Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm ultimately pro-choice when it comes to abortion, support same sex rights, believe in a safety network system through programs like welfare and food stamps, etc. On the grand scheme I'm basically a liberal. I don't believe in eugenics, though, especially when it's based on a completely biased assumption that disabled people as a rule live impoverished lives. For what it's worth, I'm not really religious either. I believe in God, but I believe that God's will and each person's personal will are one and the same, including if a mother chooses to abort, which is why I would never try to interfere with that will. I am just trying to give everyone the option to carry out their own will. I vehemently disagree with some people's reasons for aborting (finding out the baby is/might be disabled) but at the end of the day, I have to defend their right to choose.
It may not be your intention to do so, but you seem to be "all over the place" ideologically. You support abortion, yet you find it particularly offensive that the decision to abort would be based on a disability or birth defect? What about the 95% that are done purely for convenience? Seems to me, that should be the area of greatest offense, and not when there were reasonable arguments and mitigating circumstances such as in the cases of rape, incest, threat to the mother's life, and defect/quality of life issues of the fetus.
It seems to me that on the one hand, you give greater weight to pro choice, than to the sanctity of life, while at the same time, worry that this particular case of the mother's wishes for her children's quality of life poses grave danger in setting some precedent that will lead to eugenic cleansing of individuals for any type of disability. I really can't find a consistent view or principle in that level of contradiction.
Firstly, I don't perceive such a threat inherent in this case other than the threat of the "state" or "consensus" overriding the mother's instincts and compassion for her own children's best interests. And though I'm sure there could be exceptions, chances are that a mother is far more likely to defend the true best interests of her children than the state or the self righteous masses would be.
Secondly, there needs to be a rational differentiation made between "disabled" and "vegetative" states of being, with these specific individuals far beyond mere physical or mental impairment, such as is insinuated in labeling them "handicapped" or "disabled". One thinks of such conditions as well short of total incapacitation and unresponsiveness to stimuli for decades.
I think that we need to have common sense guidelines for these types of situations and decisions which place emphasis on 1) definitive quality of life determinations and long term prognosis for any form of rehabilitation, and 2) the final decision residing in the proper hands .... that being the compassionate wisdom of family, rather than dispassionate ideology.
Given this situation has been on-going for decades, #1 has long been satisfied that there is no hope for restoring any reasonable level of quality of life (simple existence isn't sufficient). And #2 has also been satisfied, since the mother has demonstrated a long term commitment, and shows no signs of acting out of self interest.
The biggest threat I see in not defending the mother's status as the final decision maker is the greater danger presented by allowing the "State" to hold and exercise that authority. Given that the "state" in general has already demonstrated a well established history of questionable commitment, and or competency in defending the public's best interests, I'd trust the mother's instincts and compassion in absence of clear and compelling evidence to the contrary.
Whenever one allows the "state" to override the individual's decisions, that's when the greatest threat of undesirable precedent is being established.
Surely someone who is in 'healthcare' should know that these sorts of decisions are made every day without court intervention.
Exactly.
How is it possible that people don't understand that medicine is constantly about what to do, and how far to go? Physicians constantly make the decision when to treat and when not to treat. They are the ones with domain knowledge, and together with the family make the best decision in each case. This must be done on a case by case basis, as each one is unique. In difficult situations there are Ethics Committees to assist in just such decisions.
People are fixated on the "all life is sacred" mantra. Just because medical advances mean we can keep everyone alive forever, does not mean we should.
The difference between hospice and this situation is obvious. Hospice patients make their own decision to forgo medical treatment. These peope are not making that decision.
If you willfully run over someone intentionally, you are making he decision to kill them. If you do it accidently, it is still wrong but depending on the circumstances not murder.
As I stated earlier, I oppose the death penalty.
It is not my moral judgement but simply a statement of fact. Taking the life of an innocent person is always wrong. You haven't provided an example that is an exception. Even your death penalty example is wrong. If an innocent person is executed, that is wrong.
You honestly believe that everyone who goes to hospice is able to make these decisions for themselves?
Really?
Certainly some do, but, there is a very high likelihood that many do not and are sent on the recommendation of doctors and/or at the behest of family members.
The point simply is that when there is nothing left to be done that will return someone to health - be it being able to walk, talk, feed oneself, breathe on one's own or communicate - the humane thing to do is respect the fact that no one lives forever and that letting nature take its course is not murder but love.
The lucky ones, who have at least some warning that their condition will be rapidly deteriorating, have the chance to make their wishes known.
Still, and this confounds me, the family/next of kin has the right to completely disregard a patient's wishes.
Almost always, in cases of medical futility, it is the family who insist on artificially extending life. It is the height of disrespect and of selfishness, and at its core is pure denial.
Agreed.
I saw this many times when my husband was still alive and in the hospital.
People in beds hooked up to all kinds of machines, basically little more than animated skeletons and the families insisting the doctors keep doing something, anything even though there was absolutely no chance of recovery.
If heaven is supposed to be our reward, why do so many people fight so desperately to keep their loved ones from attaining it?
Who or what gives you the authority to make this decision. It should be made by the person themselves, or someone close to them that has their best interest at heart. If no one can speak on their behalf, and the person never made their wishes known, then a committee of medical personnel should be given that authority. Every person with a pulse should not be forced to endure a life of dependency and hopelessness, particularly if there is physical suffering that cannot be relieved.
Totally agree with you. We do treat them better. It costs more to rescue a dog than to feed a child. Theres something wrong with that.
Oh I don't know. How about........ God or Allah or Budah or whatever higher power you believe in.
If you don't believe in a higher power than maybe the Universe will help you out.
I don't know why these conversations always include trying to say we treat animals better than people, that is not the case. People have rights, animals don't. Many people do not have the compassion to have their animals euthanized in their presence, nor are they willing to expend the cost. The decision is entirely at the disgression of the owner. We can only hope they do the right thing, at the right time.
We don't send people to slaughter houses, or bio labs for torturous experiments. We don't put animals on life support indefintely.
Stop comparing the treatment of animals to the treatment of humans, until animals have rights, there is no comparison.
I have rescued many animals, the cost is miniscule as compared to medical care of humans.
Agreed.
I saw this many times when my husband was still alive and in the hospital.
People in beds hooked up to all kinds of machines, basically little more than animated skeletons and the families insisting the doctors keep doing something, anything even though there was absolutely no chance of recovery.
If heaven is supposed to be our reward, why do so many people fight so desperately to keep their loved ones from attaining it?
GREAT POINT! I have always wondered that about religious people. If you believe you are going to be with God, what are you so afraid of? Why are you not eager to go to heaven, or see your loved ones at peace, on their journey to a better place?
But but I thought Canada's health care system was vastly superior?
They still have the same idiotic hangups as us on assisted suicide. Other than that, it is superior.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
