factors tended to be specific to child euthanasia and not adult euthanasia.

In the article, the authors have systematically looked at the generally identified factors relating to the non-acceptance of euthanasia relating to children in the modern society. The authors looked at the religious ideology of the society, then the moral foundations then the prosocial factors in particulars. The article extensively captures the factors and reasons as to why the modern society, from a general context, strongly opposes the legalization and decriminalization of child euthanasia. The author’s hypothesis is the expectation of disapproval of this topic of child euthanasia in Belgium itself, as a secularized nation of catholic culture and tradition. The authors have also identified in this hypothesis the fact although already legalized in the country, the topic is still highly debated in light of the highlighted factors.

The authors conducted the investigation via online social platforms and surveys were conducted on the attitudes and opinions relating to the topic. A total of 218 people participated. This participation consisted of almost all classes of persons, ranging from young adults to older adults. The survey and data were collected in 2015, after the extension of the Belgian euthanasian law to also provide for children. The time window and method of investigation is perfect in respect of the investigation conducted. The time frame chosen for the investigation is the period when the issue of child euthanasia was still fresh and on the table, therefore, variability of the data that was obtained would qualitate valid and viable information.

Data was obtained through questionnaires which would respectively have the Belgian legislation at the beginning. The questionnaire then went forth to contain a number of questions that would measure the degrees of endorsement, with reasons, in accordance with the Belgian legislation. The questionnaires were prepared based on certain hypotheses, which later helped arrive at definitive findings. First, certain questions entailed items that helped measure the belief that the misuse of euthanasia would eventually lead to a generalized practice of killing. Certain questions tended to point towards such misuse. Other questions sought to identify prosocial behaviors in intentions such as generosity. Other questions were based on moral foundations while others were based on experience, religion and spirituality. Eventually, these are the questionnaires that were used to obtain the results.

The results obtained were tabulated in mean and standard deviation form. The authors tabulated the calculated standard deviations and means of both the disapproval of child euthanasia in a general sense, and the disapproval in related legal provisions and enactments. For instance, 71.8% showed approval of various degrees of child euthanasia, 79.3%, on the same note, accepted the conditions set by the legal provisions. The report then further calculated the findings and results based on comments of approval and disapproval relating to various factors, for example prosocial factors such as comments based on empathy and motives, religion and collective morality.

According to the authors, euthanasia has been practiced by various communities and cultures for centuries, even though both socially and religiously contested (McDougall & Norman, 2007). It is however only until recently, around 2002, that most countries have decriminalized euthanasia in adults by specifying certain conditions under which the practice becomes acceptable. Belgium has however gone a step further by becoming the first country in the whole world to extend this act of euthanasia, to children and minors of a certain minimum age. The Belgian society generally accepts both adult and child euthanasia now, with child euthanasia ultimately supported by around 74% of the whole population even before the law was passed (Laporte, 2013).

Variability in attitudes of acceptance vis-a-vis the disapproval still exists even if the law governing both child and adult euthanasia already exist (Roelands et al., 2015). From a common sense perspective, people would still publicly criticize the existing law and some of its aspects (Siegel et al., 2014). This variability in individual indifferences is what the authors look at. It is from these indifferences in opinions and attitudes that the authors specifically investigate moral, religious, emotional and other cognitive characteristics that would draw a distinction between societal majority and the components of the law. On tackling this topic, the authors asked three major questions:

• Does the non- acceptance of the law concerning euthanasia of minors reflect preferences as to societal ideologies such as cultural and religious beliefs, cognitive and emotional preferences?
• Does the status of ‘minor’ play a role in the creation of psychological characteristics of moral opponents, compared to adult euthanasia?
• Is the approval, or rather disapproval of minor euthanasia for the evasion of suffering underlined by the prosocial orientation?

The authors then started by looking at the religious ideology. There was a general expectation that disapproval of euthanasia in minors would be typical of people who are grounded religiously. From a derivative nature, the authors pointed out the fact that religion generally emphasizes the idea that the world, and consequently all life of living beings, were created by God and it is only the creator who could be solely responsible for the termination of each life (Gill, 1998). This has even been compared to even the mere acceptance of medical procedures on human bodies in fundamentalist communities that highly regard religion (Vess et., 2009). The authors however point out the fact that previous studies show that religiosity basically relates to minimal approval of adult euthanasia, both within and across secular and religious countries (Danyliv & O’Neill, 2015). Interestingly noted by the authors, Catholics have been seen to be less accommodating of the practice compared to protestants.

The authors presented that child euthanasia presents an even stronger moral dilemma than adult euthanasia for the religious people. Based on the previous theories attesting to links between religious beliefs and just- world beliefs, the fact would be that religious people would more likely find the killing of an ‘innocent’ life is more unjust and ultimately cruel (Jost et al., 2014).

The next thing the authors looked at is the collective societal morality. The authors expected a strong disapproval of minor euthanasia on the basis of steady and sturdy conservative traditional morality (Haidt & Graham, 2007). The authors even named some of these moral binding foundations to include loyalty, respect and purity. It is also in its basic sense that the value of preservation of the sacred and natural order of things ought to be respected. These values have been highly endorsed in culturally oriented societies and communities, and even by conservative individuals in different cultural contexts.

From the argument, it would be clear that disapproval of the law relating to child euthanasia would be morally grounded. This disapproval would ultimately stem from the binding moral value of loyalty, which involves the strong endorsement by all societal members as a means to fulfill individual cultural obligations. Members of the society would also simply disapprove of this act out of the respect that they have for their traditional norms. The authors grounded their arguments also on the basis of ‘purity’ as a binding moral value. On purity, killing a child through technology created by humans would be highly perceived to be violation of the natural order of occurrences.

According to previous research, the binding collective moral values have played a big role in opposition to various practices and acts, for instance issues relating to sex, families and individuality such as abortion in its own sense, homosexuality, divorce and even suicide (Deak & Saroglou, 2015). A point to note is that religion also plays a major role in the perception of these collective societal moral orientations, particularly purity as a binding moral value.

Subsequently, after looking at the collective moral orientations, the authors also looked at other founded motives and emotions. These constitute prosocial orientations. Under this, the authors basically asked one major question: Do individuals with different strong prosocial orientations tend to approve of or disapprove of this deathful act? These prosocial inclinations were looked at based on values, emotions and behavioral characters that would tend to incline to a certain decision. Under this, there were two very open hypotheses.

The first is that in an argument against the legalization of child euthanasia, one can also argue that its opposition would prove to be a weakness in some other oriented values, emotions and behavior because the victim in this case, who is extremely suffering is neglected. On the second hypothesis, one could also argue that the tolerance and accommodation of this practice could display the capacity to empathize with the victim’s pain and an endorsement of moral care. The argument by the authors, henceforth, is that the disapproval of euthanasia in minors is stronger and much more contested among people low in prosociality. Just as in adult euthanasia, opposition is mostly backed up by strong collective morality and not interpersonal morality, such as these highlighted under prosocial oriented values (Deak & Saroglou, 2015).

From an independent perspective, it may be argued that the termination of a child’s life is very difficult, even if it is for a good cause (which is to end the extreme suffering of the child). A child, compared to an adult, has not yet experienced much of life in its sense, it would therefore be difficult for anyone with high empathetic character and rich subscriptions to values and morality to terminate the child’s life. Disapproval as to prosocial oriented values to child and minor euthanasia is realistically stronger compared to adult euthanasia.

The authors then looked at opposition and disapproval of this topic based on socio-cognitive factors that show low cognitive flexibility. The authors investigated this by the use of three major hypotheses; the first dependent upon the openness to experience, the second based on existence of a quest and then the final one based on the slippery slope thinking, which tends to guide the intended subject towards a certain point so as to derive an opinion.

The authors highlighted the fact that adoption and accommodation of the legalization of child euthanasia is an emerging issue; meaning it’s a new and complex issue in its own sense. From a similar context, wider acceptance of euthanasia as a practice in most European countries is contrasted with the right to self-determination (Cohen et al., 2006). From the argument, it can be noted that high opposition and non- acceptance of child euthanasia can be associated with low openness to new laws and regulations and very high slippery slope line of thinking.

References

• Cohen, J., Marcoux, I., van der Wal, G. & Deliens, L. (2006) European public acceptance of euthanasia: Socio-demographic and cultural factors associated with the acceptance of euthanasia in 33 European countries
• Cohen, J., Van Landeghem, P., Carpentier, N. & Deliens, L. (2014) Public acceptance of euthanasia in Europe: A survey study in 47 countries. International Journal of Public Health, DOI
• Corner, A., Hahn, U. & Oaksford, M. (2011). The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language
• Danyliv, A. & O’Neill, C. (2015) Attitudes towards legalizing physician provided euthanasia in Britain: The role of religion over time. Social Science and Medicine, DOI
• Deak, C. & Saroglou, V. (2015) Opposing abortion, gay adoption, euthanasia, and suicide: Compassionate openness or self-centered moral rigorism? Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 267–294
• Jefferson, A. (2014). Slippery slope arguments. Philosophy Compass, 672–680
• Laporte, C. (2013, October 2) Vous acceptez l’euthanasie des enfants [You accept children’s euthanasia], La Libre Belgique.
• Rottman, J., Kelemen, D. & Young, L. (2014) Tainting the soul: Purity concerns predict moral judgments of suicide, 217–226.
• Saroglou, V. (2013) Religion, spirituality, and altruism. In: Pargament, APA Handbook of psychology, religion and spirituality, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Schmitt, D. P. & Fuller, R. C. (2015) On the varieties of sexual experience: Cross-cultural links between religiosity and human mating strategies. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 314–326
• Walton, D. (2015) The basic slippery slope argument. Informal Logic, 273–311