British court rules one-year-old should be starved to death

[Lexicus]

I don't think neurodegenerative diseases are typically considered disabilities, but I'm not sure by any means.

 

[Synobun]

As a guess, the basic concept of a judgement based on "quality of life" could be offensive to someone who might be considered by some to have a "lesser" quality of life themselves.

So a "slippery slope" argument, essentially? I think a couple people in this thread also held that view.

I'm not sure. I think there's a difference between sending the disabled to death wards and letting people with absolutely no chance of any recovery whatsoever pass on. There comes a point where "quality of life" becomes an irrelevant consideration when there is no consciousness left to experience it. Determining that can be tricky in the instance of coma patients but it seems fairly straight forward in patients like Alfie where the biological necessities for it have been destroyed.

 

[Senethro]

Pro-life posters still arguing against state ordered euthanasia as opposed to palliative care and a very carefully constructed legal argument, with considerable oversight and additional public scrutiny, that his parents were not acting in his interests.

Maybe they are uncertain of the strength of their arguments, so they argue against something that didn't happen.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Pro-life posters still arguing against state ordered euthanasia as opposed to palliative care and a very carefully constructed legal argument, with considerable oversight and additional public scrutiny, that his parents were not acting in his interests.

Maybe they are uncertain of the strength of their arguments, so they argue against something that didn't happen.

Give it time and they'll be back to "Youth-in-Asia will kill your grandmother!"

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: Everyone involved will now drop the trolling and counter-trolling/namecalling whatnot and return to civil[ized] discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mouthwash]

This statement does not gel with your other posts in this thread, especially not with your OP.

I didn't say he didn't exist anymore, I'm asking you to apply your own logic to the situation.

Furthermore, human society has been fairly consistent with attributing identity to body, even in death. Someone no longer being viable or becoming brain-dead does not reduce their body to be an accessory that can be drug around. Indeed, the parents were very clear about what they feel in regards to Alfie's body: that it is Alfie.

Which is a healthy assumption, even if it's false. We don't know what goes on in the heads of severely injured or even apparently brain-dead people (see: near-death experiences).

It also isn't hard to think of a reason why determining someone's fate based on their internal experiences is a bad idea.

 

[metalhead]

It also isn't hard to think of a reason why determining someone's fate based on their internal experiences is a bad idea.

Except that's not what happened. The disease sealed his fate long before any people got involved.

 

[Mouthwash]

Except that's not what happened. The disease sealed his fate long before any people got involved.

I'm not talking about Alfie.

 

[metalhead]

I'm not talking about Alfie.

This thread is about Alfie. You were quoting and responding to a post about Alfie. Of course you were talking about Alfie, unless you're just saying random things again. Purple monkey dishwasher.

 

[Mouthwash]

This thread is about Alfie. You were quoting and responding to a post about Alfie.

I was talking about what policy should be, which might have affected how children like Alfie are treated. It wasn't about Alfie himself.

Of course you were talking about Alfie, unless you're just saying random things again. Purple monkey dishwasher.

It's good that you've taken up the burden of humiliating yourself, and sparing me the effort this time.

 

[Farm Boy]

So the mechanics for consciousness had been eliminated, right? The pain infrastructure was still intact, but the systems of perception/personhood that I trust are important to rights/suffering/etc when I hear El_Mac argue for the ethicality of terminating healthy life are absent - now the argument is that the suffering requires immediate death?

"it was for the sake of the killed one".

The fun really begins once the omega authority over suffering is settled. Then the tweaking of the definition of suffering...

 

[Lexicus]

It also isn't hard to think of a reason why determining someone's fate based on their internal experiences is a bad idea.

The message of this comic, I think, is that the concept of the philosophical zombie that gives all the same responses as a conscious individual, yet is not conscious, is kind of silly

 

[Mouthwash]

And it suits my own point, so I used it. What's the issue?

 

[Lexicus]

And it suits my own point,

Does it, Jeff? Does.....it

 

[metalhead]

I was talking about what policy should be, which might have affected how children like Alfie are treated. It wasn't about Alfie himself.

That doesn't change my point, at all. If your statement isn't applicable to Alfie's situation, then it also isn't applicable to "children like Alfie." So what you said didn't actually apply to the situation at issue in this thread, regardless of whether you meant Alfie specifically, or cases like his more generally.

Which means it is either off-topic in this thread, or random nonsense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That doesn't change my point, at all. If your statement isn't applicable to Alfie's situation, then it also isn't applicable to "children like Alfie." So what you said didn't actually apply to the situation at issue in this thread, regardless of whether you meant Alfie specifically, or cases like his more generally.

Which means it is either off-topic in this thread, or random nonsense.

I'm betting on random nonsense. Takers?

 

[Broken_Erika]

I'm betting on random nonsense. Takers?

I are lamp pacemaker email coffee flavored doorhinge boots generic eyeball slicer of convenience i ate a pencil now i have lead poisoning!
sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[El_Machinae]

Other than CFCers who are committed to their position is there any serious opposition to the widely held position that studies of reflex action indicate that pain exists outside of brain tissue?

Tim, I've probably not discussed my credentials on CFC to answer this question in some time, but can you rephrase what you're asking?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Tim, I've probably not discussed my credentials on CFC to answer this question in some time, but can you rephrase what you're asking?

I'll try.

There are a few people here, and elsewhere, latching on to the statement in the court ruling that there isn't any certainty about the child being able to feel pain. However, the court's judgement is rooted in their acceptance of a high likelihood that the child could still feel pain. Near as I can make out that high likelihood is based on studies of pain using reflex action times as compared to the actual interval required for nerve impulses to travel; ie if you touch something hot or sharp your reflexes will yank your hand back before your brain is even notified. This "high likelihood but acknowledged uncertainty" seems like the standard interface between science (where certainty is almost always acknowledged as being impossible) and legal rulings (where assumption of certainty is kind of the basis of everything).

I'm trying to determine if there is any actual science behind the "his brain has dissolved so he can't experience pain so there is no suffering to be ended" line of reasoning. I can't find any support for this countering premise that pain is entirely confined to the brain, so it seems like nothing more than a convenient claim on a position that is just "not provably wrong" rather than a position that has any reason to accept as right.

 

[Lexicus]

email

Hillary killed Benghazi CONFIRMED