NEWS: Zika Virus: Re-examing Euthanasia

[zetreque]

If Zika virus has a huge outbreak, should states within the US (other than Washington, Oregon, and Vermont) prepare to re-examine their stance on abortion and euthanasia?

Zika Study: ‘Prepare for Global Epidemic of Microcephaly’
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/16/study-says-zika-cause-global-epidemic-birth-defects/

A new study published in the British medical journal Lancet reveals a “striking magnitude of association between microcephaly and Zika virus infection” and warns readers to “prepare for a global epidemic of microcephaly and other manifestations of congenital Zika syndrome.”

[mtbturtle]

can't read the article cause I won't click on and give traffic to white nationalist websites which is what Breitbart is (on the SPLC hatewatch list)

[Serpent]

This one should be satisfactory
http://press.thelancet.com/Zikacase.pdf

Think maybe Nature is telling us to stop making so many6 people?

[zetreque]

can't read the article cause I won't click on and give traffic to white nationalist websites which is what Breitbart is (on the SPLC hatewatch list)

I know nothing about Breitbart, it was just the top google hit when I was looking up this topic.

[TheVat]

Turtle is right: Breitbart is a festering cesspool of factoids, rightwing spin, innuendos, and stuff they just make up for the sake of fearmongering and sensationalism. It is a smelly pee stain on journalism.

In regard to the OP question: Yes. There is nothing noble or humane about requiring all babies, no matter how severely retarded, to live out their lives. I have liberal friends who disagree and are shocked that someone they see as liberal (me) would take this position. I think they are being swayed by sentiment and a false kindness.

[zetreque]

In full disclosure, I was assigned this topic to research in school and read 50 pages on euthanasia yesterday.

It seems to me that an outbreak of microcephaly could lead to more states leaning toward being pro-euthanasia.

James Rachels makes an interesting case about passive versus active euthanasia, though there seems to be something missing from his metaphor that I haven't placed yet.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/DeathandDying_TEXT/Rachels_Active_Passive.htm

[mtbturtle]

In the US euthanasia should not be necessary. Abortion is up to the woman.so what is the ethical question?

[zetreque]

In the US euthanasia should not be necessary. Abortion is up to the woman.so what is the ethical question?

How about people who have no idea they are infected since Zika symptoms are mild only to find out after the birth of their child (as just one of probably a thousand examples).

[Serpent]

We have the same obstacle when considering assisted suicide for old people with dementia, people badly maimed or burned, people with progressive debilitating illnesses and genetic conditions. And don't even mention anyone who wants to die just to escape a horrific mental affliction.

It's not just religious and conservative traditionalists who are afraid to confront these issues; it's also liberals and progressives. Even some of the health care professionals and care-givers, who can see, close up and daily the suffering they promote... for other people. Whether their opinion would change if they were suffering, i don't know.

We have this very strong instinct for survival, and a huge species-wide aversion to death. We tend not to think clearly about death - our own or any other. The same people who advocate state execution and cheer armies on to battle abhor terminating a pregnancy even for the most sound reasons. We're just not rational on the subject.

Less than a hundred years ago, some 50 million people died of influenza. Childhood ailments carried off a third of the young, and the deformed, premature and genetically flawed usually didn't see their third month. The old and infirm mostly succumbed to pneumonia, whatever else they may have had. God was doing a fine job of culling the human herd: all we could do was try to stop him, and if he won anyway, graciously accept defeat.
We became so successful at resisting God so quickly, that our belief-structures haven't been able to keep pace. We have not yet fully caught up to the reality that it's when we keep people alive by every kind of artifice that we are "playing god" - not when we let him take a life.

[Serpent]

How about people who have no idea they are infected since Zika symptoms are mild only to find out after the birth of their child (as just one of probably a thousand examples).

The testing gets better every day. Also, if you're in a high-risk location, contraception would seem like a good idea, in any case. Even the pope agrees.

[mtbturtle]

In the US euthanasia should not be necessary. Abortion is up to the woman.so what is the ethical question?

How about people who have no idea they are infected since Zika symptoms are mild only to find out after the birth of their child (as just one of probably a thousand examples).

All pregnant women should have access to ultrasound s and testing to detect such developments.

[zetreque]

So what your are saying is that if there was an outbreak, we would be proactive enough so that zero cases slip through the cracks?

[mtbturtle]

So what your are saying is that if there was an outbreak, we would be proactive enough so that zero cases slip through the cracks?

I don't think it is something I need to worry about. All pregnant women should have access to medical services so there shouldn't be many slipping . What ethical question?

[mtbturtle]

So what your are saying is that if there was an outbreak, we would be proactive enough so that zero cases slip through the cracks?

I don't think it is something I need to worry about. All pregnant women should have access to medical services so there shouldn't be many slipping . What ethical question?

[Serpent]

Who's "we"? Some nations have better health facilities and access than others.

I have no argument with euthanasia, btw. The AMA, and probably other doctor's organizations have enshrined and internalized the attitude of their patron saint, so they can't be objective, any more than regular people. Plus, they have all the same fear of abuse and retribution - paranoia - that lawyers have. A doctor is supposed to save life at any cost, and is never allowed to take a life, under any circumstances.

Of course, a lot of doctors and nurses do, and always have, assisted people to an easier and less painful death, but it's been a deep dark secret. A lot of midwives have either not forced a baby to breathe or actually left it under the bath-water a bit longer, when the baby was obviously not fit to live, and that's another secret. Medical professionals have, for a long time, routinely prescribed sleeping aids to terminal patients or left the morphine dosage up to the next of kin, and didn't inquire too closely how the medication was used, but that, too, is secret. If we're not lucky enough to have a doctor who has the conscience - and too the oath - of a veterinarian, we have to find less convenient final exit.

[mtbturtle]

There should be no need for euthanasia.

[Serpent]

There should be no need for euthanasia.

What - ever? For anybody? Or just babies with microcephaly?

[zetreque]

I disagree mtbturle and I would like to explore this topic other than "there should be no need for euthanasia."
It feels like you are going against even discussing this topic.

[mtbturtle]

There should be no need for euthanasia.

What - ever? For anybody? Or just babies with microcephaly?

My original comments were about the US and I have said ALL women should have medical care. I stand by that ALL. IF women have the medical care they should get, there would be no need for euthanasia. As I understand it the ethical question of euthanasia is in relationship to Zika and mircocephaly, not euthanasia, generally or any situation, correct?

[mtbturtle]

I disagree mtbturle and I would like to explore this topic other than "there should be no need for euthanasia."
It feels like you are going against even discussing this topic.

Explore away. I'm certainly not stopping you. As far as I can see you've yet to clearly state what the ethical question is. Why don't we start there. My there should/would be no need for euthanasia with proper medical care for women in this situation is a factual statement, not an ethical one. As for me, it's not going to be an issue so why would I worry about it?

[zetreque]

I disagree mtbturle and I would like to explore this topic other than "there should be no need for euthanasia."
It feels like you are going against even discussing this topic.

Explore away. I'm certainly not stopping you. As far as I can see you've yet to clearly state what the ethical question is. Why don't we start there. My there should/would be no need for euthanasia with proper medical care for women in this situation is a factual statement, not an ethical one. As for me, it's not going to be an issue so why would I worry about it?

You derailed the topic right off the bat without contributing anything after your observation about the source and your refusal to even read it. I'm frustrated with this thread now.

[mtbturtle]

I disagree mtbturle and I would like to explore this topic other than "there should be no need for euthanasia."
It feels like you are going against even discussing this topic.

Explore away. I'm certainly not stopping you. As far as I can see you've yet to clearly state what the ethical question is. Why don't we start there. My there should/would be no need for euthanasia with proper medical care for women in this situation is a factual statement, not an ethical one. As for me, it's not going to be an issue so why would I worry about it?

You derailed the topic right off the bat without contributing anything after your observation about the source and your refusal to even read it. I'm frustrated with this thread now.

I don't knowingly click on racist websites. If pointing out the lack of quality of your sources derailed this topic, then you as the OP and a moderator should have removed them and replaced your source with something credible and re-established the question for discussion which I have repeatedly asked and STILL do no have an answer.

I don't see what beyond my original comment of ,"In the US euthanasia should not be necessary. Abortion is up to the woman.so what is the ethical question?" is really needed. You removed the abortion aspect which I thought was in the title and opening post.

[Serpent]

My original comments were about the US and I have said ALL women should have medical care. ...
As I understand it the ethical question of euthanasia is in relationship to Zika and mircocephaly, not euthanasia, generally or any situation, correct?

It was not clear to me that the subject was restricted to zika in the US, since the disease is more prevalent in other countries, where abortion is not readily available, and even contraception can be hard to come by.
Even in the US, I wouldn't count on all the women at risk having adequate testing facilities in their region, and as for abortion, several states have made it extremely difficult. Of course, euthanasia would never be allowed there, either, so that point is moot.
Should is one thing; reality is another.
But aside from that, the ethical question may be posed, even if the shoulds are all in place.

[mtbturtle]

My original comments were about the US and I have said ALL women should have medical care. ...
As I understand it the ethical question of euthanasia is in relationship to Zika and mircocephaly, not euthanasia, generally or any situation, correct?

It was not clear to me that the subject was restricted to zika in the US, since the disease is more prevalent in other countries, where abortion is not readily available, and even contraception can be hard to come by.
Even in the US, I wouldn't count on all the women at risk having adequate testing facilities in their region, and as for abortion, several states have made it extremely difficult. Of course, euthanasia would never be allowed there, either, so that point is moot.
Should is one thing; reality is another.
But aside from that, the ethical question may be posed, even if the shoulds are all in place.

The OP mentioned the US specifically, "within the US (other than Washington, Oregon, and Vermont)". I live in the US, I don't see why I should concern myself with the laws in Brazil or on what basis I would even commment. I didn't say all women would have adequate testing facilities, I said they should have it. IF ALL these shoulds are all in place, the ethical question of euthansia disappears for the vast majority, doesn't it. So WHAT IS THE ETHICAL QUESTION? I truly don't know why I can't get a straight answer here.

[TheVat]

Wow. How hard is it to perceive the issue?

Should parents be permitted to euthanize microcephalic babies if they go fullterm and are born?

There you go.

[TheVat]

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.

[mtbturtle]

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.

[Serpent]

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.

Ethical questions are hypothetical when they form the basis for drafting a law. I can't see the judge saying, Mrs. Turtle had an abortion; therefore Miss Terrapin must go to prison for smothering her baby.

Moreover, a moral stance on any issue ought to have a broader conceptual base than a single outbreak of a single disease in a single country. (The headline in the OP did mention "global epidemic", which means even this one disease has cross-border consequences.) What if the baby had another untreatable birth defects? What if the mother lived in some backward county with inadequate health-care facilities, or couldn't afford insurance, and so never had an ultrasound? What if.... The ethical foundation of judgment ought to be some conviction that encompasses all cases, actual and hypothetical.

[mtbturtle]

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.

Ethical questions are hypothetical when they form the basis for drafting a law. I can't see the judge saying, Mrs. Turtle had an abortion; therefore Miss Terrapin must go to prison for smothering her baby.

Moreover, a moral stance on any issue ought to have a broader conceptual base than a single outbreak of a single disease in a single country. (The headline in the OP did mention "global epidemic", which means even this one disease has cross-border consequences.) What if the baby had another untreatable birth defects? What if the mother lived in some backward county with inadequate health-care facilities, or couldn't afford insurance, and so never had an ultrasound? What if.... The ethical foundation of judgment ought to be some conviction that encompasses all cases, actual and hypothetical.

Not for me I leave you to it.

[TheVat]

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?