NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Discussions that deal with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: How should one live? What is right (or wrong) to do? What is the best way for humans to live?

Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 10:59 am 

Braininvat » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:22 am wrote:
mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 6:51 am wrote:
Braininvat » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:27 am wrote:Ethical questions don't "disappear" just because they can be dodged in some parts of the world. This is a philosophical forum, we can even ask about totally hypothetical situations.


Your view of ethics and mine differ. Ethics are never hypothetical situations. To answer your question as worded above. I would have an abortion, mine wouldn't be born, so euthanasia would not be necessary.


But this thread calls you to put yourself in the shoes of another. If you don't evade the issue, then you imagine being young and ill-informed and underserved medically....then what do you do when a microcephalic baby is born to you?


This thread had called for no such thing until you, now. I am not evading the issue I am stating that for ME there is no euthanasia issue and there should not have to be any euthanasia issue in the US. This fact seems to bother some of you for some reason.

For those unfortunate few in the US, I don't know why I should change laws to accommodate them specifically. The focus of the OP seemed to be more legal than ethical. Anyway, there is never going to be a WHEN a baby is born to ME. Why should I worry about ethical issues that don't apply to me? It' none of my business.

To answer your hypothetical question about what would I do, I cry, ask how long they will live and if they is in any pain.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Braininvat on September 20th, 2016, 11:46 am 

Puh-leaze. The implication of the OP was clear and obvious. There is an issue, regardless of whether it's here or somewhere in a developing country. That issue regards euthanizing infants. Saying there "should not have to be any euthanasia issue in the U.S." is wishful thinking IMO. Humans are imperfect, mistakes are made, people slip through the cracks in the system for whatever reason - that's the planet we live on. After you have "ask[ed] how long they will live and if there is any pain," and someone says the baby will live for decades and be severely retarded and impaired in other ways, what decision would you want to be able to make (or not be able to make?)?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6799
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Eclogite liked this post


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Braininvat on September 20th, 2016, 11:58 am 

This thread had called for no such thing until you, now. I am not evading the issue I am stating that for ME there is no euthanasia issue and there should not have to be any euthanasia issue in the US. This fact seems to bother some of you for some reason.


An ethics thread doesn't call for us to put ourselves in another's shoes? Really? AYFKM?

If there is no issue for YOU, as you keep insisting, why are you participating in this discussion at all?? You come in here and keep harping on how you would just have an abortion, and there's nothing to discuss. That's clearly not the case. As several posters have made clear. Nobody is forcing you to confront an issue that makes you so uncomfortable that you keep trying to make it vanish. You've expressed your opinion, been dismissive, and now we know where you stand.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6799
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 12:06 pm 

Braininvat » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:58 am wrote:
This thread had called for no such thing until you, now. I am not evading the issue I am stating that for ME there is no euthanasia issue and there should not have to be any euthanasia issue in the US. This fact seems to bother some of you for some reason.


An ethics thread doesn't call for us to put ourselves in another's shoes? Really? AYFKM?

If there is no issue for YOU, as you keep insisting, why are you participating in this discussion at all?? You come in here and keep harping on how you would just have an abortion, and there's nothing to discuss. That's clearly not the case. As several posters have made clear. Nobody is forcing you to confront an issue that makes you so uncomfortable that you keep trying to make it vanish. You've expressed your opinion, been dismissive, and now we know where you stand.

Personal attacks good bye
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Braininvat on September 20th, 2016, 12:15 pm 

Nope. Just describing how you are coming across here. Adios.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6799
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 12:19 pm 

Braininvat » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:15 am wrote:Nope. Just describing how you are coming across here. Adios.

Can be both moderator.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Serpent on September 20th, 2016, 1:03 pm 

Clearly, this is a very difficult and uncomfortable subject.
It is also personal for many people. Not for me - I've never multiplied, even when I was young enough to.
And yet I do care about the implications - moral, social and legal - for care-givers, family members and health-care professionals directly involved with a human being who has a terrible quality of life and worse prospects.
Because of medical advances, more and more relatives, doctors and jurists have been forced to make some very difficult decision. And that situation has brought to into the open some attitudes that we have always been reluctant to discuss. Every person who actually confronts these issues, either practically in the hospital wards, or in conversation with peers, or theoretically in his own head, must grapple with a tangled set of emotions, social mores, ideas and concepts; try to impose a rational thought-process on that cauldron of roiling minestrone. It's not easy!

But, having earlier had to decide the fate of beloved pets and then being forced to consider my own condition, I found a short-cut. I wouldn't want anything forced on me that I would not force on a dog, and I wouldn't treat my parent or child with any less compassion.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3115
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 1:20 pm 

Serpent » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:03 pm wrote:Clearly, this is a very difficult and uncomfortable subject.
It is also personal for many people. Not for me - I've never multiplied, even when I was young enough to.
And yet I do care about the implications - moral, social and legal - for care-givers, family members and health-care professionals directly involved with a human being who has a terrible quality of life and worse prospects.
Because of medical advances, more and more relatives, doctors and jurists have been forced to make some very difficult decision. And that situation has brought to into the open some attitudes that we have always been reluctant to discuss. Every person who actually confronts these issues, either practically in the hospital wards, or in conversation with peers, or theoretically in his own head, must grapple with a tangled set of emotions, social mores, ideas and concepts; try to impose a rational thought-process on that cauldron of roiling minestrone. It's not easy!

But, having earlier had to decide the fate of beloved pets and then being forced to consider my own condition, I found a short-cut. I wouldn't want anything forced on me that I would not force on a dog, and I wouldn't treat my parent or child with any less compassion.


I think we should generally treat humans better than people treat their pets. Tell me since you've given this some thought, what other defective newborns do you think parents should kill? Downs Syndrome, legless, blind, cerebral palsy...Since you are one for universals this should be right up your alley.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Serpent on September 20th, 2016, 1:47 pm 

mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 12:20 pm wrote:I think we should generally treat humans better than people treat their pets.

There is a double shift of focus in that sentence. We should... people generally do.
I think we all should treat animals and humans better than people generally do
- and I try to, and it's on my relation to both that I base my decisions.

Tell me since you've given this some thought, what other defective newborns do you think parents should kill? Downs Syndrome, legless, blind, cerebral palsy...Since you are one for universals this should be right up your alley.


I'm not at all one for universals, but I think we can organize our ethical and legal principles into categories, each governed by a general set of rules. That doesn't mean the rules must be inflexible or unchangeable; that we're not required to give any further thought to the matter. It merely sets guidelines. On the subject of euthanasia and assisted suicide, my own guiding principle is: Do not force any creature to suffer unnecessarily.

The decision to terminate any patient [who cannot decide] should be a made through consultation between doctor and care-giver, based on the realistic prospects of that patient. Regardless of age. In the case of newborns with genetic or accidental birth defects, the decision would depend on: 1. how painful the condition is 2. whether it can be corrected or at least ameliorated with medical intervention and 2A. is that procedure available to the patient 3. the prognosis for improvement or deterioration over time 4. whether persons with this defect at this severity can achieve a degree of happiness 4A, in the patient's actual circumstances.

That would be my recommendation to a panel charged with drafting legislation.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3115
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 1:59 pm 

Serpent » Tue Sep 20, 2016 12:47 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 12:20 pm wrote:I think we should generally treat humans better than people treat their pets. Tell me since you've given this some thought, what other defective newborns do you think parents should kill? Downs Syndrome, legless, blind, cerebral palsy...Since you are one for universals this should be right up your alley.

I think we should treat animals and humans better than they/we generally do.

I'm not at all one for universals, but I think we can organize our ethical and legal principles into categories, each governed by a general set of rules. That doesn't mean the rules must be inflexible or unchangeable; that we're not required to give any further thought to the matter. It merely sets guidelines. On the subject of euthanasia and assisted suicide, my own guiding principle is: Do not force any creature to suffer unnecessarily.

The decision to terminate any patient [who cannot decide] should be a made through consultation between doctor and care-giver, based on the realistic prospects of that patient. Regardless of age. In the case of newborns with genetic or accidental birth defects, the decision would depend on: 1. how painful the condition is 2. whether it can be corrected or at least ameliorated with medical intervention and 2A. is that procedure available to the patient 3. the prognosis for improvement or deterioration over time 4. whether persons with this defect at this severity can achieve a degree of happiness 4A, in the patient's actual circumstances.

That would be my recommendation to a panel charged with drafting legislation.


If you are not one for universals, then what did you mean by "The ethical foundation of judgment ought to be some conviction that encompasses all cases, actual and hypothetical." If we had proper medical care for all women, no one would be forced to suffer! (if that's your "principle" I don't see why you've been disagreeing with me so much.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Serpent on September 20th, 2016, 2:29 pm 

mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 12:59 pm wrote:If you are not one for universals, then what did you mean by "The ethical foundation of judgment ought to be some conviction that encompasses all cases, actual and hypothetical."

my bold. That is, we ought to build our guiding principles upon a conviction - that one has arrived at though learning, discussion and thinking - regarding a category of moral decisions. It's the conviction that encompasses all cases, not the eventual rule.

If we had proper medical care for all women, no one would be forced to suffer! (if that's your "principle" I don't see why you've been disagreeing with me so much.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm stating my position on the issue as I see it, which is not restricted to newborns infected with zika in the USA.
Yes,
Conviction regarding Issue #1: Medical Care covers all cases of the birth defect that can be detected in the first trimester:
- We should have proper medical care for all people, including women and children.
- That care should include extensive testing for birth defects and prenatal hazards
- as well as safe delivery and post-natal care of mother and infant, vaccinations, etc
- as well as corrective surgery for abnormalities
- and safe, legal, readily available contraception and abortion.

Conviction regarding Issue #2: Euthanasia covers all situations where a living entity, of any age or species, is suffering from any cause whatsoever.
- We should not make the decision of life or death for any able-minded adult or mature adolescent human
- we must make the decision for those who are unable to communicate their desire
- and we should make the decision on the basis of compassion and reason, rather than superstition, dogma or paranoia.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3115
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 2:39 pm 

Serpent » Tue Sep 20, 2016 1:29 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 12:59 pm wrote:
If you are not one for universals, then what did you mean by "The ethical foundation of judgment ought to be some conviction that encompasses all cases, actual and hypothetical."

That is, we ought to build our guiding principles upon a conviction - that one has arrived at though learning, discussion and thinking - regarding a category of moral decisions. It's the conviction that encompasses all cases, not the eventual rule.



If we had proper medical care for all women, no one would be forced to suffer! (if that's your "principle" I don't see why you've been disagreeing with me so much.


Yes,
Conviction regarding Issue #1: Medical Care covers all cases of the birth defect that can be detected in the first trimester:
- We should have proper medical care for all people, including women and children.
- That care should include extensive testing for birth defects and prenatal hazards
- as well as safe delivery and post-natal care of mother and infant, vaccinations, etc
- as well as corrective surgery for abnormalities
- and safe, legal, readily available contraception and abortion.

Conviction regarding Issue #2: Euthanasia covers all situations where a living entity, of any age or species, is suffering from any cause whatsoever.
- We should not make the decision of life or death for any able-minded adult or mature adolescent human
- we must make the decision for those who are unable to communicate their desire
- and we should make the decision on the basis of compassion and reason, rather than superstition, dogma or paranoia.



I don't see what difference calling your opinions/beliefs conviction makes.

First trimester? I don't understand why you inserted this qualification. Medical care covers any point in pregnancy at which point the choice is the women's her reasons for making the choice are her's and none of my business. You can pass judgment if you want, I'll pass.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Serpent on September 20th, 2016, 3:14 pm 

mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 1:39 pm wrote:
I don't see what difference calling your opinions/beliefs conviction makes.

None. How/when did my choice of that word become a contentious issue?

First trimester? I don't understand why you inserted this qualification. Medical care covers any point in pregnancy at which point the choice is the women's her reasons for making the choice are her's and none of my business. You can pass judgment if you want, I'll pass.

The reason I inserted that qualification is that the distinction between abortion and euthanasia/infanticide grows narrower as the pregnancy progresses. According to your stated principle, if the woman decides to abort a healthy baby at 34 weeks' gestation, it's still an abortion and ought to be legal. In medical terms, however, that baby is viable, and has been for a month so. When you look into premature birth survival rates in more or less sophisticated medical surroundings, it gets trickier to draw the line. Abortion also becomes more complicated to perform; getting into the third trimester, it would require C-section or induced delivery, and could pose a risk to the mother.
Those decisions fall into two different categories. Patient's rights, which we've covered under Medical Care is one. The other is Society's Duty [ to the powerless], which is a whole other ethical realm.
So I'm basing my Medical Care principle on the current legal termination date. There may be exceptions where a defect went undetected a into the second trimester or an injury occurred, but abortion is still safe...
... while late term or perinatal situations fall under the Euthanasia principle.
It makes no effective difference in the case of a non-viable infant, but a huge lot of difference in the case of a viable one.
Last edited by Serpent on September 20th, 2016, 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3115
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 3:25 pm 

Serpent » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:14 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 1:39 pm wrote:
I don't see what difference calling your opinions/beliefs conviction makes.

None. How/when did my choice of that word become a contentious issue?

First trimester? I don't understand why you inserted this qualification. Medical care covers any point in pregnancy at which point the choice is the women's her reasons for making the choice are her's and none of my business. You can pass judgment if you want, I'll pass.

The reason I inserted that qualification is that the distinction between abortion and euthanasia/infanticide grows narrower as the pregnancy progresses. According to your stated principle, if the woman decides to abort a healthy baby at 34 weeks' gestation, it's still an abortion and ought to be legal. In medical terms, however, that baby is viable, and has been for a month so. When you look into premature birth survival rates in more or less sophisticated medical surroundings, it gets trickier to draw the line. Abortion also becomes more complicated to perform; getting into the third trimester, it would require C-section or induced delivery, and could pose a risk to the mother.
Those decisions fall into the realm of patient care (which we've covered) and society's duty to the powerless (which is a whole other ethical realm).
So I'm basing my Medical Care principle on the current legal termination span. There may be exceptional situations where a defect went undetected into the second trimester or an injury occurred later in the pregnancy, where an abortion is still safe...
... and late term or perinatal situations fall under the Euthanasia principle.
It makes no effective difference in the case of a non-viable infant, but a huge lot of difference in the case of a viable one.



Uuh h no way you can conflate euthanasia and abortion if you want but I do not make such mistakes. In the US late term abortions are legal although very restricted. I don't think it is legal to get a late term abortion for legless or down syndrome, etc. , but I'm not sure. you know?
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Serpent on September 20th, 2016, 3:38 pm 

mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 2:25 pm wrote:Uuh h no way you can conflate euthanasia and abortion if you want but I do not make such mistakes. In the US late term abortions are legal although very restricted. I don't think it is legal to get a late term abortion for legless or down syndrome, etc. , but I'm not sure. you know?

I didn't conflate them. I said it made no effective difference in that specific situation, since the ethical basis for my stand on Medical care is not in conflict with my stand on Euthanasia.

If you believe a woman should be helped to terminate a pregnancy at any time between conception and birth, for any reason, I disagree. Most doctors would disagree. But there is a grey zone during the rather long human gestation, wherein ethical decisions can only be made case by case.

What's legal where is not under consideration at the moment; I was merely using the standard medical guideline as a convenience. Exceptional cases always require exceptional consideration, and may fall under more than one category. In those cases, we are challenged to justify and rationalize our principles - convictions, opinions and beliefs.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3115
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 3:51 pm 

Serpent » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:38 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 2:25 pm wrote:Uuh h no way you can conflate euthanasia and abortion if you want but I do not make such mistakes. In the US late term abortions are legal although very restricted. I don't think it is legal to get a late term abortion for legless or down syndrome, etc. , but I'm not sure. you know?

I didn't conflate them. I said it made no effective difference in that specific situation, since the ethical basis for my stand on Medical care is not in conflict with my stand on Euthanasia.

What's legal where is not under consideration at the moment; I was just using the same guideline that Canadian doctors have recommended for the framing of the law regarding abortion. Exceptional cases always require exceptional consideration, and may fall under more than one category.


That is conflation, you have combined two separate and distinct ideas together for whatever purposes. I'll not be guilty of such. I try to protect my right to choose and such sloppy language endangers them.

You are the one that introduced the word legal as you "it's still an abortion and ought to be legal", and "the current legal termination date". Is it legal to have late term abortions for legless etc. fetuses in Canada?
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Serpent on September 20th, 2016, 4:17 pm 

mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 2:51 pm wrote:That is conflation, you have combined two separate and distinct ideas together for whatever purposes.


Here I thought I'd gone to some lengths to separate two distinct ideas.

I try to protect my right to choose and such sloppy language endangers them

I'm sorry. I never intended to endanger your rights with my sloppy language.
I'll not be guilty of such anymore.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3115
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 4:42 pm 

Serpent » Tue Sep 20, 2016 3:17 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » September 20th, 2016, 2:51 pm wrote:That is conflation, you have combined two separate and distinct ideas together for whatever purposes.


Here I thought I'd gone to some lengths to separate two distinct ideas.

I try to protect my right to choose and such sloppy language endangers them

I'm sorry. I never intended to endanger your rights with my sloppy language.
I'll not be guilty of such anymore.



In the US there has been a concerted effort by anti-choicers to frame the discussion of abortion in terms of infanticide. I'm going to fisk a previous post of yours to give you some idea why I find such language in a discussion like this so troubling.

Previously, you wrote
The reason I inserted that qualification is that the distinction between abortion and euthanasia/infanticide grows narrower as the pregnancy progresses.


No it does not it is the same throughout the pregnancy, by DEFINITION. Abortion is an intentional termination of a pregnancy (of a nonviable fetus according to the medical dictionary). You can consult Websters for euthanasia.

According to your stated principle, if the woman decides to abort a healthy baby at 34 weeks' gestation, it's still an abortion and ought to be legal.


Correct it is an abortion and yes i think it ought to be legal. But I don't worry too much about such cases because they are considerably rare and mostly take place in case of the fetuses not being viable or endangering the health/life of the women. A doctor at that stage is going to tell you to wait the two weeks, maybe induce or c-section if it has to come out right now but they aren't going to abort. I suspect, it would be medical malpractice if they did.

In medical terms, however, that baby is viable, and has been for a month so.


In medical terms it is called an abortion and the fetus is not be viable.

When you look into premature birth survival rates in more or less sophisticated medical surroundings, it gets trickier to draw the line.


Not it doesn't the line between abortion and infanticide, euthanasia is the same as always is. See above for the definition.
Abortion also becomes more complicated to perform; getting into the third trimester, it would require C-section or induced delivery, and could pose a risk to the mother.


C-sections and induced delivery are NOT abortions and they are used on viable fetuses for live births. See what happens when your language gets so sloppy?

Those decisions fall into the realm of patient care (which we've covered) and society's duty to the powerless (which is a whole other ethical realm).


So you haven't answered my question is late term abortion(3rd trimester+) legal for legless fetuses in Canada?
So I'm basing my Medical Care principle on the current legal termination span. There may be exceptional situations where a defect went undetected into the second trimester or an injury occurred later in the pregnancy, where an abortion is still safe...
... and late term or perinatal situations fall under the Euthanasia principle.


No it doesn't.
It makes no effective difference in the case of a non-viable infant, but a huge lot of difference in the case of a viable one.

I thought your principle was suffering not viability. Which is it? How viable are microencephalitic babies? How much do they suffer? for how long?
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Serpent on September 20th, 2016, 7:14 pm 

I was talking about my principles.
Evidently, you are basing your principles on a different understanding of medical facts and a different set of convictions from mine.
I thought your principle was suffering not viability. Which is it?

I did attempt, a couple of times, to make that distinction. I have attempted to explain why child-birth can come under three different categories: Medical Care (which includes patient's rights), Euthanasia (which covers the decisions of mentally competent free agents and the care-givers of patients unable to make their own desires known) and Society's Duty to the Powerless (which has not been discussed, but may include the protection of infants from their own parents). Exactly where and how the categories overlap is subject to much disagreement. I do not pretend that mine is the last or wisest word on the subject: it is simply the best I can do. When there is overlap of categories in a given case, it becomes necessary either to prioritize or to reconcile one's ethical bases for each category, so that they do not conflict with one another.
Mine do not conflict with one another.
If they conflict with yours, that's unfortunate but unavoidable.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3115
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Eclogite liked this post


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 7:21 pm 

Serpent » Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:14 pm wrote:I was talking about my principles.
Evidently, you are basing your principles on a different understanding of medical facts and a different set of convictions from mine.
I thought your principle was suffering not viability. Which is it?

I did attempt, a couple of times, to make that distinction.


suffering and viability seem distinct enough concepts which one are you invoking?

I have attempted to explain why child-birth can come under three different categories: Medical Care (which includes patient's rights), Euthanasia (which covers the decisions of mentally competent free agents and the care-givers of patients unable to make their own desires known) and Society's Duty to the Powerless (which has not been discussed, but may include the protection of infants from their own parents). Exactly where and how the categories overlap is subject to much disagreement. I do not pretend that mine is the last or wisest word on the subject: it is simply the best I can do. When there is overlap of categories in a given case, it becomes necessary either to prioritize or to reconcile one's ethical bases for each category, so that they do not conflict with one another.
Mine do not conflict with one another.


Not sure why it matters or how it is necessary, but it's not clear yet whether or not they do as your language is not yet clear.

If they conflict with yours, that's unfortunate but unavoidable.


Does Canada allow the late term abortion of legless fetuses? This should be easy enough to answer. I would appreciate an answer.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 7:41 pm 

According to wiki life expectancy is diminished but they say " Occasionally some will grow normally and develop normal intelligence.[1]" They also note that the condition is not always noticeable at birth but may take a couple years to develop.

Nope can't support the infanticide being proposed here and specific targeting a particular disabled group. I also don't think parents should get to kill (I mean euthanize) their 4 year old, blind, down syndrome children. But I can't see what the difference is supposed to be in the conditions. Both suffer, both are viable from what I've gleaned.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby Serpent on September 20th, 2016, 7:58 pm 

Then your convictions are in perfect alignment. Excellent.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3115
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 20th, 2016, 8:12 pm 

Serpent » Tue Sep 20, 2016 6:58 pm wrote:Then your convictions are in perfect alignment. Excellent.


I don't know what that means, or why it is excellent.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby BioWizard on September 21st, 2016, 7:10 am 

mtbturtle » 20 Sep 2016 08:51 am wrote:
Braininvat » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:27 am wrote:Ethical questions don't "disappear" just because they can be dodged in some parts of the world. This is a philosophical forum, we can even ask about totally hypothetical situations.


Your view of ethics and mine differ. Ethics are never hypothetical situations. To answer your question as worded above. I would have an abortion, mine wouldn't be born, so euthanasia would not be necessary.


Your view is a nonissue. Even the most sensitive and specific medical tests fail occasionally. So having open and free access to testing and aborption services is no guarantee that people won't still end up with a microcephalic baby. Which makes the question a very real, not a hypothetical, one.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12763
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby BioWizard on September 21st, 2016, 7:28 am 

That said, I understand (I think) your point that it makes little sense to try to conjure up a solution with euthanasia when a perfectly workable one already exists with testing+abortion (and a double wammy for women rights). I think that's a perfectly reasonable position - assuming I was able to read you correctly. I just wish you'd try to argue and discuss things more productively and clearly without irritating everyone and putting them on full defensive mode. Though maybe that was your intetion this time, I don't know.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12763
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 21st, 2016, 8:11 am 

BioWizard » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:28 am wrote:That said, I understand (I think) your point that it makes little sense to try to conjure up a solution with euthanasia when a perfectly workable one already exists with testing+abortion (and a double wammy for women rights). I think that's a perfectly reasonable position - assuming I was able to read you correctly. I just wish you'd try to argue and discuss things more productively and clearly without irritating everyone and putting them on full defensive mode. Though maybe that was your intetion this time, I don't know.


If you are going to criticize my style, you might be more specific about where I put "people on full defensive mode". Cause I don't see it. From what I've seen in this thread, I'm one of the only ones discussing the issue. No ethical arguments have been offered by any side.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 21st, 2016, 8:14 am 

BioWizard » Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:10 am wrote:
mtbturtle » 20 Sep 2016 08:51 am wrote:
Braininvat » Tue Sep 20, 2016 8:27 am wrote:Ethical questions don't "disappear" just because they can be dodged in some parts of the world. This is a philosophical forum, we can even ask about totally hypothetical situations.


Your view of ethics and mine differ. Ethics are never hypothetical situations. To answer your question as worded above. I would have an abortion, mine wouldn't be born, so euthanasia would not be necessary.


Your view is a nonissue. Even the most sensitive and specific medical tests fail occasionally. So having open and free access to testing and aborption services is no guarantee that people won't still end up with a microcephalic baby. Which makes the question a very real, not a hypothetical, one.


I noted that previously, there would be mistakes and a few unfortunates but that's not a reason to go changing laws. I don't support killing disabled children, do you?
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby BioWizard on September 21st, 2016, 8:21 am 

No mtb, I don't, and - as I noted above - I do see the merit of your position. I'm not going to spend more time characterizing your style, however, nor give you pointers on how to improve it. Your efficacy in discussions no longer concerns me and I'm not interested in collaborating with you in any way - sorry. That's entirely your problem now.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12763
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby mtbturtle on September 21st, 2016, 8:27 am 

BioWizard » Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:21 am wrote:No mtb, I don't, and - as I noted above - I do see the merit of your position. I'm not going to spend more time characterizing your style, however, nor give you pointers on how to improve it. Your efficacy in discussions no longer concerns me and I'm not interested in collaborating with you in any way - sorry. That's entirely your problem now.


You mean more time personally attacking me - good - prefer it that way. I have no problem. If I irritate and put you on full defensive mode, that's your problem, not mine. Nice of you to drop by to get your licks in.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

Postby BioWizard on September 21st, 2016, 8:36 am 

I hadn't submitted an argument yet, so you couldn't have had any effect on me, defensive or otherwise. I commented because I saw the thread derail and spiral, instead of the seemingly reasonable position being presented productively.

In any case... my suggestion to others would be to proceed with the thread and not concern themselves with derailing comments and convoluted argument styles. No need to make an effort telling when no effort is made asking.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12763
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


PreviousNext

Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests