Euthanasia for the Disabled

Politics International Politics
21

[quote=“Groo”][quote=“Jaboney”]Should euthanasia be seriously considered, despite all the good that came out of even that most limited life?
Yeah, I think it should.[/quote]

Jaboney, you gave a great example of a reason against euthanasia, so why this conclusion?[/quote]

I can’t give good and sufficient reasons in support of my conclusion, mostly because I believe that euthanasia is fundamentally wrong. But, that’s my belief, and while the good that comes of such a limited life may be communal, the real cost (not the economic argument, which holds no water in modern societies characterized by excess and frivolity) in terms of opportunity costs–the sacrifice of one’s time, energy, and working and social life, for years if not decades on end–is born by others. The decision, when it comes to non-viable, severely disabled infants, belongs first with the parents, then the state, both of whom should be well informed by the doctors. In such a circumstances, I don’t believe my disinterested opinions (however carefully considered) should eliminate the euthanasia option. :idunno:

It’s not a pretty choice. I believe that there should, and could be other options. If society were more willing to invest in superior health care for all, there would be somewhat fewer incidents, but they would still arise. If there were greater support available to families/ caregivers afterwards, that would demonstrate a greater degree of respect for life and enable more people to cope well with a tragic disappointment. But, given things as they are, I can appreciate that many would be unable to deal; that more than one life might be destroyed.

Sounds a lot like a reluctant argument in favour of abortion, doesn’t it? It should. My feelings are reasoning on that issue is much the same. :idunno: Collectively, we could do better. We’re not. How much responsibility for the choices to be made, then, can we wrest from those who have to live with the consequences? I don’t like my conclusion. It feels wrong, and it is wrong. But there it is.

22

I am

a) diabetic (on both sides of my family; it’s an inherited condition)
b) legally blind (got 20/200 vision, last time it was checked - ineligible for the army)
c) my mother was only 17 and my dad was only 19 when I was conceived

So I guess, by the logic of yours, I should have been slaughtered before birth for the convenience of society.

I was the perfect candidate for abortion. But I’m still here.

23

Well, I guess you could be a candidate for a retrospective abortion, it’s just that I don’t see anyone suggesting we off people for diabetes, flat feet or not meeting the requirements to join the army.
However, since I’m sure we’ll face the “slippery slope”, or “thin edge of the wedge” argument soon enough, there could well be hope we may eventually off your sorry arse. :laughing:

HG

24

[quote=“Quentin”]I am

a) diabetic (on both sides of my family; it’s an inherited condition)
b) legally blind (got 20/200 vision, last time it was checked - ineligible for the army)
c) my mother was only 17 and my dad was only 19 when I was conceived

So I guess, by the logic of yours, I should have been slaughtered before birth for the convenience of society.

I was the perfect candidate for abortion. But I’m still here.[/quote]

No offense, but there are babies born with far greater problems than yours.

25

I take no offense. But considering the circumstances - my mother was knocked up in highschool, by her first boyfriend - she was honest enough to tell me that they actually seriously considered abortion, if it had been legal at the time (this was pre Roe vs. Wade). Logically, given the circumstances, I should have been aborted, and would have by most couples in this modern age. I am not asking for pity for myself. I am just pointing out that some of the most “disabled” people turn out to be some of the best people, in the long run. Albert Einstein couldn’t speak until he was 5 years old, and was considered a dunce for most of his school years. Do you think that “idiots” like him should have been terminated at birth? People like Einstein would have been aborted, if people like had had their way.

Look at Steven Hawking. A complete cripple. Totally useless, eh? A total genius.

I can give a hundred other examples of disabled people who have given more back to humanity than any of you able-bodied people posting in this thread (including my own worthless self). I think I’ve made my point. Mother Nature is not the be-all and end-all of human worth.

26

Quentin, there are far more serious deformtities and ultimately life threatening issues under consideration here. Please don’t muddy the waters by suggesting abortion or euthanasia would be used because we don’t like the baby’s hair colour.

HG

27

[quote=“Quentin”]I am

a) diabetic (on both sides of my family; it’s an inherited condition)
b) legally blind (got 20/200 vision, last time it was checked - ineligible for the army)
c) my mother was only 17 and my dad was only 19 when I was conceived

So I guess, by the logic of yours, I should have been slaughtered before birth for the convenience of society.

I was the perfect candidate for abortion. But I’m still here.[/quote]No.
a) diabetes is a manageable disease.
b) you could be blind, deaf and dumb, and still have a significant, positive quality of life (and contribute, if you so choose).
c) who said anything about age?
d) the issue is euthanasia, not abortion. My arguments and reasoning are much–but not entirely–same for both. I feel that both are deeply wrong. I think that my feeling does not justify constraining the choices of others in this regard. I think that positive steps could be taken to dissuade those faced with the choice from making the ‘wrong’ one.
e) the issue is not the mere convenience of society at large, but the life quality of the afflicted and their guardians. It should also be clear from what I’ve written that this is not the option that I would encourage people to pursue.
f) what jdsmith and HGC said. Like 99.9% of the rest of us, at birth you neither won big, nor rolled snake-eyes.

Yeah, Hawking’s a great argument against adult euthanasia. So’s my uncle: one of those who said, “If that ever happened to me, I wouldn’t want to live.” Well, it did happen to him (snapped his neck in a motorbike race). His words ten years, a marriage, two children, and a shot at the paralympics later: “If I come out of this walking, it’ll be the best thing that’s ever happened to me. And if not, I’m still the better for it.” Many of those he got to know, who were going through the same thing, made other choices and are no longer here. But these are adults, and cognitively functional. They’re able to make decisions and take steps themselves; they are not the issue.

28

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Quentin, there are far more serious deformtities and ultimately life threatening issues under consideration here. Please don’t muddy the waters by suggesting abortion or euthanasia would be used because we don’t like the baby’s hair colour.

HG[/quote]

You haven’t listened to a word I’ve said, have you. Abject poverty and risking losing your entire life’s career to quit school to raise a baby you didn’t want is nothing as trivial as aborting a baby because you didn’t like its hair color, and you very well know it. I am controlling my temper now because I know that this forum has rules that I must abide by.

And people do use abortion because of such shallow, trivial reasons. Don’t you keep up with the news from India and China? Abortions are committed there, by the millions, because parents want boys and abort girls. Is that right? Do you approve of that? That’s just as shallow and evil as aborting a child because you don’t like its hair color, or left-handedness. Who’s to say that many parents in American and Europe don’t abort their children for similar silly reasons? I’m sure there are plenty who do.

If a mother’s life is in danger, then by all means, abort the child, painful as that decision may be - save one life instead of destroying two (since the baby will likely die anyway). But that’s as far as I go. All people want to live and have the right to live. If someone feels that life is too painful, let them commit suicide out of their own free will - don’t let doctors make that most important of decisions for them.

And you still haven’t answered my point about Einstein. Many of the greatest scientists, artists, and leaders of this world were born disabled or became that way in childhood. The U.S.A.'s greatest president was a cripple. Stricken by polio. I guess he should have given up and killed himself by euthenasia.

29

[quote=“Quentin”]I take no offense. But considering the circumstances - my mother was knocked up in highschool, by her first boyfriend - she was honest enough to tell me that they actually seriously considered abortion, if it had been legal at the time (this was pre Roe vs. Wade). Logically, given the circumstances, I should have been aborted, and would have by most couples in this modern age. I am not asking for pity for myself. I am just pointing out that some of the most “disabled” people turn out to be some of the best people, in the long run. Albert Einstein couldn’t speak until he was 5 years old, and was considered a dunce for most of his school years. Do you think that “idiots” like him should have been terminated at birth? People like Einstein would have been aborted, if people like had had their way.

Look at Steven Hawking. A complete cripple. Totally useless, eh? A total genius.

I can give a hundred other examples of disabled people who have given more back to humanity than any of you able-bodied people posting in this thread (including my own worthless self). I think I’ve made my point. Mother Nature is not the be-all and end-all of human worth.[/quote]

The worst possible situation for any child is to raised by someone who doesn’t love him/her,not simply someone who doesn’t have the financial stability to support the child. Children who are raised by uncaring parents have a hard go at becoming “normalized, happy productive” members of society. Will you give me that?

At any rate, this thread is not about the reasons women choose to have an abortion, or to put it better, to kill a child they don’t want, can’t raise or are simply not prepared to raise; the thread is about children born with such severe disabilities that they would NEVER have a chance at any kind of normalcy.

I don’t think Hawking or Einstein were “born broken” (correct me if I’m wrong about Hawking) No one is suggesting that at age 4 they should have put silent Albert out of his parent’s mysery.

There are kids born without limbs, or blind, or deaf, and again, NO ONE is suggesting they are in the category of “should/could be euthenized.” Not even close.

But a kid born with only a brain stem? I’m sure the parents would learn a whole lot about compassion being around such a child, but the child itself would have no life to speak of.

Let’s at least get on the same page in this discussion, shall we?

30

I am interested in also touching on how economics affects morality.

Right now, and this will become even more important in the near future, we are spending tons of money to keep 85 year olds alive. Very soon, the funds that go to support operations for these people will literally come at the expense of others. Similarly, babies born with severe birth defects take far more than their “fair share.” The skew in the population is going to mean a lot of old people needing a lot of very expensive operations and health care. Who is going to pay for it? Under those circumstances, we may very soon see policies being formulated or rather "forum"ulated to determine who has access to operations. This already occurs to a large extent in socialist nations with “universal health care” where ultimately where you are on the “list” determines when and how you are treated. What then are the correct parameters for determining who gets what level of heath care and when?

Back to babies with severe birth defects. Is it moral to keep such infants alive if their lives are nothing but pain and misery and is there currently a medical board of ethics that would be able to determine when those lines are crossed? Currently, the medical profession does everything it can to keep these babies, the elderly and those in severe accidents alive. When and how should this be determined? More important, who gets to decide? What factors should be involved?

Oh and just for the record. I think that abortion should be mandatory especially for children who kick my seat during long flights or for precocious little “darlings” that race around in restaurants or those damned kids who keep racing through my flower beds and they’d better keep their dog off my lawn as well!

31

Sorry Quentin, but I thinkl JD Smith summed it up rather nicely, do try to keep up.

That’s right, these decisions are being constantly formulated by a combination of bean counters, ethicists and medical personnel. However, at the frontline of the 'socialised" medical world nurses and doctors are routinely making these sorts of decisions. Who gets the last ICU bed? For example. If it was as simple as cost or profit. well then you’d simply throw out those without private insurance or with chronic ailments requiring excessive stays and stack the surgical lists with people wanting their stomachs stapled or noses adjusted. A private hospital has that luxury, a government hopsital does not. Likewise with infectious diseases. Why should a private hopsital risk it’s revenue stream by treating patiens with infectious diseases? As a private business, it has no moral obligation to do that, as long as it’s medical staff are kept away from being made obligated under their professional ethics.

That’s not altogether true. Euthanasia is a feature of any health system. It is discrete, but it happens on a daily basis. Most terminally ill people will die from the medications that target reducing their pain, for example. Doctors are making these decisions now, and in fact always have. What they are wanting is a better framework that acknowledges what they are already doing and stops them from being sued for doing it.

HG

32

[quote=“jdsmith”] the thread is about children born with such severe disabilities that they would NEVER have a chance at any kind of normalcy.
[/quote]

Do you think this “normalcy” definition should be a concern? We Westerners have pretty high standards. Missing arm, short legged, blind, nine fingers, brown eyes,…: which ones are allowed to live? Who decides?

Being a little hypothetical, what if we kill all the babies that have some rare brain defect, but in the future find the defect is actually a evolutionary advancement (kind of like the plot to the X-Men movies)?
(And what if this mutation was the only thing that could stop aliens from destroying… never mind)

Please allow me to be the first to quote Nitche: “Arzt, mein sehr schlechtes Buhne-Jucken!”

33

I’ve discovered the interesting fact over that years that almost all the people who have an absolutist view of the nature and value of human life (as I do) believe that the human soul is the essence of human life and those who have a more relative view of the nature and value of human life (if the quality of life is “too low” then destroying it is okay) don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of soul. They tend to see the essence of human life as being derived from complex biochemistry.

So, if you believe in the human soul as the essence of life, it doesn’t really matter what the state of the physical, manifest life is for full “humanity” to be present from the moment of conception. On the other hand, how can there be any meaningful humanity present in an organism which never developed beyond the level of primitive biochemistry?

In other words, this is a debate which is really over before it begins because of our respective beliefs as to what the nature and essence of human life is.

I’d be interested to know if there’s anyone here who believes in the human soul (in the classic Judeo-Christian sense) and also believes it’s okay to destroy a severely deformed infant.

And vice-versa. Is there anyone here who believes such euthanasia is morally wrong but also believes human life is essentially derived from complex biochemistry and nothing more?

34

[quote=“spook”]
I’d be interested to know if there’s anyone here who believes in the human soul (in the classic Judeo-Christian sense) and also believes it’s okay to destroy a severely deformed infant.[/quote]

I’m not sure if I see how believing in a soul would make one feel that it is not okay to euthanize a severely deformed infant. The soul would continue to exist and will have returned to god would it not? Wouldn’t it be better to destroy the body so the soul could return to god instead of living in misery? Of course, my understanding of the Judeo Christian concept of the soul might be a bit fuzzy.

35

[quote=“Groo”][quote][quote=“jdsmith”] the thread is about children born with such severe disabilities that they would NEVER have a chance at any kind of normalcy.
[/quote]

Do you think this “normalcy” definition should be a concern? We Westerners have pretty high standards. Missing arm, short legged, blind, nine fingers, brown eyes,…: which ones are allowed to live? Who decides?[/quote]

None of these in my book qualify as severe disablities. How about a child born with his heart on the outside of his ribcage? No worries as they usually die within a few days. This happened to my brother’s son. There are some really horrific birth defects that totally and completely incapacitate the child and do literally prevent that child from ever having a normal life.

To even attempt to equate hair color or even blindness to this kind of deformity is disengenuous.

[quote]Being a little hypothetical, what if we kill all the babies that have some rare brain defect, but in the future find the defect is actually a evolutionary advancement (kind of like the plot to the X-Men movies)?
(And what if this mutation was the only thing that could stop aliens from destroying… never mind)[/quote]

What if we sterilize poor women because we think poverty is genetic? Oopsie, we did do that and we don’t do it anymore. As for your mutation theory: it’s pretty idiotic don’t you think?

Please allow me to quote my mother: “If you don’t have anything useful to say, keep your mouth shut.” :laughing:

36

Hmmm… well, I believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of soul, and believe that (while not all right) it should be permissible to destroy a severely deformed infant.

I disagree that the argument is over before it begins, for several reasons.

First, while I reject crass assertions that religion has no place in the public forum, no place in politics, religious convictions must speak to reason, and neither position is a priori obvious to reason.

Second, there are a couple of views one might take regarding the soul. If you conceive of the soul as essentially static, then the point Gilgamesh raises comes into play: why leave the unchanging soul locked in a suffering body?

Alternatively, you might conceive of the soul as I do–that is dynamic–capable of growth and refinement (but also of regression and debasement). On good scientific authority, I believe that body and mind are not entirely separate entities; they influence and shape each other. On lesser authority, I follow materialist-inspired theologians in believing that mind and body similarly shape a non-static soul. In a severely handicapped person, there is little possibility of significant development; no development of mind, of individuality, nor of soul.

If this strikes you as a very odd line of reasoning, and you’re approaching the issue from a Christian perspective, consider why–beyond, or in addition to the ultimate sacrifice–the embodiment of God, or of man, was necessary or informative. By which, I mean, don’t flippantly rule biochemistry out of theological court.

If that doesn’t do it for you, consider the many practices–in many traditions, religious and otherwise–through which the perfection/betterment of the self is effected by subjugating the body to the discipline of the mind/will.

Now, if you accept the argument that a relationship exists between body, mind and soul, what can the undeveloped/never-to-develop individual possibly gain through mere longevity?

37

Do you believe in a human soul which is a self-aware entity separate from the body, infused at conception and which lives on eternally as a self-aware entity after the body dies?

38

Sorry to push this point, but you used the word “normal” again and I worry about the acceptable conditions for this. Reading the postings, the reasons to euthanize seem to be formed by people’s feelings of pity that the infant wont have a “normal life”. OK, babies die because of birth defects, but this forum is about people’s choice to end a life and so I ask again what is the criteria for a normal life?

One of the articles arguments for euthanasia is to save the Parent’s the emotional burden of dealing with the severely deformed child. I wonder what’s the emotional burden of killing you own child?

It’s scary how the reasoning for destroying a deformed baby seems to boil down to convenience.

I was trying for, and evidently failed at, humor.

39

Do you believe in a human soul which is a self-aware entity separate from the body, infused at conception and which lives on eternally as a self-aware entity after the body dies?[/quote]

No. So yeah, I can see we will have difficulties coming to any kind of agreement.

Let me just say that I have as a nurse seen at least 100 people die in very close proximity, usually touching and talking, comforting. Through this I definitely have some ideas on what the soul is, and for me it is some kind of universal energy. Nothing conscious, more like Tesla’s ionosphere.

Very much liked your posts on this, by the way. I appreciate your thoughts and problem solving.

HG

40

I’m agnostic on both the origins of the soul and the continuing individuality of the soul after death. I believe it’s here. I don’t know how it arises nor what happens to it later.

I do not believe in a soul as a self-aware entity separate from the body, sitting on one’s shoulder, as it were, from beginning and on through to the end.

I must admit, I’m leery of attempts to define, too finely, the ineffable. The mysterious appeals far more strongly to my sentiments.