Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

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?

Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby mtbturtle on September 21st, 2016, 4:23 pm 

Braininvat » Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:10 pm wrote:
Ethics is practical, it guides our actions. Why should I worry about things that are never going to happen to me? There is no choice to make. If it doesn't effect you, why do you get any ethical say in it? It's none of my business. You can spend your time counting angels on a pinhead if you want.


Turtle, this is a real question: who determines that an ethical choice doesn't affect me, or you?


I didn't say affect, I said effect.

If I think a newborn baby is a person with legal rights, and parents take up the practice of killing them, then I will be a citizen experiencing outrage and strong emotions and a fear of where that might lead. I will be affected, even if it's not my baby and I'm no relation to it. We don't exist in personal bubbles.


I consider ethics to be personal behavior and politics is the realm of our group moralities. google dictionary "moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior." So yes essential we all exist inside our personal ethical bubbles. Your abortion is none of my business. Your killing my fellow citizens even if they are retarded is my business but that's political for me not ethical.

To answer your question, which you felt was not directly answered: I favor, of course, excellent prenatal care and diagnosis for every woman, and the right to choose an abortion at any stage, without the State butting in to the reasons for that abortion.


Me too.

If that is implemented, then I think ethical decision about a severely retarded fetus can be made.


not really.

Once a baby is born, even if it's microcephalic and a determination of severe retardation could be made,


don't think it works quite that way. What about those that may grow up to have normal intelligence? Snip the Zipps

then I think the question shifts to what is in the best interest of the baby, as a person.


I would think the best interest of the baby would always be the focus.

So my answer isn't simple - if microcephaly means no quality of life and uttery misery (and impoverishment in a poorer society) for the parents, then euthanasia MIGHT BE the kindest and best course and the most in that infant's interest.


It can't ever be at the most interest of the infant and I don't know how you go about judging any of that. And why does it stop with "infants" if I have understood you corrrectly. "Sever retardation" whatever that is (does Trump qualify?) can happen thoughout life. Are Downs Syndromes severly retarded?

And yes, that means that the same question could be raised about people in a vegetative state or in severe and irreparable pain. I have no prima facie objection to euthanasia, where there is no quality of life. Life should have meaning and a chance for happiness.


Me either, but I'm not going to be the judge of your quality of life. Don't the severly retarded get to have quality of life? Why do you single out severely retarded children to kill?

I hope that my sincere attempt to address your question is of some use, and reflects to you a genial attitude towards further discussion.


New topic. New start.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby TheVat on September 22nd, 2016, 1:15 am 

Been gone all day (climbed Harney Peak), too beat to reply properly. Will look in tomorrow. Phrases like "single out severely retarded children to kill," seems to show either no understanding my post at all or an intent to be inflammatory. Not sure this new thread gets far, that way.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7337
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby mtbturtle on September 22nd, 2016, 8:08 am 

Braininvat » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:15 am wrote:Been gone all day (climbed Harney Peak), too beat to reply properly. Will look in tomorrow. Phrases like "single out severely retarded children to kill," seems to show either no understanding my post at all or an intent to be inflammatory. Not sure this new thread gets far, that way.


Or maybe you haven't thought very deeply about your qualification of severe retardation and I'm pushing you to confront what such criteria really entail *shrug* For some reason you deny quality of life as I understand it to the retarded. Retarded is pejorative but it is the word you choose. Perhaps it reveals your bias here.

I'm sure you'll be telling us in more detail how it is newborns are screened and tested for severe retardation as well of why you limit it it to infants. Why not adults also? And why only the severely retarded? Why not the deaf, blind and legless don't they lack quality of life?
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby TheVat on September 22nd, 2016, 10:18 am 

I see the trap you're setting. Hello, Godwin's Law. Not going to play.

Locking this, then dumping. You titled the thread with the term you suggest is pejorative and biased. I was describing lack of awareness of environment, no self-awareness, and so on, i. e. most extreme situations. Not Uncle Bob who's a slow learner.
You put a negative spin on everything and play "gotcha." Not conducive to reflection on difficult and emotionally harrowing bioethics.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7337
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby mtbturtle on September 22nd, 2016, 10:25 am 

Braininvat » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:18 am wrote:I see the trap you're setting. Hello, Godwin's Law. Not going to play.

Locking this, then dumping. You titled the thread with the term you suggest is pejorative and biased. I was describing lack of awareness of environment, no self-awareness, and so on, i. e. most extreme situations. Not Uncle Bob who's a slow learner.
You put a negative spin on everything and play "gotcha." Not conducive to reflection on difficult and emotionally harrowing bioethics.


You do what you gotta do to get yourself out of this situation. You might think you were being obvious about who you were describing but it's not and further what difference does it make ethically? You seem to think you've more rights than the "severely retarded" who you can magically identify at/near birth. Lock away. It's you that is having difficulty confronting your bias and getting emotional not me. Good to see this place upholding free speech and inquiry.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby TheVat on September 22nd, 2016, 10:32 am 

Whatever you say. You know me so well!
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7337
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby mtbturtle on September 22nd, 2016, 10:37 am 

Braininvat » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:32 am wrote:Whatever you say. You know me so well!


I know you support killing severely retarded people that may be all I need to know about you.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby mtbturtle on September 22nd, 2016, 12:06 pm 

Ethically killing severely retarded people should make us all uncomfortable.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby TheVat on September 22nd, 2016, 1:04 pm 

When you were a mod here, you strenuously objected to posts like yours above as "trolling." Often, you banned people for posts like that.

Unfortunately, I am more in favor of free speech than you used to be, so I wouldn't ban you for speaking freely, nor have I locked this thread, because perhaps others may wish to express opinions. For that reason, I changed my mind and left the thread open.

I will address one comment and then get out of the way:

You seem to think you've more rights than the "severely retarded" who you can magically identify at/near birth.


First, we actually, as a practical matter, do have more rights than persons with severe developmental disabilities (to use the PC term everyone likes now). We don't let them drive cars, live in their own private homes, hold office, serve in the military, hold most jobs, operate heavy machinery, administer their own medications, walk around unsupervised, etc. We have those rights. They don't, because of diminished capacity that would endanger themselves and others.

But those who do have the capacity to evidence a conscious state and experience life and other human beings, are treated with compassion, and we are a better society for it. Nowhere did I advocate euthanizing those with these fundamental capacities, and (surprise, surprise) I spent about 4 years of my career working with such individuals to help improve their quality of life.

I was ASKING A QUESTION, not making a ruling, when I asked if it would be COMPASSIONATE and JUST and ETHICAL to allow a merciful release for those who lack even such basic cognition, whose brains are so incompletely developed in the womb, that there is no way to experience being a human being. It was a f-ing question, an attempt to grapple with a thorny ethical issue. No, of course, there is no magical "test" that will always and infallibly test cognitive capacity for every case.

But, as you are surely aware, there are already medical situations where a baby is born in such a diminished state of function that the parents ask the physicians to simply withdraw high-tech levels of care and let the child pass peacefully in their arms. THAT was what I was talking about, and it is sometimes called "passive euthanasia." Kindness, mercy, compassion. You can certainly freely engage with other members on this subject, but you should question their words in a respectful manner. No Godwin's Law nonsense, no innuendos.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7337
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby Serpent on September 22nd, 2016, 1:14 pm 

Is this what you were looking for?

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.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby mtbturtle on September 22nd, 2016, 1:24 pm 

Braininvat » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:04 pm wrote:When you were a mod here, you strenuously objected to posts like yours above as "trolling." Often, you banned people for posts like that.


I don't know what post you are referrring to a there are a couple.

Unfortunately, I am more in favor of free speech than you used to be, so I wouldn't ban you for speaking freely, nor have I locked this thread, because perhaps others may wish to express opinions. For that reason, I changed my mind and left the thread open.


*shrug* free response it liable to get me banned but I have an inevitable feeling about that *shrug*
I will address one comment and then get out of the way:

You seem to think you've more rights than the "severely retarded" who you can magically identify at/near birth.


First, we actually, as a practical matter, do have more rights than persons with severe developmental disabilities (to use the PC term everyone likes now). We don't let them drive cars, live in their own private homes, hold office, serve in the military, hold most jobs, operate heavy machinery, administer their own medications, walk around unsupervised, etc. We have those rights. They don't, because of diminished capacity that would endanger themselves and others.


I think you are confusing rights and capacities/abilities here. They are human beings and they have the same exact human rights as every other human on this planet, including you.
But those who do have the capacity to evidence a conscious state and experience life and other human beings, are treated with compassion, and we are a better society for it. Nowhere did I advocate euthanizing those with these fundamental capacities, and (surprise, surprise) I spent about 4 years of my career working with such individuals to help improve their quality of life.


you didn't qualify, describe beyond severely retarded, but I'll ask again what difference does it make ethically

I was ASKING A QUESTION, not making a ruling, when I asked if it would be COMPASSIONATE and JUST and ETHICAL to allow a merciful release for those who lack even such basic cognition, whose brains are so incompletely developed in the womb, that there is no way to experience being a human being. It was a f-ing question, an attempt to grapple with a thorny ethical issue. No, of course, there is no magical "test" that will always and infallibly test cognitive capacity for every case.


I don't know what you are talking about I opened this thread with what you wrote, perhaps you can point that part out if it is important?

But, as you are surely aware, there are already medical situations where a baby is born in such a diminished state of function that the parents ask the physicians to simply withdraw high-tech levels of care and let the child pass peacefully in their arms. THAT was what I was talking about, and it is sometimes called "passive euthanasia." Kindness, mercy, compassion.


Perhaps you could point out where you said any of that cause I can't find it, are you writing in invisible fonts.

You can certainly freely engage with other members on this subject, but you should question their words in a respectful manner. No Godwin's Law nonsense, no innuendos.


Where was I disrespectful? All my question were respectful. ALL of them. I think at best you were sloppy with your language and rather than own up it, you look to blame me.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby BioWizard on September 22nd, 2016, 1:28 pm 

I'm locking this thread and I advise everyone to find better things to do with their time (for instance, finding a better way to carry out discussions).
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12064
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby mtbturtle on September 22nd, 2016, 1:43 pm 

I would like an explanation for the locking and specifics on "better way to carry out discussions". Such vagueness does not help any of reform our ways or improve the quality of the chat around here.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Should parents euthanize severely retarded children?

Postby BioWizard on September 22nd, 2016, 1:55 pm 

You will not be getting any specifics from me because improving your quality (or your membership in our forum) is not a concern of mine, and history has shown me that such pursuits with you are futile. Sorry, I just don't have the time for you.

Thread locked.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12064
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)



Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests