|
Post by showmedot on Dec 18, 2013 6:42:10 GMT -6
This point is sadly the main focus of the book I'm ghoulishly reading currently about the case of the doctors at Memorial Hospital in New Orleans who were accused of euthanizing patients amidst the chaos after the hospital lost power post-Katrina.
Bizarrely, disaster protocols had been developed for epidemics, biochemical attacks and 9/11-type assaults but none for the aftermath of major hurricanes. The unlikely had been covered but not the inevitable.
I'm not sure how a healthcare provider in that situation could be expected to think that euthanizing some patients was not the most compassionate decision under the horrendous conditions of limited generator-driven electrical power, rapidly dwindling food and water supplies, stifling heat and humidity and unflushable toilets.
I can't even imagine what would happen to normally compassionate people in an impossible situation like that, exacerbated by bureaucratic chaos and indecision.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 18, 2013 8:01:20 GMT -6
Drop the nonsense that killing is always wrong, and please come join us for a reasonable fireside chat. At least you are willing to have a reasoned discussion on this, even if we are not going to agree on this. For what it's worth, the topic was really about euthanasia of children. I did find a similar article in USA Today since you had cautioned about referencing biased news source. I would think that you would accept USA Today as more neutral for this story. www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/12/12/belgium-senate-child-euthanasia/4000713/Leaving the rest of our discussion aside, there are other problems here. The main one is consent and understanding what is happening. There is no way a child can understand and consent to terminating their own life. As far as I know, there are no countries (except maybe for some Islamic states, but I don't know) who have capital punishment for children because they are incapable of fully understanding the ramifications of their actions. I think that this IS the slippery slope, because this is a dangerous precedent, since there is really no way of determining full understanding and consent. What if it is an infant? What if the child is mentally or developmentally challenged, so there is a question there as well? Slippery slope.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 18, 2013 9:48:27 GMT -6
Drop the nonsense that killing is always wrong, and please come join us for a reasonable fireside chat. At least you are willing to have a reasoned discussion on this, even if we are not going to agree on this. For what it's worth, the topic was really about euthanasia of children. I did find a similar article in USA Today since you had cautioned about referencing biased news source. I would think that you would accept USA Today as more neutral for this story. www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/12/12/belgium-senate-child-euthanasia/4000713/Leaving the rest of our discussion aside, there are other problems here. The main one is consent and understanding what is happening. There is no way a child can understand and consent to terminating their own life. As far as I know, there are no countries (except maybe for some Islamic states, but I don't know) who have capital punishment for children because they are incapable of fully understanding the ramifications of their actions. I think that this IS the slippery slope, because this is a dangerous precedent, since there is really no way of determining full understanding and consent. What if it is an infant? What if the child is mentally or developmentally challenged, so there is a question there as well? Slippery slope. I don't think it's out of bounds to cite activist rags, but we shouldn't lean on them for important factual details. The Lifenews article presented "facts" that turned out to be contradictory to published data in peer review journals. The USA article is fine. Here's another. www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/world/europe/belgian-senate-votes-to-allow-euthanasia-for-terminally-ill-children.html?_r=0I agree that any offer of euthanasia for children needs to based on informed consent. Both articles state that this is the case. The patient needs to request euthanasia him/herself, the parents need to agree, and the child needs to demonstrate the capacity for discernment. These conditions would preclude euthanasia for infants and otherwise non-competant decision makers.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 18, 2013 10:20:42 GMT -6
Informed consent? I don't know if a child can request Tylenol at school, if they don't feel well, but this is simply rife with ways to be abused. Children request something when it is put in their head to do so. That's why a child is a minor and can't enter contracts, buy a gun, get married, or do anything else. If we now are deluding ourselves into thinking that a child can request these things, know the facts and ramifications, and can do so without outside influence pointing them in a particular direction, then we are deluding ourselves, and it won't take us long to continue down that slope to infants.
Hell! Remember the article I posted about post birth abortion about 6 months ago over on belief corner ? According to those authors, it was proposed that these post-birth abortions could be legitimized on the grounds of children that were born with severe defects in which their lives would be very short anyways.
Already, the seeds of infant euthanasia have been proposed, so it's not that much of a step to go from the statistics you were referencing of adults who ask for euthanasia, now to children, and then eventually, thinking that for infants, it would also be the "humane" thing to do.
Drawing the line from one to the other is pretty obvious. It's not out of the question to see where this is headed.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 18, 2013 11:09:15 GMT -6
Informed consent? I don't know if a child can request Tylenol at school, if they don't feel well, but this is simply rife with ways to be abused. Children request something when it is put in their head to do so. That's why a child is a minor and can't enter contracts, buy a gun, get married, or do anything else. If we now are deluding ourselves into thinking that a child can request these things, know the facts and ramifications, and can do so without outside influence pointing them in a particular direction, then we are deluding ourselves, and it won't take us long to continue down that slope to infants. A few things: first of all, I don't think that you really believe that a child shouldn't be able to take Tylenol at school, so this isn't really useful as a general argument against pediatric consent. Similarly with your other analogies. I'll leave it to Trout to tell us if children are ineligible for all contracts. I tend to doubt that this is the case. I really don't see what marriage or guns have to do with euthanasia in terminal illness, but if you want to clarify this, I'd be happy to address it. The over all gist of what you are saying is that children can't make important decisions. At some ages and in some circumstances, this is true. On the other hand, if you have ever spent any time with a pediatric cancer patient, you will have been impressed with the degree of maturity and understanding that they develop as they work through their disease. The proposed law deals with minors who are dying, who understand this to be the case, and who are capable of understanding the decisions laid in front of them. You seem to be asserting that there are no children for whom this is the case. Based on experience, I just can't believe that. Hell! Remember the article I posted about post birth abortion about 6 months ago over on belief corner ? According to those authors, it was proposed that these post-birth abortions could be legitimized on the grounds of children that were born with severe defects in which their lives would be very short anyways. Already, the seeds of infant euthanasia have been proposed, so it's not that much of a step to go from the statistics you were referencing of adults who ask for euthanasia, now to children, and then eventually, thinking that for infants, it would also be the "humane" thing to do. Drawing the line from one to the other is pretty obvious. It's not out of the question to see where this is headed. Now you're back to your slippery slope argument. The problem with such arguments is that they can be concocted against very reasonable positions, and that those who make them tend to think that by merely raising them, the heavy lifting of moral deliberation is complete. I support caution and conservatism in writing euthanasia law. However, as a medical professional with nothing to gain personally from it, I strongly support euthanasia laws that are well written. Part of this support would include the prosecution of those who use the laws to justify illegal activity.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 18, 2013 11:43:14 GMT -6
The point I was making about Tylenol and such was simply to say that society recognizes valid reasons why children are not given the responsibility of making certain decisions. They aren't equipped, in general, to do so. This news story is about Belgium, and my examples are about things in America, so I realize that my example limps, in that regards.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 18, 2013 11:46:09 GMT -6
As for slippery slope, I was trying to draw the connection between the current practice now of adults who are terminal, of this proposed law, and the idea of post birth abortion (which was couched in the banner of euthanasia). I see 3 dots making a curve, and in my opinion at least, this curve doesn't respect the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. Obviously, you disagree, so I'm not sure where else this discussion can really go.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 18, 2013 12:31:37 GMT -6
Do you think that I respect the dignity of human life?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 12:51:28 GMT -6
The over all gist of what you are saying is that children can't make important decisions. At some ages and in some circumstances, this is true. On the other hand, if you have ever spent any time with a pediatric cancer patient, you will have been impressed with the degree of maturity and understanding that they develop as they work through their disease. The proposed law deals with minors who are dying, who understand this to be the case, and who are capable of understanding the decisions laid in front of them. You seem to be asserting that there are no children for whom this is the case. Based on experience, I just can't believe that. Hi Flitz, Hammer: You are both right I think. Clearly some children can make grave decisions better than others and maybe better than most adults. But, as a population, the ability of children to develop "informed consent" is deemed less than the ability of the adult population. Most age laws are blunt instruments. We let kids drive at 16 even though many are not even close to being mature enough at 16 to drive and some are mature enough to drive earlier. Voting, drinking, entering into binding contracts and other age requirements are arbitrary, inflexible and are probably all wrong if applied on a case by case basis. But, the law of informed consent is more flexible. It is a state by-state thing but fairly uniform across state lines: www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institutional_review_board/guidelines_policies/guidelines/informed_consent_minorsIf a euthanasia law were ever passed in the US, I would expect similar flexibility but limited by enormous safeguards to protect minors. Jim
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 18, 2013 13:09:50 GMT -6
Do you think that I respect the dignity of human life? Yes. However, I would say, though, that your compassion, on this issue, is mis-guided.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 18, 2013 13:18:39 GMT -6
Do you think that I respect the dignity of human life? Yes. However, I would say, though, that your compassion, on this issue, is mis-guided. You get my point. It is possible for people who agree on principles to disagree on details. Frankly, you are just too damned smart for me to believe you'd hold to your hard line if you spent a few months volunteering on a cancer ward. My opinion on this has definitely changed on these matters over time, and not merely because I lost my religion.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 18, 2013 13:56:28 GMT -6
Perhaps yes. Perhaps no. There is no way I could say unless I went through that. I have had quite a share of cancer in my family (but I'm sure that's true for many families too so that doesn't make me anything special in that regard).
But I have also heard a similar thing said about abortion if my daughter was raped, or capital punishment if my daughter was murdered, that maybe that experience would change my mind too.
I'm honest enough to say that one never knows what they will do until they are in that fire for real. But I also believe that we form ourselves on principles to help us when those times come, to help keep us grounded to the things we believe in.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 19, 2013 0:21:42 GMT -6
Perhaps yes. Perhaps no. There is no way I could say unless I went through that. I have had quite a share of cancer in my family (but I'm sure that's true for many families too so that doesn't make me anything special in that regard). But I have also heard a similar thing said about abortion if my daughter was raped, or capital punishment if my daughter was murdered, that maybe that experience would change my mind too. I'm honest enough to say that one never knows what they will do until they are in that fire for real. But I also believe that we form ourselves on principles to help us when those times come, to help keep us grounded to the things we believe in. What we think turns out to matter a lot less than what we do, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 19, 2013 8:41:22 GMT -6
What we think turns out to matter a lot less than what we do, IMO. You have the fine makings of being a Catholic some day.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 19, 2013 11:41:45 GMT -6
What we think turns out to matter a lot less than what we do, IMO. You have the fine makings of being a Catholic some day. Why would I so constrain myself again after the long journey it took to break free?
|
|