British Pundit says she would suffocate her disabled child

[SassyLady]

Eugenic philosophy at work in Britain


<EMBED height=390 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=640 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/5RAAhTL4Arg&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3 allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></EMBED>

[KarlMarx]

5RAAhTL4Arg

MKP.. hope you don't mind.. I fixed your link.... those YOUTUBE tags are notoriously difficult to work with

[Noir]

The face of the two other women was priceless (esp the one in the dog collar :laugh:)

Tis a serious and deep issue to debate but she presented it in a laughable manor =/

[Trigg]

horrible

[Agnapostate]

I'm in favor of Peter Singer's view; it can and probably often is ethical to euthanize severely disabled persons with no self-awareness or even basic awareness levels. Numerous non-human animals with higher cognitive functions than some of these humans are routinely slaughtered and eaten.

[darin]

you sir, are morally bankrupt. May God have mercy upon your soul.

[Noir]

I'm in favor of Peter Singer's view; it can and probably often is ethical to euthanize severely disabled persons with no self-awareness or even basic awareness levels. Numerous non-human animals with higher cognitive functions than some of these humans are routinely slaughtered and eaten.

I concur, a life with nothing but pain is no life at all, but rather a period of sustained torture.
Though ofcourse I also think those animals should not be slaughtered, but that is an aside.

[revelarts]

I'm in favor of Peter Singer's view; it can and probably often is ethical to euthanize severely disabled persons with no self-awareness or even basic awareness levels. Numerous non-human animals with higher cognitive functions than some of these humans are routinely slaughtered and eaten.

I concur, a life with nothing but pain is no life at all, but rather a period of sustained torture.
Though ofcourse I also think those animals should not be slaughtered, but that is an aside.


"severely disabled persons..."
"with no self-awareness..."
"or even basic awareness levels..."

Here's my 1st problem, definitions. Severally disable persons That's kinda vague but you include other criteria to narrow your group. but how do you determine if someone is self aware? Basic awareness levels? Is there a clear medical definition of that state? Some might call that sleep.

Noir you say
"I concur"
but then say
"a life with nothing but pain"
Agnapostate never said anything about pain, you've just added another criteria but somehow I don't think your criteria narrows his, it widens it to those with pain. "nothing but pain". How much pain qualifies. Some say poverty is pain. The mentally ill are in "pain" some would say. Wouldn't some say the ethical thing would be to put them out of there misery too?

I hope you see my point, you both seem to have ideas of Ethically killing people. You assume you agree with each others definitions but it's clear that you both have something a bit different in mind. So who's to decide the criteria for killing people for their own good? The devils in the details and only makes the dark idea palatable when you talk in generalities of , "mercifully ending sufferings" and "Constant Pain" . Frankly i don't want the state, the dr's or either of you to make the decision for me or my family thanks. Spare me your mercy and your ethics. I'll live longer.

But medicine is always evolving right, scientist will take us to the stars , give us super intelligent AI and the cloud, why not give people a chance, let them hold out for the scientific miracle. Where's your humanistic hope in science, in mankind. Wouldn't that be more ethical than stealing the choice of life and death from another individual then killing them to ease our burden and their sufferings real or imagined? Ethically speaking fellas?

[Noir]

@revelarts

Ofcourse there are grey areas, massive grey areas, and it all comes down to personal thoughts and individual cases, but I have no doubt that there are people living today who would be better off dead, and I don't say that likely, it's just a sad truth.

[Missileman]

you sir, are morally bankrupt. May God have mercy upon your soul.

Well of course, everyone knows that suffering is next to cleanliness is next to godliness. What better divine fitness test than suffering, especially for a two or three year-old child who has no concept of heaven and hell, let alone repentence. Maybe we can sell tickets so large crowds of the faithful can share in the holiness of the torment.

[SassyLady]

"severely disabled persons..."
"with no self-awareness..."
"or even basic awareness levels..."

Here's my 1st problem, definitions. Severally disable persons That's kinda vague but you include other criteria to narrow your group. but how do you determine if someone is self aware? Basic awareness levels? Is there a clear medical definition of that state? Some might call that sleep.

Noir you say
"I concur"
but then say
"a life with nothing but pain"
Agnapostate never said anything about pain, you've just added another criteria but somehow I don't think your criteria narrows his, it widens it to those with pain. "nothing but pain". How much pain qualifies. Some say poverty is pain. The mentally ill are in "pain" some would say. Wouldn't some say the ethical thing would be to put them out of there misery too?

I hope you see my point, you both seem to have ideas of Ethically killing people. You assume you agree with each others definitions but it's clear that you both have something a bit different in mind. So who's to decide the criteria for killing people for their own good? The devils in the details and only makes the dark idea palatable when you talk in generalities of , "mercifully ending sufferings" and "Constant Pain" . Frankly i don't want the state, the dr's or either of you to make the decision for me or my family thanks. Spare me your mercy and your ethics. I'll live longer.

But medicine is always evolving right, scientist will take us to the stars , give us super intelligent AI and the cloud, why not give people a chance, let them hold out for the scientific miracle. Where's your humanistic hope in science, in mankind. Wouldn't that be more ethical than stealing the choice of life and death from another individual then killing them to ease our burden and their sufferings real or imagined? Ethically speaking fellas?

:clap::clap:



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to revelarts again.

[SassyLady]

My stepdaughter is a Downs child. When she was nine she was diagnosed with MoyaMoya after having a stroke (which took her a year to recover from). MM is a very rare, incurable, disease that caused her to have strokes.

At 10 she suffered another stroke and the doctors wanted to do an experimental surgery....they told us that she could possibly have a massive stroke or die from the surgery. Her mom and my husband (all of us) agonized over what was the best thing for her. They finally decided that without the surgery she would continue having strokes and suffer and that the surgery offered some hope.

The surgery was unsuccessful and she did have a massive stroke during the operation. She was bedridden for months, went through years of physical therapy to regain her motor skills. She also lost the ability to talk and swallow food and water. We have been tube feeding her for the last 17 years.

It sounds like a few of you here would have opted to suffocate her at that point.....and you would have never known what it was like to see her walk across the stage when she got her high school diploma (at 20); or when she does the chicken dance at her sibling's and cousin's weddings; or to go to a job every day dusting the shelves at the local Walgreens, or laugh like crazy with her when she finds something incredibly funny; or to have her come up and always give you a hug and a big smile when she sees you. I can't imagine what all of us would have missed if we had taken the easy way out.

Yes, she has suffered, but she has also lived a very good life with lots of love.

[Agnapostate]

you sir, are morally bankrupt. May God have mercy upon your soul.

Your invisible sky fairy is dead; Ussen shot him in the head and all the Apache raiders broke out of hell and beat the shit out of the angels. :laugh:


Here's my 1st problem, definitions. Severally disable persons That's kinda vague but you include other criteria to narrow your group. but how do you determine if someone is self aware? Basic awareness levels? Is there a clear medical definition of that state?

Self-awareness is awareness of one's own existence over time; it is what distinguishes humans and possibly other primates from the large majority of non-human animals. Basic awareness is possessed by all sentient animals, but sentient beings are of lesser moral worth than sapient beings because they do not possess the same capacities to suffer, in my view.


Some might call that sleep.

Sleep is a temporary condition. Prior to entering it, persons have formed conscious intentions and desires for their future lives that would be thwarted if they were killed in their sleep. A permanently mentally disabled human that lacks self-awareness is not comparable.


Agnapostate never said anything about pain, you've just added another criteria but somehow I don't think your criteria narrows his, it widens it to those with pain. "nothing but pain". How much pain qualifies. Some say poverty is pain. The mentally ill are in "pain" some would say. Wouldn't some say the ethical thing would be to put them out of there misery too?

If the poor consciously wish to die, they have the right to suicide or allocide, though I would focus more on alleviating conditions of poverty. It seems morally right to euthanize the permanently comatose because the opportunity cost of sustaining their existence may be medical care for others, so a sort of triage is called for, as well as euthanasia of those in perpetual physical pain who are not self-aware. It may not be morally right to euthanize those with basic awareness but without self-awareness, but it is not as morally wrong to kill them as it would be to kill a self-aware person.


I hope you see my point, you both seem to have ideas of Ethically killing people. You assume you agree with each others definitions but it's clear that you both have something a bit different in mind. So who's to decide the criteria for killing people for their own good? The devils in the details and only makes the dark idea palatable when you talk in generalities of , "mercifully ending sufferings" and "Constant Pain" . Frankly i don't want the state, the dr's or either of you to make the decision for me or my family thanks. Spare me your mercy and your ethics. I'll live longer.

Then that's your own conscious decision. Others might have different conscious decisions, or their families different conscious decisions based on their expectations of what their relatives' choices would have been had they been able to make them.


But medicine is always evolving right, scientist will take us to the stars , give us super intelligent AI and the cloud, why not give people a chance, let them hold out for the scientific miracle. Where's your humanistic hope in science, in mankind. Wouldn't that be more ethical than stealing the choice of life and death from another individual then killing them to ease our burden and their sufferings real or imagined? Ethically speaking fellas?

It's perhaps morally obligatory to kill the non-self-aware that are suffering, and at least moral to kill the non-self-aware that feel and sense nothing, since the sustainment of their existence imposes opportunity costs, as I said.