surgery on girl raises ethical questions

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: SsupernovaE

Originally posted by: SampSon
I think a more trying ethical question is: Why are people with severe disabilities kept alive?

How would you define severe?

Unable to lead a happy life without major constant support or are ginger.

So a 12 year old child is involved in a car accident. Perfectly healthy before the accident and now is for the most part brain dead. He/she has all the basic functions and can respond to human contact, even managing a smile now and then but otherwise cannot survive without constant care....I take it he/she should die?

I guess if that is the thinking process then we should have death squads of doctors and nurses start sweeping through nursing homes to save the bed ridden elderly from thier "miserable existence."

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: SsupernovaE

Originally posted by: SampSon
I think a more trying ethical question is: Why are people with severe disabilities kept alive?

How would you define severe?

Unable to lead a happy life without major constant support or are ginger.

So a 12 year old child is involved in a car accident. Perfectly healthy before the accident and now is for the most part brain dead. He/she has all the basic functions and can respond to human contact, even managing a smile now and then but otherwise cannot survive without constant care....I take it he/she should die?

I guess if that is the thinking process then we should have death squads of doctors and nurses start sweeping through nursing homes to save the bed ridden elderly from thier "miserable existence."

Sorry, I'm thinking at birth here. After accidents is very different.

 

[SilthDraeth]

People will always survive as long as other people have emotional bonds to said people, and are willing to take care of them. People will also take care of other people, if someone who is emotionally bonded to the disabled person has the money to pay them to do it.

It isn't as if they are doing these procedures to an otherwise normal girl.

 

[TheVrolok]

Very interesting. Definitely need some time to digest./\

 

[alkemyst]

It's not so much for the looks as the physical maturity. By performing the hysterectomy they are basically spaying their daughter. Since it's highly doubtful she will grow into a viable sexual adult, this will remove the desire and really not do much more harm outside of it. The removal of the breast buds are similar.

Now ethically it's not a battle for my thoughts on.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Fineghal

Biologically, she's a person.

"Person" is not a biological designation. "Human" is.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: JS80
wow to you guys who are suggesting murdering a human being because he is disabled. very hitleresque.

BAN for bringing up Hitler in a thread. Seriously, are you kids programmed to cry "hitler!" when you hear something you don't like, or what?

That girl is never going to be a functioning human being. She's a vegetable.

ummm, they are right, the Nazi's executed thousands of mentally ill people only because they were mentally ill and would not function in the Third Reich. its fact, not a knee jerk reaction. I hate when people pull the "Hitler" card but this time its justified.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
So what exactly happens when the parents die? Who takes care of her?

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[BigDH01]

I think it's the parent's decision here. They are not harming the girl by doing this just making lives all around easier in a very difficult situation. If I cannot tell you I wouldn't do the same thing in their situation, then what right do I have to condemn them?

However, I can see how this quickly jumped from "operation to keep girl child-like" to "why not just let her die." If we are already modifying the girl to make life easier for others, why not just do the "ultimate modification" and make life much easier? I think that's the slope that people enter. And there is some justification for that. I used to work at a rest home and I saw many people who were completely brain dead. These are people that should be dead but have remained alive because of the "miracles of modern science." These were people placed in homes who were never visited and simply became wardens of the state. There's a real moral gray area there, just like here. If these patients are braindead and totally unable to function, why do we keep giving them medications to keep them alive?

I think the same thing applies in this case. If this girl has no sentient thought, no capability to think or respond, no higher order brain functions, who decides if she lives or dies? Would it be inhumane to simply remove the feeding tube? Would she protest if you did? Would she wish she had food if you did? This is where I am torn. We simply do not know if should would desire food if the food tube was removed. And even if should could desire it, would she want to? If should could think, would she want to remain in her bodily prison? There can be an argument both ways. "We are protecting the girl and providing her with a God-given right to life" or "we are protecting the girl from parents who treat her like a decoration and freeing her from this so-called 'life'."

In the end, I would not fault the parents for removing the feeding tube and letting their daughter slip into oblivion. I would also not force them to do it. This somewhat conflicts with my views on abortion. I am opposed to late-term abortion even though the argument can be made that a mother is simply "removing her feeding tube" and has a right to do so. However, in that case there is at least the expectation that the baby will grow into an adult and be functional. In this case, there is no expectation that the human will ever be a person.

 

[randay]

What about her soul? Just because she can't function as a normal human, that doesn't mean she can't want to live? A person who lives normally and then grows old and has a stroke, then becomes a vegetable... Should they all be killed right away? What about hope, faith, and belief. What about miracles?

 

[BigDH01]

The question is, can a person with no higher order brain functions "want to live?" To want to live, you must understand the difference between life and death. In much the same way I cannot want to turn right without understanding that there is also the option to turn left. Otherwise right would simply be the only choice. If Ashley cannot understand that there is alive and there is dead, than she is just living. Just as I cannot want to go to heaven if there is no hell. If there was only heaven, then going to heaven would simply be a consequence of death.

You should be so overdramatic about what I have said. I simply said that people in these rest homes who are braindead are not going to recover. They have no visitors, and no prospects, and no comprehension of the world around them. Would it matter if I simply quit giving them their medications and let them die naturally? To whom would it matter? Is simply not giving someone medication, someone who does not desire the medication, murder?

Your post is obviously one from someone who's religious. When you start introducing religion into these arguments, then they become pointless. I cannot prove that the soul is simply a human construction given to ourselves in an attempt to seperate us from other living creatures and you cannot prove to me that the soul is something innate that humans are born with that gives us a sentience unique in the animal kingdom. Of course, if the girl did have a soul would she be better off here on Earth in her bodily prison or in heaven? Would God condemn Ashley's parents for removing the feeding tube? Hope, faith, belief are all things posessed by people. They stem from our higher order functions. Our imagination, conceptual abilities, sociological imagination, and human spirit all come from higher order functions. If Ashley doesn't have any higher order function (which may or may not be proven), how can she have these things?

I really don't think we can count on miracles. How many people die from cancer every year? How many in car accidents? How many families are ruined? How many people starve? How many people prayed for others? How many prayers were actually answered? I also believe in God, but that doesn't mean I presume that God wants this girl to survive. If she was supposed to be a functioning human, why hasn't He granted her a miracle yet?

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
The question is, can a person with no higher order brain functions "want to live?" To want to live, you must understand the difference between life and death. In much the same way I cannot want to turn right without understanding that there is also the option to turn left. Otherwise right would simply be the only choice. If Ashley cannot understand that there is alive and there is dead, than she is just living. Just as I cannot want to go to heaven if there is no hell. If there was only heaven, then going to heaven would simply be a consequence of death.

You should be so overdramatic about what I have said. I simply said that people in these rest homes who are braindead are not going to recover. They have no visitors, and no prospects, and no comprehension of the world around them. Would it matter if I simply quit giving them their medications and let them die naturally? To whom would it matter? Is simply not giving someone medication, someone who does not desire the medication, murder?

Your post is obviously one from someone who's religious. When you start introducing religion into these arguments, then they become pointless. I cannot prove that the soul is simply a human construction given to ourselves in an attempt to seperate us from other living creatures and you cannot prove to me that the soul is something innate that humans are born with that gives us a sentience unique in the animal kingdom. Of course, if the girl did have a soul would she be better off here on Earth in her bodily prison or in heaven? Would God condemn Ashley's parents for removing the feeding tube? Hope, faith, belief are all things posessed by people. They stem from our higher order functions. Our imagination, conceptual abilities, sociological imagination, and human spirit all come from higher order functions. If Ashley doesn't have any higher order function (which may or may not be proven), how can she have these things?

I really don't think we can count on miracles. How many people die from cancer every year? How many in car accidents? How many families are ruined? How many people starve? How many people prayed for others? How many prayers were actually answered? I also believe in God, but that doesn't mean I presume that God wants this girl to survive. If she was supposed to be a functioning human, why hasn't He granted her a miracle yet?

I am not religious in fact, I had not even read your post. I still haven't. I am suprised noone has raised the religious side of the argument yet and so I decided to. Life is not like math and science, if it were the world would be a different place.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
The question is, can a person with no higher order brain functions "want to live?" To want to live, you must understand the difference between life and death. In much the same way I cannot want to turn right without understanding that there is also the option to turn left. Otherwise right would simply be the only choice. If Ashley cannot understand that there is alive and there is dead, than she is just living. Just as I cannot want to go to heaven if there is no hell. If there was only heaven, then going to heaven would simply be a consequence of death.

First I am hoping you are just trolling here. If not, so anything other than man shouldn't have a survival instinct and have some enjoyment of being alive? Ashley is not brain-dead she is operating on a lower level than someone her age.

My cats don't know anything about heaven or hell (this is an assumption on my part until I get through my 1000 disc set of "Learning Catanese"). Still they really enjoy their lives...mostly I feel they have a higher level of livelihood than myself...my wife feels the same way.

I think there is a reason the quote about wanting to come back in life as a cat is constantly said by humans.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: JS80
wow to you guys who are suggesting murdering a human being because he is disabled. very hitleresque.

BAN for bringing up Hitler in a thread. Seriously, are you kids programmed to cry "hitler!" when you hear something you don't like, or what?

That girl is never going to be a functioning human being. She's a vegetable.

You really are an asstard. When it is YOUR child you will think differently. After the child is born and alive you as a parent will do anything in your power to make sure your chil dlives and has the best life it can possibly have.
I have a child with severe mental disabilities and the doctors all say she will never get above the mental level of a 1 year old. Should I just take her out to the country and shoot her?
I wouldn't wish for even my worst enemy to have to have a child with any kind of severe handicap, not even you.

And the reason people bring up Hitler, you uneducated moron, is because he advocated and ordered th extermination of handicapped people along with his ethnic cleansing.

You sound like a mean, bitter, nasty degenerate of a person.

PS- Had you been respectful to me, I wouldn't have felt the need to bash you like this, but you were extremely rude and resorted to personal attacks when I didn't previously attack you, so I replied in kind. If you don't like this treatment, then don't start.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: randay
What about her soul? Just because she can't function as a normal human, that doesn't mean she can't want to live? A person who lives normally and then grows old and has a stroke, then becomes a vegetable... Should they all be killed right away? What about hope, faith, and belief. What about miracles?

People have no soul. Stop believing in fairy tales.

 

[jakedeez]

this is not anyone other then the family's business (and docs/insurance comp/other peeps directly involved)

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: jakedeez
this is not anyone other then the family's business (and docs/insurance comp/other peeps directly involved)

I do not agree with that at all.

So you are saying (I am not saying this is the case here)...you have a kid, you can do anything you want to them?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: jakedeez
this is not anyone other then the family's business (and docs/insurance comp/other peeps directly involved)

That all depends on who is footing the bills.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: jakedeez
this is not anyone other then the family's business (and docs/insurance comp/other peeps directly involved)

I do not agree with that at all.

So you are saying (I am not saying this is the case here)...you have a kid, you can do anything you want to them?

Within the law, im pretty sure you can.

 

[silent tone]

I don't see a need to euthanise her. If she can't even form a thought, then the only misery they could subject her to would be physical pain. Lounging in a bed all day doesn't qualify for that. However if she is equally oblivious to lying in a bedroom or stored in a box in a closet, what is the point of keeping her organs functioning (I won't use 'alive' because most of its definitions are woefully inaccurate for her).

I do take issue with their description of their daughter as sweet and an angel. How can you be either when actions and thought impossible?! Should I call my mousepad an angel?

 

[CarlKillerMiller]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: wizboy11
It's their business. Why must other people start getting involved.

Then, the media gets on it. It just goes from bad to worse.

yup

I don't understand. I mean, people picketing their house is one thing, but having a reasonable discussion about it is another. The media distributing information about an issue isn't always a bad thing.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: BigDH01
The question is, can a person with no higher order brain functions "want to live?" To want to live, you must understand the difference between life and death. In much the same way I cannot want to turn right without understanding that there is also the option to turn left. Otherwise right would simply be the only choice. If Ashley cannot understand that there is alive and there is dead, than she is just living. Just as I cannot want to go to heaven if there is no hell. If there was only heaven, then going to heaven would simply be a consequence of death.

First I am hoping you are just trolling here. If not, so anything other than man shouldn't have a survival instinct and have some enjoyment of being alive? Ashley is not brain-dead she is operating on a lower level than someone her age.

My cats don't know anything about heaven or hell (this is an assumption on my part until I get through my 1000 disc set of "Learning Catanese"). Still they really enjoy their lives...mostly I feel they have a higher level of livelihood than myself...my wife feels the same way.

I think there is a reason the quote about wanting to come back in life as a cat is constantly said by humans.

I hope YOU are trolling. If your cats have a better livelihood than you then something is seriously wrong.

Cats have survival instincts like most animals. The instincts != a true desire to live. Take a really depressed person who doesn't want to live and pull a gun at them and shoot in their direction. Instinct will kick in and they will defend themselves. That doesn't mean they desire to live.

If we are assuming that humans appreciate existence more than other creatures (which all laws recognize by the fact that pets are objects and people have unalienable rights), then we also assume that we have some sentient enjoyment and appreciation of life not achievable by other animals. After all, if humanity really believed that pets enjoy and appreciate (and to some level understand) life as much as we do, then we wouldn't be able to simply put them down when they are ill. Every law in the land recognizes this fundamental difference between man and beast. To even suggest that animals might have a sentient experience similar to ours is to fly in the face of laws that have existed for thousands of years. Who's crazy now?

Also, it is my understanding that Ashley IS braindead and has been since birth. No high order thought.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

I hope YOU are trolling. If your cats have a better livelihood than you then something is seriously wrong.

I was referring to livelihood in the sense of they really have nothing to worry about in a day and anything they would want is provided for them and more. I was not referring to their money-making ability. However, I am sure you are probably treated as royality and have not a worry in the world since mom and dad got that covered.

Perhaps english is not your first language though?

Originally posted by: BigDH01
Cats have survival instincts like most animals. The instincts != a true desire to live. Take a really depressed person who doesn't want to live and pull a gun at them and shoot in their direction. Instinct will kick in and they will defend themselves. That doesn't mean they desire to live.

This makes no sense, I could only hope you have not had a biology/zoology class nor have owned pets in your lifetime. Basically you are saying animals have no desire to live, it's just instinctual they go about their days. In that case, I guess they really don't play games with each other and their enjoyment of life must be a large shared hallucination by man.

Originally posted by: BigDH01
If we are assuming that humans appreciate existence more than other creatures (which all laws recognize by the fact that pets are objects and people have unalienable rights), then we also assume that we have some sentient enjoyment and appreciation of life not achievable by other animals. After all, if humanity really believed that pets enjoy and appreciate (and to some level understand) life as much as we do, then we wouldn't be able to simply put them down when they are ill. Every law in the land recognizes this fundamental difference between man and beast. To even suggest that animals might have a sentient experience similar to ours is to fly in the face of laws that have existed for thousands of years. Who's crazy now?

Also, it is my understanding that Ashley IS braindead and has been since birth. No high order thought.

Again you make absolutely no sense. People have been known to put their own kind 'down'. Laws are created by people for people, american laws are different than Turkish laws. Animals don't have the ability to form laws and rules that people understand thus you have made an absurd statement.

However, you are obviously a casual participant here throwing out things you know nada/zilch/zero about really. If you did you would be ignorant not to acknowledge there are laws in almost every culture that specifically protect animals as well.

I suggest a bit more reading perhaps beyond the high school level before you go out proclaiming hypotheses and theories on the world of man and animal.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: JS80
wow to you guys who are suggesting murdering a human being because he is disabled. very hitleresque.

BAN for bringing up Hitler in a thread. Seriously, are you kids programmed to cry "hitler!" when you hear something you don't like, or what?

That girl is never going to be a functioning human being. She's a vegetable.

ummm, they are right, the Nazi's executed thousands of mentally ill people only because they were mentally ill and would not function in the Third Reich. its fact, not a knee jerk reaction. I hate when people pull the "Hitler" card but this time its justified.

Just another form of Eugenics.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: SsupernovaE

Originally posted by: SampSon
I think a more trying ethical question is: Why are people with severe disabilities kept alive?

How would you define severe?

Anyone who buys Intel instead of AMD?