Doctor Assisted Suicide and Related

[@Li3n]

Let's not resort to name calling. I don't agree either, but given what I know (or presume to know) of stienman's beliefs and values, his stance from his point of view makes sense.

Reality >>>> your beliefs.

I haven't been following the case closely, but as i recall from what i saw, the kid already has too much brain damage to ever recover even if they somehow solve his genetic issue.

Even if you believe in a soul, since you can't function without a working brain, you can't logically argue you're killing someone by taking them off life support under those circumstances.

Hell, if souls are real you're basically keeping one trapped in an object... and that's something evil witches do in fairy tales.

 

[PatrThom]

the government not only has the power to ensure the death of a child, but can do so against the wishes of the parents.
Go ahead and explain it away, and support the government's power to do so. That's your choice and I'm sure you have your reasons. I don't believe the government should hold that power, and I hope you understand I have my reasons.

The government already wields this power via capital punishment, and already kills people's children with it. It can compel the death of an individual, though in the USA there are only a limited number of conditions specifically codified in federal law. I assume all governments have some list of reasons that they defend via some variation of "For the Greater Good," much as I have my own beliefs on the matter (which may or may not intersect).

Personally, if as some have said the outcome is not in doubt and it is determined the child will never improve above his current condition, that would make me more likely to allow the child to come to the USA for experimental treatment--not because I expect it would vastly improve the quality of the child's life, but because at that point, what the parents are doing is essentially donating the child's body to science while he is still living, and there is the very real possibility that even though the child's life may not be saved or improved, data may be gathered which would help the next unfortunate individual. And if this child's life was somehow improved in the process, that would be one extremely happy accident.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

...the kid already has too much brain damage to ever recover...

Ok, so your definition of life is whether a person can recover from a certain amount of brain damage. If I understand your assertion correctly, after a certain amount of unrecoverable brain damage it isn't possible to kill them because they are, according to your definition, not actually alive, or, in other words, they are already dead and we are merely sustaining the remainder of their body.

That's a unique and so far as I can tell substantially different definition of death compared to most of the medical community. For us to have a reasonable conversation about this topic I suspect you would have to help me understand what what "too much" and "recover" mean in an objective, measurable sense. Perhaps you are referring to a persistent vegetative state, which is measurably different from brain death. It may well be that you don't think detaching them from their life support system(s) would kill them, from your point of mental privilege it can be hard to see what kind of "life" they might have. However I think we can fall back to a legal standard here to determine whether detaching someone from life support is killing them or not. Hypothetically, if a doctor detached life support for such an individual they have no connection with, without permission, would they not be charged with murder or manslaughter?

Please understand that I'm restricting myself to a discussion of the legal aspects of the laws being put in place to enable physician assisted death, healthcare, and interrelated aspects and how these, coming together, may have unintended consequences (ie, slippery slope). So while a discussion of the morality of killing (and mercy killing, and suicide) as well as opinions of what constitutes life, and the specifics of this case in particular are interesting, I'm primarily concerned with what the law says, and how it's actually implemented.

...this statement makes you and idiot.

I disagree. Any statement I make can only demonstrate my idiocy. I contend that statements I make cannot actively reduce my mental ability, all they can do is help you re-calibrate your understanding of my capacity for thought and reason, perhaps helping you understand how to better communicate with me given my deficiencies.

 

[strawman]

It might be worthwhile to point out that the legal argument for removal of life support in this particular case is not just the terminal nature of the illness, but because the doctors contend he is suffering from this illness, and that prolonging life is a form of torture - this is very similar to arguments made for physician assisted suicide. It would be interesting to understand how they assess pain in this case, because there appears to be the possibility that they are using that legal argument without actually knowing whether he's suffering or not. It appears that painful seizures are uncommon.

He is not in a persistent vegetative state, which makes this case different than the most common reason to remove life support short of brain death.

 

[Gruebeard]

I disagree. Any statement I make can only demonstrate my idiocy. I contend that statements I make cannot actively reduce my mental ability

I don't know. Every time I speak a Trumpism, I can feel my brain cells dying.

 

[GasBandit]

Sort of reminds me of Something Awful. Their slogan used to be "The Internet Makes You Stupid."

It was later revised to "The Internet doesn't make you stupid, it merely makes your stupidity infinitely more accessible to the world."

(I am not taking sides in this argument btw)

 

[Krisken]

(I am not taking sides in this argument btw)

Good call. This discussion seems more emotional than rational.

 

[@Li3n]

Ok, so your definition of life is whether a person can recover from a certain amount of brain damage. If I understand your assertion correctly, after a certain amount of unrecoverable brain damage it isn't possible to kill them because they are, according to your definition, not actually alive, or, in other words, they are already dead and we are merely sustaining the remainder of their body.

That's a unique and so far as I can tell substantially different definition of death compared to most of the medical community. For us to have a reasonable conversation about this topic I suspect you would have to help me understand what what "too much" and "recover" mean in an objective, measurable sense. Perhaps you are referring to a persistent vegetative state, which is measurably different from brain death. It may well be that you don't think detaching them from their life support system(s) would kill them, from your point of mental privilege it can be hard to see what kind of "life" they might have. However I think we can fall back to a legal standard here to determine whether detaching someone from life support is killing them or not. Hypothetically, if a doctor detached life support for such an individual they have no connection with, without permission, would they not be charged with murder or manslaughter?

Please understand that I'm restricting myself to a discussion of the legal aspects of the laws being put in place to enable physician assisted death, healthcare, and interrelated aspects and how these, coming together, may have unintended consequences (ie, slippery slope). So while a discussion of the morality of killing (and mercy killing, and suicide) as well as opinions of what constitutes life, and the specifics of this case in particular are interesting, I'm primarily concerned with what the law says, and how it's actually implemented.

As i said, i haven't watched the case very closely, but as i recall he can't live without the machines, which is one of the things mentioned in the brain death article. And i disagree that not keeping someone's organs alive as long as possible is the same as killing them.

And if you're just trying to argue it in a legal sense, i find the fact that you're using the word "killing" (which isn't even a legal term) to go against that stated goal, as it's clearly an emotional appeal.

....

As for slippery slopes, i don't think we should be encouraging people to basically give over a million dollars to doctors that would be basically just testing a technique they know would not save the patient, and will just give them data (i understand why the parents want it, and, as i said before, i'm not against letting them do it, so i don't actually agree with the ruling, since they're not costing the UK anything they should be allowed to try one more thing just to be sure themselves it was hopeless, i just find it rather shitty that they have to pony up the money themselves). But that's another issue altogether.

Hypothetically, if a doctor detached life support for such an individual they have no connection with, without permission, would they not be charged with murder or manslaughter?

Of course they would be charged with something, because they'd be doing it without having a well documented reason, and the law hates that.

They can still do it without permission from relatives if they can motivate it medically well enough. Just like they can admit a patient that can't give consent by following the local guidelines about it.

And questioning the circumstances warranting it or not is different from questioning it being a thing that needs to exist at all.

I disagree. Any statement I make can only demonstrate my idiocy. I contend that statements I make cannot actively reduce my mental ability, all they can do is help you re-calibrate your understanding of my capacity for thought and reason, perhaps helping you understand how to better communicate with me given my deficiencies.

I agree that a statement can't literally make you an idiot, only figuratively, so we got that going, which is nice.