quote:There are circumstances in which physical pain can be excruciating and essentially unalleviable, (although such cases are more rare than one might think given their ubiquity in bioethics hypotheticals). Note, though, that these cases shouldn't be conflated with those of persons with Down syndrome or those simply in a coma. They aren't even in the same city, much less the same ballpark.
See, that first remark is the one that fascinates me. Bioethics seems to focus all too often on using the exceptional and extraordiary to make a case for what kinds of policies should exist (remind me to tell you about a few thoughts I had that built on the "speed limit" analogy I used a few weeks ago. )
I don't think the conflation is limited to people in the public. There are plenty of ethicists out there making the case that the withholding of nutrition and hydration from someone with massive organ failure is the same thing as withholding those things from people in a coma or in a vegetative state.
(Snark alert - been a bad day, as evidenced by my Jerry Lewis posting. Also had a very unpleasant conversation with a prolife person who tried to lecture me on the value of believing in God - before the conversation was over, I had given her an honest an blunt appraisal of certain Catholic ethicists and also Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue.)
The animal thing is also a real confounding item in people's thinking, I believe. The simple fact is that we kill our pets - first and foremost - because we can. The law doesn't care why we do it, as long as we do it humanely.
Statistics are hard to find, but a few years ago, colleagues of mine gathered statistics on pet euthanasia in Canada. Only a small percentage of pet killings were because animals were incurably ill and in pain. Most were killed because they were too expensive too treat, didn't fit in with the owners' lifestyle any more, or were peeing on the rug. A few months ago, I received a PR announcement from a deodorizer product announcing it was a solution to the "leading cause of pet euthanasia" - it deodorized urine stains.
That's not the picture we get from what we hear from the people we know, though. There are no studies to point to, but a likely explanation is that people are embarrassed to admit they had an animal companion of 10+ years "put down" because she was pissing on the rug. (this doesn't mean the choice was easy or even callous) It's very easy to tell friends that Fluffy had to be "put to sleep" to save her from suffering. After awhile you might even believe it.
In the meantime, though, there's a mythology about what a "kindness" pet euthanasia is - and it's used pretty often to advance the cause of making it easier to do the same with humans.
(feel free to ignore rant - it is so not a good day)
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Been thinking more on it, and the big difference between the kill/let die distinction in the article and the original bear hypo is intent (which is different VERY from motive).
The intent with the kid in the bathtub and the Down Syndrome child is that the victim die, whichever way it is done. The intent in the bear scenario is that A survive. Now, A's survival is contingent on B dying, since if B weren't there then A would die.
That's why the B kicking A is not analogous to watching the kid drown or withholding treatment. B's intent is to live, not that A die. But I still find B's action to be immoral; maybe it's the intervening act. The intent of A is to live; to do so A runs. The intent of B is to live, but in the interim he intends to cripple A, which is immoral without the bear in the equation.
Is this a useful line of reasoning to pursue, or am I kidding myself?
Dagonee Edit: And I've decided I like the article for 2 reasons. First, the article doesn not advocate euthanesia. Second, it's useful to establish the equivalence between letting a child die and actually killing it, and can serve as an argument against letting a child die.
posted
This is excellent. My take on each scenario:
A and B run in terror. The bear by chance catches B first, who dies a horrible death. A escapes. A and B acted morally.
A and B run in terror. By accident their feet tangle, and B trips. The bear catches B, who dies a horrible death. A escapes. A and B acted morally.
A intends to save B by trying to draw the bear’s attention to himself. This works and A dies a horrible death. B escapes and names his first child after A. A acted nobly and B acted morally.
A intends to save B by trying to draw the bear’s attention to himself. But his knowledge of bear behavior is faulty and the bear rushes ever faster toward B, who might have survived otherwise. B dies a horrible death due to A’s mistake. A acted nobly and B acted morally. Legally he may be liable for negligence or recklessness (unlikely).
A intends to save himself by sacrificing B. He trips B and flees. B dies a horrible death. A acted immorally and B acted morally. Legally, A is guilty of murder unless a justification defense is proven (unlikely).
A intends to save himself by sacrificing B. He trips B and flees. B recovers from the fall and also flees. Both survive, but never speak again. A acted immorally and B acted morally. Legally, A is guilty of attempted murder unless a justification defense is proven (unlikely).
A intends to save himself by sacrificing B. He trips B who by chance hits head on a rock and dies instantly. A acted immorally and B acted morally. Legally, A is guilty of murder unless a justification defense is proven (unlikely).
A intends to save himself by sacrificing B. He shoots B to provide the bear with a distracting snack. The bear ignores the dead body of B since it only wanted to scare them away anyway. A then claims it was justified because B was evil and had it coming anyway. A acted immorally and B acted morally. Legally, A is guilty of murder unless a justification defense is proven (unlikely).
quote: A intends to save himself by sacrificing B. He shoots B to provide the bear with a distracting snack. The bear ignores the dead body of B since it only wanted to scare them away anyway. A then claims it was justified because B was evil and had it coming anyway.
You know I thought of this a while back (in the thread) and realized that if A had a gun, he should probably shoot the bear.
CT- when my grandma was burned over 70% of her body (camper propane tank exploded), she kept begging someone to kill her. But even after she "recovered" and had persistent burning sensations in her fingers and hands (for 18 more years) she never killed herself. Was she sincere about wishing someone else would kill her? Of course. But did she actually take that action as soon as she could? I'm not sure why, but she didn't. I imagine she felt "mercy killing" is not as wrong as suicide.
Why did you bring this example up, if my statement was already excessively conflated? I thought it was pretty clear that situations where assisted suicide are thought understandable by the lay public involve the depersonification of the victim. They are a vegetable.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, the issue you raise ("I'm having trouble trying to wrap my head around deciding the most humane way to murder a child because they have Down Syndrome") is not relevant to Rachels' central thesis. His central point has nothing to do with whether or not the child should be killed, but rather explicating logical implications of what is already being done.
I know - did you see my edit two posts up yet, or did we overlap in posting. I guess I started at the idea that one is wrong, for reasons I've fully analyzed and explained for myself, so I'm already treating them as moral equivalents. I do realize he never advocated it.
quote: I thought it was pretty clear that situations where assisted suicide are thought understandable by the lay public involve the depersonification of the victim. They are a vegetable.
Actually, if someone is a "vegetable" (a term I hate edit - and I know you used it to examplify the depersonalization), then it can't be assisted suicide.
posted
Okay, CT, I think I understand what you are trying to say. I guess the perspective of a medical professional is going to be necessarily different from the lay public. Once you have undertaken a course of passive euthanasia, you can't really go back. Like once a fetus is deemed unwanted, it can't be a patient. (here I go conflating again).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I guess the question becomes more whether if euthanasia is disallowed, when does refusal of care become neglect and potentially passive euthanasia?
P.S. While Dagonee's original scenario is interesting, it doesn't really apply to the ideal of a medical professional treating a patient.
A woman deciding to have an abortion is not a medical professional.
Given the politics of abortion, I don't think doctors are in a place of recommending abortion as a necessary course of action. Unless you come back to my anecdote about my niece with the Down's Syndrome.
posted
Eh, I don't have anything intelligent to say, I just hold the opinion that if it is moral to abort a child because it is known to have a disease, then it should be moral to kill a child for the same reason. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think I might follow CT's lead, but for different reasons. I'm feeling like I'm not in a very good place right now to do much more fluff. Today has been very much a "pox on both their houses" day.
<insert black cloud smilie>
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eh, I don't have anything intelligent to say, I just hold the opinion that if it is moral to abort a child because it is known to have a disease, then it should be moral to kill a child for the same reason.
(breaking my previous resolve)
bev,
I'm not sure where you were going with this, but the position you articulated is pretty close to that of Peter Singer, a rather infamous bioethicist. He advocates legalizing the killing of infants with disabilities, as long as that is what the parents want. He has an alarming number of supporters.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is not that it is moral to kill children but that it is immoral to abort fetuses and the double-standard sickens me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I guess I finally understand what the original argument was. Whether it is wrong to allow so many embryos to die versus allowing many to be aborted.
But just because half of the elderly who sustain a hip fracture die within six months doesn't mean we should put down all the elderly who sustain a hip fracture. My Grandpa died within three months. My Grandma lived nearly two years and had technically recovered from that (same Grandma with the burns).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I finally understand what the original argument was. Whether it is wrong to allow so many embryos to die versus allowing many to be aborted.
Actually, the original post really isn't an argument. I'm trying to come to grips with why a death is more wrong when caused purposely than when caused indirectly. But you're correct about what part of the abortion issue this was inspired by.
And your comments about the condoms helped me broaden the principle involved.
This is really an explatory exercise. So far, no one has posted anything that makes me change my mind that A running is moral, and B kicking is immoral, nor do I expect them to. But everyone has helped me come closer to articulating why.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
