why is everyone so stuck on saving babies?

[DrOctopus]

It's a balancing act...we all know this. Is it better to save one profoundly sick child or a 100 others? I will always say it is better to save the 100, unless it was my child. If i cannot afford to treat my child, how can i expect society to forsake 100's of others so my precious seed can live?

I know insurance companies aren't hurting for profit, so i am not sympathizing for them. But its not fair to spend 40k a year giving a homeless drug addict HIV medication either when I have to pay 100 bucks for a hepatitis vaccination, and I'm insured! Something is not adding up.

Some people are ill, and to some extent insurance should be responsible for helping them. They are, after all, insurance. Medicare too. But should a smoker be entitled to chemotherapy? Maybe if healthcare was a right, but not if it is a priviledge.

Is it better to pick and choose who gets treatment or to let it randomly befall some and not others? I think by picking and choosing, we will maximize the effectiveness of healthcare and more lives will be improved. It's cruel to be calculating, but is the alternative better? Because we are living with the alternative.

Society has contributors and detractors. We are all human, but some people deserve and do receive better treatment than others. Its clear this is how a capitalistic nation runs. Why should it be different for healtcare? When the constitution decides that healthcare is a right, and antibiotics are more valuable than bombing iraqis, then I say we should have healthcare for all. But as the nation's priorities rest with ensuring big business succeeds along with a reawakening of 1950's morality, we have to make due with what we got.

The economic pie is limited, and we can only piss away so much. If the goverment by our people decides that medical care is not as important as other "pressing" issues, we cannot afford to give healthcare to all.

my argument is that its better to maximize the efficiency of those dollars. That means if your alcoholic ass gets pregnant and chooses to have an autistic kid, you best sell your house instead of expecting the goverment to pony up 50g's a year. Its not like he's going to contribute to society, no matter what kind of savant he is.

This very idea was discussed on NPR's All Things Considered (I believe) a few weeks ago during the Terri Schiavo debates. A professor at Boston University School of Public Health (his name escapes me unfortunately, but regardless) was discussing how much end of life care cost and how many people choose hospice that is not solely Medicaid, because Medicaid-only hospices are less than spectacular (higher turnover, less "care" for patients, etc). He also mentioned that people who recieve Medicare dollars to pay for hospice/end of life care can actually end up owing the Government for it--he described a circumstance where if one spouse is in hospice, the other spouse can be left with huge financial pressure in the form of the state placing a lein on their house.

He also talked about how in hospitals, administrators do not direct doctors to discontinue care on individuals, but they do hint at it with questions like "Is this treatment really beneficial to their quality of life", etc.

He ended by commenting about how he did not think it was too farfetched to believe that in coming years State and Federal legislators will change end of life Medicaid/Medicare payments such that, after a year (or x amount of time) of treatement for PVS or other intensive therapy-requiring neurological disorder, those programs would no longer pay out benefits for care.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Elysium]

Here's my feeling on it. I think it's fine if you want to take on the burden of caring for a child with severe birth defects/mental problems/chronic illness. But, the caveat is that you will also have to pay for these children (through insurance or donations or a telethon or whatever) so that these resources aren't unduly directed towards the care of one sick child when many, many others could receive basic healthcare. I certainly hope the goverment (medicaid) isn't paying for the care of severely damaged children and people that stay in hospice for 10+ years, like Terii Schaivo. That's the choice the parents/spouse makes and that's your responsible to shoulder (both emotionally and financially) IMHO.

 

[tigress]

Actually there was an article, and I forget where but maybe Newsweek, written by a severely disabled lawyer about her relationship/conversations with Singer. The lawyer practices with my mother so I can ask my mother where that was written. It's pretty interesting, though of course from a person with a very strong stance on one side of the issue for personal reasons.

Replying to myself. If you're interested, the woman's name is Harriet McBryde Johnson. She is a disabled lawyer. Here is a link to the article (it was actually in the New York Times Magazine): http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/about/20030216.htm

She also just wrote a book (my mother just emailed me about it, which is why I remembered to post a link to her here).

Anyway, it's an interesting perspective to read about.

 

[medic170]

I don't even want to get into the complexities of this debate, for me, it is much simpler. Now, regardless of your views on abortion, everyone agrees that once a kid is born it isan autonomous human being with rights. I don't understand why an adult life means more to you than an infant's life. Just because the adult, in most cases, can make their own decisions known? I think an infants life is no less important than an adult's life, so by your logic, we should just let everyone die off. heart disease has a big genetic component, let's weed em out instead of prescribing a statin.

I really don't understand why some of you are so cold-hearted. Why is the baby less important than an adult, and how do you know that even say an infant that lives only 4 weeks did not have some quality of life?

 

[typeB-md]

I don't even want to get into the complexities of this debate, for me, it is much simpler. Now, regardless of your views on abortion, everyone agrees that once a kid is born it isan autonomous human being with rights. I don't understand why an adult life means more to you than an infant's life. Just because the adult, in most cases, can make their own decisions known? I think an infants life is no less important than an adult's life, so by your logic, we should just let everyone die off. heart disease has a big genetic component, let's weed em out instead of prescribing a statin.

I really don't understand why some of you are so cold-hearted. Why is the baby less important than an adult, and how do you know that even say an infant that lives only 4 weeks did not have some quality of life?

i appreciate what you've tried to do, but it is still not "simple."

is it more cold-hearted to raise a severly disabled child and make him/her grow up in a life riddled with constant medical intervention that will ultimately end in an early death?

there is no right answer, and your post exemplifies this. you seem to see it as "simple" because you fail to acknowledge any other viewpoint than your own. if you think living for 4 weeks is a quality life, then more power.

 

[medic170]

i appreciate what you've tried to do, but it is still not "simple."

is it more cold-hearted to raise a severly disabled child and make him/her grow up in a life riddled with constant medical intervention that will ultimately end in an early death?

there is no right answer, and your post exemplifies this. you seem to see it as "simple" because you fail to acknowledge any other viewpoint than your own. if you think living for 4 weeks is a quality life, then more power.

No, I do not think it is more cold earted to let a baby live. You really need to lose your God complex, and I mean that seriously.

I fail to acknowledge any other viewpoint. Just answer my question, why do you think a baby's life is less important than an adults?

I don't know if living for four weeks is quality of life, do you? If you do, I'd like to know when God made you his deputy in omnipotence. If you can acknowledge that you do NOT and can NOT know this than you must agree that you have no right to make the decision of whether the baby lives or dies.

You see, it is simple. Either you have the knowledge, power, and right to decide who is worthy of life and who is not, or you have no right to decide this. Which is it? If you truly think that you do have the knowledge, power, and right to decide who's life had quality and is worth saving, and who's isn't, than I suggest you check into a mental hospital. We call that delusions of grandeur.

 

[typeB-md]

No, I do not think it is more cold earted to let a baby live. You really need to lose your God complex, and I mean that seriously.

I fail to acknowledge any other viewpoint. Just answer my question, why do you think a baby's life is less important than an adults?

I don't know if living for four weeks is quality of life, do you? If you do, I'd like to know when God made you his deputy in omnipotence. If you can acknowledge that you do NOT and can NOT know this than you must agree that you have no right to make the decision of whether the baby lives or dies.

You see, it is simple. Either you have the knowledge, power, and right to decide who is worthy of life and who is not, or you have no right to decide this. Which is it? If you truly think that you do have the knowledge, power, and right to decide who's life had quality and is worth saving, and who's isn't, then I suggest you check into a mental hospital. We call that delusions of grandeur.

why do i think a baby's life is less important? i do not necessarily believe this.

i believe that there are children already born and adults who are already living that are without healthcare. these individuals are cognizant of pain and desparate for help. a newborn infant does not yet have any life experience, there is no history of pain, no knowledge, no understanding. these are all things for the infant to learn. BUT, when an infant is born with some debilitating, he/she is ignorant to the fact that anything is wrong. MY belief is that rather than forcing (since medical intervention is many times necessary) these children to know pain and to know suffering, the parent should have a stake in what goes on.

And god did not appoint me to anything because i don't believe in a god like you believe. Do i believe in a creator, i can see a possibility. But i do not put my faith in a diety like you do. I am definitely not more right because i do not believe in god. your beliefs are consistent with your faith and my beliefs are consistent with my life-outlook.

the difference b/w me and you is that i don't claim to have any powers other than those over my own being and my offspring. i never told other people what they should do, i just said that the option should be available. i don't know why you seem to keep attacking me as a person.

 

[medstyle]

not everyone believes in god. or that babies are precious.

"save the children!" seems to be a common theme among religious groups, but the same religious bastards are ones that advocate war. Parents should pay for their own kids, plain and simple. Poor people should limit their birthing rights to what they can support. Drug addicts shouldn't be having kids. Poor single mothers shouldn't be having 7 kids and no jobs either.

There isn't enough money in healthcare to support every "precious" life. Some lives aren't worth saving. Human life always ends, and some should end with peace, instead of dragging them out. Its funny how "God's will" means not to support stem cell research and other paths to hope, yet it does encourage perpetuating pathetic sub human lives.

Has anyone here actually seen human suffering? Have you watched a dying child get chemo when there was no hope for survival? Its not humane and it is a waste of money. Why perpetuate suffering and wasteful spending? I am not god, but my money does go towards healthcare. When jesus pays for healthcare, he can decide if its a waste or not. Until then, we need to go for the most bang for our buck.

I mean, i am not just all about killing babies or whatever. the bigger problem is homeless and poor people that will do anything to stay in the hospital for any problem because they have no place to go. They rake up huge charges and of course can't pay a bloody dime. And irresponsible single mothers who should be taking BC or drug addict women who ought to be sterilized. Don't tell me i am wrong till you spend some time with a coke baby that makes you want to cry your brains dry.

People should pay for healthcare and be responsible for their own healthcare decisions. Of course, people should get some rudimentary care and more, but extremely selfish healthcare options should be reserved for those woh can afford it. I spoke my peace.

 

[scootad.]

Excellent post medstyle.

 

[typeB-md]

Excellent post medstyle.

ditto.

 

[45408]

cerebral palsy... i'd rather let the child die so that he didn't have to know a life filled with torture.

The only thing smaller than your intellect is your capacity for sympathy. Like you can evaluate the severity of these things when a baby is just a few weeks old. My little sister has CP and after years of therapy, is now a well-adjusted 6th grader with almost straight A's who enjoys skiing and other sports.

 

[45408]

Parents should pay for their own kids, plain and simple.

And when the parents can't/won't pay for it, you're simply punishing the most innocent and least capable of self-defense.

 

[sacrament]

These babies wouldn't even be so premature if they'd have exercised more in the womb. The fact is that there would be no need for obstetricians if babies would bench more.

 

[Code Brown]

Not to sound like an ass (I'll probably get flamed for this too) but for those of you who think that you shouldn't act like "God", get ready for a surprise when you start your life as a physician. Unless you stay in academia your whole life, you may need to make so-called "God-like" decisions the odd time. It's something you shouldn't relish or look forward to, but it's something you may be forced into doing. You'll be hanging out in the ER one night and two people will code at the same time. Being the only doctor, you'll have to decide who to treat and save. Or how about this example. You are operating on a patient and find a tumor. Path results are inconclusive, so you make the call to take it out. You accidentally cut something and the patient dies. Ooops bad idea. What if you decide not to take it out and the patient dies because the tumor metastatises (sp?). Ooops bad idea. This is why docs get sued most of the time (not because of negligence, although this does happen).

There is nothing wrong with what the OP is trying to ask. He's just being rational and trying to reason out his position on something that has no "right" answer. The OP even concedes the odd point that they haven't thought about.

Since our wants outweigh the resources we have, decisions about where to spend the limited research and limited medical budgets need to be made. Do we find a cure for DM or Malaria? Do we spend $2 million on trying to save a 20 week old baby or do we immunize 20,000 kids in India? Someone has to make the call.

 

[Llenroc]

I really hope you don't succeed in your quest to become a doctor, for the good of all people. Maybe you should find a different profession. You really don't seem to get the basics of what being a doctor is about, let alone medical ethics.

 

[medic170]

i believe that there are children already born and adults who are
already living that are without healthcare. these individuals are
cognizant of pain and desparate for help. a newborn infant does not yet
have any life experience, there is no pain, no knowledge, no
understanding. these are all things for the infant to learn. BUT, when
an infant is born with some debilitating, he/she is ignorant to the fact
that anything is wrong. MY belief is that rather than forcing (since
medical intervention is many times necessary) these children to know
pain and to know suffering, the parent should have a stake in what goes
on.

As for the already existing people are without healthcare argument you pose....well under that logic, nobody should have any babies with any ailment, and no problem pregnancies should be allowed to continue because they would tax the system, right? Better yet, no babies should be allowed to be born until all others have healthcare, since they may get sick later

BTW, how the hell do YOU know that a new born feels no pain and has no ability to enjoy life? And anyway, did you not say that it is better to let them die BECAUSE they are suffering? Now you say they do not have the ability to suffer, which is it???? and 2 sentences later you say they do?

Ok, you don't believe in God, that changes nothing. You still have no right or authority morally to judge whether any other human's life is worth living. Why, because even in all your infinite wisdom, you do NOT know ANY better what is right for them, period. I know I am not going to change your mind, so I will not argue anymore, but since you are intent on becoming a doctor, I feel better that I at least planted a seed for you to ponder in the future when you grow up and actually make these decisions in real life, with a living breathing human in front of you.



It is going to be interesting to see many of you people change your attitudes on so many subjects after a few years of real patient care. I was a naive know-it-all too before 8 years on the road treating patients as a medic taught me humility, compassion, and ethics. I had other jobs before that which contributed too. Basically, just being in the "real world" teached you that things are NOT an ethics dilemma on paper, it is very different when you have a baby in front of you and you decide it is not worth saving.

Honestly, I see so much immaturity (not an insult) on these boards. I'll bet anyone else who is a little older or more seasoned would agree that it is easy to tell' sometimes' who are the early 20's recent college grads who think school taught them everything they need to know about life, politics, money, and ethics. I.m not saying you are all going to have some miraculous change, but I can tell some of you have a lot of living and learning to do (social like).
I mean, using some stereotypes of young college grads, many of you will become more opinionated (by yourself without a group telling you), you will become less liberal and more conservative, especially with money and politics, you will become more humble, compassionate, and most of all, you will see how "little" you actually learned in college about real life.

Code Brown...I have been in those situations before triaging an MCI, and it is not the same. allocating limited resources is a necessary and human thing to do. There is a huge difference between saying there is nothing we CAN do at this time and saying that your life is not wirth saving.

 

[typeB-md]

The only thing smaller than your intellect is your capacity for sympathy. Like you can evaluate the severity of these things when a baby is just a few weeks old. My little sister has CP and after years of therapy, is now a well-adjusted 6th grader with almost straight A's who enjoys skiing and other sports.

oh man, way to counter with a personal attack! you must've been the debate master in high school.

and if you have been following this thread, you should know that I'm advocating the option. Maybe your family wanted to raise your sister. I would never want to raise a child with CP... that should be a decision i'm allowed to have.

My decision to do such has no affect on your life. Please refrain from further attacking me based on the fact that you disagree on an personal issue.

 

[typeB-md]

I really hope you don't succeed in your quest to become a doctor, for the good of all people. Maybe you should find a different profession. You really don't seem to get the basics of what being a doctor is about, let alone medical ethics.

what a well-thought out, evidence-filled response.

the whole issue for debate is ethics. you think it's more ethical for a child with a severe medical ailment to be born. i think it's more ethical for parents to be given the option of whether or not to allow the child to live.

is it more right to use our technology to keep this child alive while researching cures? or is it more right to not intervene with nature and allow this child the death that would've naturally occurred had it not been for our medical interventions?

instead of throwing insults, why not participate in an adult debate?

 

[typeB-md]

As for the already existing people are without healthcare argument you pose....well under that logic, nobody should have any babies with any ailment, and no problem pregnancies should be allowed to continue because they would tax the system, right? Better yet, no babies should be allowed to be born until all others have healthcare, since they may get sick later

BTW, how the hell do YOU know that a new born feels no pain and has no ability to enjoy life? And anyway, did you not say that it is better to let them die BECAUSE they are suffering? Now you say they do not have the ability to suffer, which is it???? and 2 sentences later you say they do?

Ok, you don't believe in God, that changes nothing. You still have no right or authority morally to judge whether any other human's life is worth living. Why, because even in all your infinite wisdom, you do NOT know ANY better what is right for them, period. I know I am not going to change your mind, so I will not argue anymore, but since you are intent on becoming a doctor, I feel better that I at least planted a seed for you to ponder in the future when you grow up and actually make these decisions in real life, with a living breathing human in front of you.

It is going to be interesting to see many of you people change your attitudes on so many subjects after a few years of real patient care. I was a naive know-it-all too before 8 years on the road treating patients as a medic taught me humility, compassion, and ethics. I had other jobs before that which contributed too. Basically, just being in the "real world" teached you that things are NOT an ethics dilemma on paper, it is very different when you have a baby in front of you and you decide it is not worth saving.

Honestly, I see so much immaturity (not an insult) on these boards. I'll bet anyone else who is a little older or more seasoned would agree that it is easy to tell' sometimes' who are the early 20's recent college grads who think school taught them everything they need to know about life, politics, money, and ethics. I.m not saying you are all going to have some miraculous change, but I can tell some of you have a lot of living and learning to do (social like).
I mean, using some stereotypes of young college grads, many of you will become more opinionated (by yourself without a group telling you), you will become less liberal and more conservative, especially with money and politics, you will become more humble, compassionate, and most of all, you will see how "little" you actually learned in college about real life.

Code Brown...I have been in those situations before triaging an MCI, and it is not the same. allocating limited resources is a necessary and human thing to do. There is a huge difference between saying there is nothing we CAN do at this time and saying that your life is not wirth saving.

i don't understand what your big problem is. and you misquoted my text. referring to the infant, there is no HISTORY of pain. Of course they can feel, but i believe suffering is a prolongation of pain.

and i'm sorry you feel the way you do about my beliefs. But the reality is, that I DO have a right to decide who my OWN children are. and i DO have the right to decide what is BEST for them... that is why i would be their parent. I have the obligation to raise productive children. i have the obligation to make sacrifices for my children. I have the final say on what goes on in my life and my child's.

I don't know why YOU feel it necessary to morally regulate my life. You aren't going to raise my children, you aren't going to raise your patients' children. It should be the parent's say and nobody else's.

If you want to spend your life raising a severely disabled child, then that's your MO. I want to raise a healthy child that i can watch grow to outlive me and enjoy an active, independent life.

So my question to you is this. How does my decision to not actively try and keep my child alive affect you at all?

 

[medic170]

i don't understand what your big problem is. and you misquoted my text. referring to the infant, there is no HISTORY of pain. Of course they can feel, but i believe suffering is a prolongation of pain.

?

Ok buddy. I have now lost all repsect for you, and you have just lost all of your credibility. I do not consider the arguments of deceitful liars. I copy and pasted your text, word for word, for the quote, and you obviously went back and edited it to make it look like I misquoted you. You do this, and then accuse ME of misquoting you, and yet you are lecturing someone else on how to debate properly? It is not that the little eduit makes that much differecne to me, but it is that you lied that pisses me off. You could have just said "I meant blah blah blah", butno, you accuse ME of misquting YOU! BS, pure BS.

By telling this lie and editing your text to try and make it look like I misquoted you, you have lost all credibility, at least with me. I don't like personal attacks, but since you are a liar and a fraud, I will make an exception and call BS on you. You obviously are a dishonest person and therefore immoral, or you would not have to tell lies at other peoples expense to further your point. Man, that just steams me

I wish there was a way I could prove this, but there is not. It does not matter anyway, because YOU know your are deceitful and that you just lied, be a man and fess up, or don't, but we both know what a weak, deceitful thing you just did at my expense. It is obvious to me that you are an immature troll, and this has nothing to do with the topic and everything to do with the deceitful actions you just took.

 

[praying4MD]

Actually there was an article, and I forget where but maybe Newsweek, written by a severely disabled lawyer about her relationship/conversations with Singer. The lawyer practices with my mother so I can ask my mother where that was written. It's pretty interesting, though of course from a person with a very strong stance on one side of the issue for personal reasons.

TIGRESS: I LOVE BERTRAND RUSSELL! your quote made my day, particularly since i have been recently very disillusioned with med students, who seem totally ignorant and content with the bubble that they live in that they are completely oblivious to what the real world out there is... this probably make no sense to you as i am rambling now, but i just wanted to say that it is nice to know that there are others out there who 1) appreciate good literature 2) are genuinely still intellectually curious. seems like people who graduate from med school lose their intellectual curiosity and becomes servant to residency and the medical profession... and that is why so many people are totally ignorant as to the goings on in the rest of the world, good literature, news, politics. again, i am rambling and making no sense, but in general, i just wanted to tell you that you made my day.

yay.

 

[jonathani1]

medic170:

Utilitarian philosophy (the predominant philosophical view in the forum, or so it seems) goes like this: Life is worthless if it loses its societal usefulness. Also: the more useful a life, the more valuable it is. Eliminating useless lives is not murder, it is just efficient. From a doctor's point of view, the healthcare pie is only so large, and should be allocated to the valuable members of society.

The tricky part is who defines 'usefulness' and 'uselessness'? Everybody's value judgments are subjective. And each utilitarian has a different set of value judgments. As a society we are progressing beyond the antiquated religious views of wrongs and rights, and also dropping the extremist concept of a 'culture of life.'
Babies ARE irrefutably less useful than adults. The same can be said for elderly people. Killing them shouldn't therefore be considered as bad a crime if it helps society progress.

I am a Jew, and so my concept of 'uselessness' is different -- not necessarily better -- than another utilitarian who sent my ancestors to the gas chambers in the 1940's.
The slave owners defined themselves higher on the spectrum of usefulness than slaves, and so it made great sense to use them for the greater good of society. Emancipation and education would have made them less useful from a tobacco farmer's utilitarian point of view.
When a man sleeps with a woman his actions -- we call 'making love' -- symbolize his instinctual contract to protect and care for her and their offspring. But from a utilitarian viewpoint, Fetuses have limited short-term use, and thus are defined by society, intra-uterus, as non-human. To maximize his freedom the man can break his contract with the woman. The woman can do likewise and abort the development complex.

What makes a woman equal to man? Who decides for us gender equality? Surely not some airy-fairy deity or subjective morality! Unlike our religious ancestors, we don't believe women are equal to us men because it's the good, moral thing to believe. No, we consider them equal because science currently indicates that mentally and physiologically they bear a similar level of potential usefulness to society. Thus we should eliminate for women the so-called corporate glass ceiling because that gender is able to carry as much of the load as we men do, not because they are in any sense 'spiritually' equal (whatever that means) to their male counterparts. It follows logically that if we find that their mental and physiological capabilities are not up to our own, we should return them to a lower utilitarian level in society. Perhaps no more woman CEO's or doctors?

Before you send me hate mail, this is a satire. I don't subscribe to utilitarianism. Understand though, that the arguments you use for reduced infant care, elimination of fetuses, and the elderly, are philosophically identical to those used to defend slavery and genocide in prior centuries. You offer no new argument. You'll probably disagree with me. That's fine. But as potential doctors, please, think your views through. Because your philosophical ideals come to you packaged in a warm fuzzy soap opera package, it doesn't mean that they are any more 'progressive' than those of our savage religious ancestors. (Probably less so.)

 

[SocialistMD]

Poor people should limit their birthing rights to what they can support. Drug addicts shouldn't be having kids. Poor single mothers shouldn't be having 7 kids and no jobs either.

I completely agree. However, there is no way to enforce this, and a country founded on freedom will never force sterility or cap the number of babies per family. The products of their misbehavior (their children) should not be forced to suffer as a result.

 

[45408]

oh man, way to counter with a personal attack! you must've been the debate master in high school.

Your hypocrisy coupled with the irony is classic, man.

 

[medic170]

medic170:

Utilitarian philosophy (the predominant philosophical view in the forum, or so it seems) goes like this: Life is worthless if it loses its societal usefulness. Also: the more useful a life, the more valuable it is. Eliminating useless lives is not murder, it is just efficient. From a doctor's point of view, the healthcare pie is only so large, and should be allocated to the valuable members of society.

The tricky part is who defines 'usefulness' and 'uselessness'? Everybody's value judgments are subjective. And each utilitarian has a different set of value judgments. As a society we are progressing beyond the antiquated religious views of wrongs and rights, and also dropping the extremist concept of a 'culture of life.'
Babies ARE irrefutably less useful than adults. The same can be said for elderly people. Killing them shouldn't therefore be considered as bad a crime if it helps society progress.

I am a Jew, and so my concept of 'uselessness' is different -- not necessarily better -- than another utilitarian who sent my ancestors to the gas chambers in the 1940's.
The slave owners defined themselves higher on the spectrum of usefulness than slaves, and so it made great sense to use them for the greater good of society. Emancipation and education would have made them less useful from a tobacco farmer's utilitarian point of view.
When a man sleeps with a woman his actions -- we call 'making love' -- symbolize his instinctual contract to protect and care for her and their offspring. But from a utilitarian viewpoint, Fetuses have limited short-term use, and thus are defined by society, intra-uterus, as non-human. To maximize his freedom the man can break his contract with the woman. The woman can do likewise and abort the development complex.

What makes a woman equal to man? Who decides for us gender equality? Surely not some airy-fairy deity or subjective morality! Unlike our religious ancestors, we don't believe women are equal to us men because it's the good, moral thing to believe. No, we consider them equal because science currently indicates that mentally and physiologically they bear a similar level of potential usefulness to society. Thus we should eliminate for women the so-called corporate glass ceiling because that gender is able to carry as much of the load as we men do, not because they are in any sense 'spiritually' equal (whatever that means) to their male counterparts. It follows logically that if we find that their mental and physiological capabilities are not up to our own, we should return them to a lower utilitarian level in society. Perhaps no more woman CEO's or doctors?

Before you send me hate mail, this is a satire. I don't subscribe to utilitarianism. Understand though, that the arguments you use for reduced infant care, elimination of fetuses, and the elderly, are philosophically identical to those used to defend slavery and genocide in prior centuries. You offer no new argument. You'll probably disagree with me. That's fine. But as potential doctors, please, think your views through. Because your philosophical ideals come to you packaged in a warm fuzzy soap opera package, it doesn't mean that they are any more 'progressive' than those of our savage religious ancestors. (Probably less so.)

I never used any arguments for "reduced infant care, elimination of fetuses, and the elderly,", I was arguing AGAINST it. You must have mixed me up with someone else.

 

[medstyle]

medic170:

Utilitarian philosophy (the predominant philosophical view in the forum, or so it seems) goes like this: Life is worthless if it loses its societal usefulness. Also: the more useful a life, the more valuable it is. Eliminating useless lives is not murder, it is just efficient. From a doctor's point of view, the healthcare pie is only so large, and should be allocated to the valuable members of society.

The tricky part is who defines 'usefulness' and 'uselessness'? Everybody's value judgments are subjective. And each utilitarian has a different set of value judgments. As a society we are progressing beyond the antiquated religious views of wrongs and rights, and also dropping the extremist concept of a 'culture of life.'
Babies ARE irrefutably less useful than adults. The same can be said for elderly people. Killing them shouldn't therefore be considered as bad a crime if it helps society progress.

I am a Jew, and so my concept of 'uselessness' is different -- not necessarily better -- than another utilitarian who sent my ancestors to the gas chambers in the 1940's.
The slave owners defined themselves higher on the spectrum of usefulness than slaves, and so it made great sense to use them for the greater good of society. Emancipation and education would have made them less useful from a tobacco farmer's utilitarian point of view.
When a man sleeps with a woman his actions -- we call 'making love' -- symbolize his instinctual contract to protect and care for her and their offspring. But from a utilitarian viewpoint, Fetuses have limited short-term use, and thus are defined by society, intra-uterus, as non-human. To maximize his freedom the man can break his contract with the woman. The woman can do likewise and abort the development complex.

What makes a woman equal to man? Who decides for us gender equality? Surely not some airy-fairy deity or subjective morality! Unlike our religious ancestors, we don't believe women are equal to us men because it's the good, moral thing to believe. No, we consider them equal because science currently indicates that mentally and physiologically they bear a similar level of potential usefulness to society. Thus we should eliminate for women the so-called corporate glass ceiling because that gender is able to carry as much of the load as we men do, not because they are in any sense 'spiritually' equal (whatever that means) to their male counterparts. It follows logically that if we find that their mental and physiological capabilities are not up to our own, we should return them to a lower utilitarian level in society. Perhaps no more woman CEO's or doctors?

Before you send me hate mail, this is a satire. I don't subscribe to utilitarianism. Understand though, that the arguments you use for reduced infant care, elimination of fetuses, and the elderly, are philosophically identical to those used to defend slavery and genocide in prior centuries. You offer no new argument. You'll probably disagree with me. That's fine. But as potential doctors, please, think your views through. Because your philosophical ideals come to you packaged in a warm fuzzy soap opera package, it doesn't mean that they are any more 'progressive' than those of our savage religious ancestors. (Probably less so.)

I think you were addressing my point.

First off, enough of the "I'M A BIG JEW so i know all about suffering." YOU don't know anything about the holocaust personally. My parents lost everything when they were young due to a war, how does it affect me? Not at all. If you haven't noticed, no one cares about jews, in a good or bad way. There is no jewish cleansing in the USA, you're just another white boy here. Maybe at some country club in Alabama or something, but you don't personally know anything about persecution, torture, blah blah blah.

Second, I AM NOT A NAZI. I didn't say kill anyone. I just said deny expensive healthcare that results in limited returns for people who cannot afford it. Sure, in a perfect world all our terri schiavo's would be rosy pink with strawberry ensure, and every human with a failing body would be hooked onto full life support, but there's not enough money for that. And in my opinion, it is not humane.

But seriously, who said eliminate these people? Are you just looking for a fight? I think that people on my side of the argument are just saying don't waste money. What's the point of spending tons of money to let someone live just a little longer wiht a profoundly diminished quality of life? Especially when that money could save more people who actually have hope.

You're clearly on "I'm a jew" and a "your thoughts sorta NAZI" period of your life, so i'll let you be. I hope you can reach a poing in your life where a speeding BMW doesn't give you flashbacks of messerschmitt 109g's strafing your grandfather's shoe repair store.

Oi Evey!

 

[medstyle]

I completely agree. However, there is no way to enforce this, and a country founded on freedom will never force sterility or cap the number of babies per family. The products of their misbehavior (their children) should not be forced to suffer as a result.

you're right. its a bad situation, and no clear solution. It's important to understand the pros and cons of giving and denying healthcare.

 

[jonathani1]

Medic170:

I was actually agreeing with your viewpoint, not trying to criticize it. Sorry it seemed that way.

medstyle:

I never called you a nazi -- I wasn't even addressing you!!!
I was responding to typeB's question about why 'everyone [is] so stuck on saving babies".

To respond to your piece:

- I don't use my Jewish heritage to manipulate or try to gain sympathy. I DO however use history -- personal and otherwise -- to learn a little more about life and life choices.

- I don't consider you or anyone else on this board nazis. I do however stand by my statement that the nazis, the southern slave owners, and others, used utilitarian arguments to defend their life decisions.

If you are going to become a doctor, and are going to use utilitarianism to defend your life choices, you should be open-minded enough to consider what critics have to say. I don't see you responding constructively or philosophically to even one of the points I made.

Oh, and how in hell did Terri Schiavo enter the conversation???

 

[medstyle]

no one is using utilitarian arguments.

 

[adennis]

I'll be the first to admit I'm a parent.. I don't know if anyone in the thread so far has admitted as such..

I'm saddened to hear some of the arguments above... but honestly, if/when some of you do become parents you may change your minds.

A very small snippet of background...
My oldest child was born "normal", but shortly after developed SVT of unknown etiology... later in his life was diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder and severe food allergies...

My youngest also has severe food allergies..

I have the same autoimmune disease as my oldest son, and more severe food allergies.. all of these discoveries were made following the birth of my first child.

I've often said that had I known about all of this prior to becoming pregnant, I wouldn't have become pregnant... but then I consider the quality of life that my kids have vs that of other "normal" children. My kids have a higher risk of death from anaphylaxis, a higher potential rate of cancer (numerous types), and other ill effects that I won't go into... and yet not only do they lead happy healthy lives, but they thrive... sure they have to watch every speck of food that passes their lips.. and sometimes wait to see if there are any consequences, but they are happy..

Of course if you asked them, they'd say they wished that they didn't have to deal with such things.. and wouldn't life be simpler...but that's life...

I've worked with and known several children with debilitating illnesses.. one particular child I know has cerebral palsey. She'll most likely never be able to hold down a real job; she's been through multiple surgeries; and is most likely in some level of discomfort (besides frustration) every day of her life. But these children serve a purpose (for those that require an explanation). They serve to inspire people like me.. people who feel the need to help others improve their quality of life, ease suffering, and make advances in respective fields so that maybe someday, others don't have to deal with these same problems...

As for a comment that someone else said.. yes, many women grow attached to the child growing in their bodies.. they'd sacrifice their lives for that child. It's irresponsible to expect them to "give up" on those children.. after potentially years of waiting to have them. It might not be "fair" for the government to spend money to help support/heal/treat/cure these children with debilitating illnesses (or sucky genetics - you pick), but it also isn't fair that those who are insured and the persons that provide care for patients have to bare the brunt of the expense for chronic smokers or drunk drivers or people looking to make a quick buck (malpractice lawsuits).

I can't help you grow some compassion... but, to quote an old family dr that I once knew.. "everybody serves a purpose, if anything they can be used as a bad example". you can be a good example, a bad example, or even just an inspiration to others.. which one you choose is up to you.

 

[typeB-md]

Ok buddy. I have now lost all repsect for you, and you have just lost all of your credibility. I do not consider the arguments of deceitful liars. I copy and pasted your text, word for word, for the quote, and you obviously went back and edited it to make it look like I misquoted you. You do this, and then accuse ME of misquoting you, and yet you are lecturing someone else on how to debate properly? It is not that the little eduit makes that much differecne to me, but it is that you lied that pisses me off. You could have just said "I meant blah blah blah", butno, you accuse ME of misquting YOU! BS, pure BS.

By telling this lie and editing your text to try and make it look like I misquoted you, you have lost all credibility, at least with me. I don't like personal attacks, but since you are a liar and a fraud, I will make an exception and call BS on you. You obviously are a dishonest person and therefore immoral, or you would not have to tell lies at other peoples expense to further your point. Man, that just steams me

I wish there was a way I could prove this, but there is not. It does not matter anyway, because YOU know your are deceitful and that you just lied, be a man and fess up, or don't, but we both know what a weak, deceitful thing you just did at my expense. It is obvious to me that you are an immature troll, and this has nothing to do with the topic and everything to do with the deceitful actions you just took.

dude, you need to, like, definitely take a chill pill.

i did in fact originally have what you quoted. but then i took a minute to read my post and realized that the part in question was ambiguous so i went back and EDITED my post (all in all, there was probably a 3 to 5 minute window where the original text had remained). It is a shame that they don't put edit times in because you most certainly posted after i had edited it, i am 100% sure of this because i remember reading my post and saying "this part doesn't make clear what i'm trying to say."

Maybe you did not update your cache or refresh. or maybe you postponed your reply all-the-while keeping your post window open. if this is the case, you would have only been able to see the un-edited post. i wonder if moderators can vouch for me by viewing the thread times.

maybe next time you should find out the story before jumping to your conclusions like a lunatic. take 50mg and call me in the morning.

 

[typeB-md]

I'll be the first to admit I'm a parent.. I don't know if anyone in the thread so far has admitted as such..

I'm saddened to hear some of the arguments above... but honestly, if/when some of you do become parents you may change your minds.

A very small snippet of background...
My oldest child was born "normal", but shortly after developed SVT of unknown etiology... later in his life was diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder and severe food allergies...

My youngest also has severe food allergies..

I have the same autoimmune disease as my oldest son, and more severe food allergies.. all of these discoveries were made following the birth of my first child.

I've often said that had I known about all of this prior to becoming pregnant, I wouldn't have become pregnant... but then I consider the quality of life that my kids have vs that of other "normal" children. My kids have a higher risk of death from anaphylaxis, a higher potential rate of cancer (numerous types), and other ill effects that I won't go into... and yet not only do they lead happy healthy lives, but they thrive... sure they have to watch every speck of food that passes their lips.. and sometimes wait to see if there are any consequences, but they are happy..

Of course if you asked them, they'd say they wished that they didn't have to deal with such things.. and wouldn't life be simpler...but that's life...

I've worked with and known several children with debilitating illnesses.. one particular child I know has cerebral palsey. She'll most likely never be able to hold down a real job; she's been through multiple surgeries; and is most likely in some level of discomfort (besides frustration) every day of her life. But these children serve a purpose (for those that require an explanation). They serve to inspire people like me.. people who feel the need to help others improve their quality of life, ease suffering, and make advances in respective fields so that maybe someday, others don't have to deal with these same problems...

As for a comment that someone else said.. yes, many women grow attached to the child growing in their bodies.. they'd sacrifice their lives for that child. It's irresponsible to expect them to "give up" on those children.. after potentially years of waiting to have them. It might not be "fair" for the government to spend money to help support/heal/treat/cure these children with debilitating illnesses (or sucky genetics - you pick), but it also isn't fair that those who are insured and the persons that provide care for patients have to bare the brunt of the expense for chronic smokers or drunk drivers or people looking to make a quick buck (malpractice lawsuits).

I can't help you grow some compassion... but, to quote an old family dr that I once knew.. "everybody serves a purpose, if anything they can be used as a bad example". you can be a good example, a bad example, or even just an inspiration to others.. which one you choose is up to you.

it seems that you like to keep these people around as a reminder that "things can be worse, count your blessings."

i think it is super screwed up to keep people around so that they can serve as 'bad examples.'

but listen, my argument is that people should have the choice. whatever you want to do with that choice is fine.

but should i, as an individual, be able to choose what happens with my disabled child, wheter it be life or death?

 

[medic170]

dude, you need to, like, definitely take a chill pill.

i did in fact originally have what you quoted. but then i took a minute to read my post and realized that the part in question was ambiguous so i went back and EDITED my post (all in all, there was probably a 3 to 5 minute window where the original text had remained). It is a shame that they don't put edit times in because you most certainly posted after i had edited it, i am 100% sure of this because i remember reading my post and saying "this part doesn't make clear what i'm trying to say."

Maybe you did not update your cache or refresh. or maybe you postponed your reply all-the-while keeping your post window open. if this is the case, you would have only been able to see the un-edited post. i wonder if moderators can vouch for me by viewing the thread times.

maybe next time you should find out the story before jumping to your conclusions like a lunatic. take 50mg and call me in the morning.

Ummm...you are the one who falsly accused me of misquoting you, and I am the one who needs to get the story straight? Nice try. Even if the situation you suggest is true, you still falsly accused me of misquoting you, because you just admitted my quote was accurate before you edited it without me having seen the edit I have no tolerance for liars, give it up.

 

[adennis]

it seems that you like to keep these people around as a reminder that "things can be worse, count your blessings."

i think it is super screwed up to keep people around so that they can serve as 'bad examples.'

but listen, my argument is that people should have the choice. whatever you want to do with that choice is fine.

but should i, as an individual, be able to choose what happens with my disabled child, wheter it be life or death?

The answer to your question is no. You shouldn't be allowed to decide what happens to your disabled child - should you have one.

It would be my recommendation to you then, to have oodles and tons of genetic counseling, make sure that there are absolutely no harmful effects to any child that is yours in utero, not allow any drugs to be administered prior to, during, or post delivery, and say a lot of prayers...

I would say that the vast majority of people who end up with disabled children don't do it on purpose.. have absolutely NO prior knowledge that their child may be disabled or premature.. and simply are forced to deal with a particular situation. I would also hazard a guess that many of them (much like you) may choose NOT to have to deal with something like that.. but in all actuality... they aren't given the choice.. because life hands you what it hands you.. not what you want....

At the risk of becoming defensive... I don't think that anyone would choose just to "keep someone around so they can count their blessings". How base is that? You don't "keep someone around so they can serve as a bad example".. that's the nature of humanity. Some people are just bad examples, period...

The circumstances of your life can change in an instant... riding along in a car and you're hit.. and you're suddenly a paraplegic... or like the child I mentioned.. perfectly healthy in utero.. but you consent to drugs during delivery that damage the baby's brain (yes they do cross the placenta!) and all of a sudden you have a child with CP.. it does happen... you don't get to choose what your circumstances are.. maybe it's Karma.. divine intervention.. I don't know.. but you don't get to actively choose...

I would also recommend to you that if you should by any chance have a disabled child, that you give him/her up to someone who is willing to care for them... as they'd get far more compassion from those people than you could ever provide....

Life sucks... deal with it.. things don't always happen how we want... not all babies are born healthy or "perfect". Problems occur.. in utero, at birth, and after...it happens... unexpectedly...

who are we to abandon someone in need? answer that question...

 

[typeB-md]

Ummm...you are the one who falsly accused me of misquoting you, and I am the one who needs to get the story straight? Nice try. Even if the situation you suggest is true, you still falsly accused me of misquoting you, because you just admitted my quote was accurate before you edited it without me having seen the edit I have no tolerance for liars, give it up.

you did misquote me since you posted after i had edited. it's a moot point, now, however.

 

[typeB-md]

The answer to your question is no. You shouldn't be allowed to decide what happens to your disabled child - should you have one.

It would be my recommendation to you then, to have oodles and tons of genetic counseling, make sure that there are absolutely no harmful effects to any child that is yours in utero, not allow any drugs to be administered prior to, during, or post delivery, and say a lot of prayers...

I would say that the vast majority of people who end up with disabled children don't do it on purpose.. have absolutely NO prior knowledge that their child may be disabled or premature.. and simply are forced to deal with a particular situation. I would also hazard a guess that many of them (much like you) may choose NOT to have to deal with something like that.. but in all actuality... they aren't given the choice.. because life hands you what it hands you.. not what you want....

At the risk of becoming defensive... I don't think that anyone would choose just to "keep someone around so they can count their blessings". How base is that? You don't "keep someone around so they can serve as a bad example".. that's the nature of humanity. Some people are just bad examples, period...

The circumstances of your life can change in an instant... riding along in a car and you're hit.. and you're suddenly a paraplegic... or like the child I mentioned.. perfectly healthy in utero.. but you consent to drugs during delivery that damage the baby's brain (yes they do cross the placenta!) and all of a sudden you have a child with CP.. it does happen... you don't get to choose what your circumstances are.. maybe it's Karma.. divine intervention.. I don't know.. but you don't get to actively choose...

I would also recommend to you that if you should by any chance have a disabled child, that you give him/her up to someone who is willing to care for them... as they'd get far more compassion from those people than you could ever provide....

Life sucks... deal with it.. things don't always happen how we want... not all babies are born healthy or "perfect". Problems occur.. in utero, at birth, and after...it happens... unexpectedly...

who are we to abandon someone in need? answer that question...

your attitude is somewhat common amongst the general population. basically you feel it is your right to regulate what goes on in my life... even though it has no actual bearing on your life.

so i am forced to go against nature and save a child that would have most likely died at birth had it occurred outside of a hospital? how can you argue that "life hands you what it hands you" when nothing about child birth these days comes even close to what "life" would hand you?

and circumstances in life do change. i never said anything about this. what i said is that KNOWINGLY allowing/forcing a child to live in a state other than normal could be viewed as worse than not allowing them to live. the rather clearl difference is knowledge vs. chance. everyday we take chances, but you can KNOW within reason how certain disabilities alter quality of life and life span.

and regarding abandonment, you can't abandon something you don't allow to live. i don't understand why people think they have the option of telling me what i'm ALLOWED to do. i'm all for suggestions, and it's up to me to use my judgement and discretion to make my own decisions.

i think all persons are against pain and suffering. i view allowing a disabled child to live a short and painful life as causing more angst than just letting nature take its course ending the baby's life.

I don't care if we disagree, unless my decision affects you in some way, i don't see how you can even justify yourself.

Why do you feel that you should be able to exercise your beliefs on my life/family?

 

[45408]

you did misquote me since you posted after i had edited. it's a moot point, now, however.

you should've put in a reason for your edit, then the edit time would've showed up.

 

[Code Brown]

I really hope you don't succeed in your quest to become a doctor, for the good of all people. Maybe you should find a different profession. You really don't seem to get the basics of what being a doctor is about, let alone medical ethics.

Thank you for the constructive criticism Mother Theresa. Maybe you don't seem to grasp the basics of reality. Ethics is not about being one sided and dogmatic. Ethics is about finding a balance between what's right and what's possible and then drawing the line. The debate is between where on the spectrum we should stick ourselves. Should babies born without brains be saved? How aboud Spina Bifida? How about AIDS? How about DM? How about blind/deaf/mute (or all 3)? How about with a missing finger? I don't pretend to have the answer but I do know that a line needs to be drawn somewhere and I'm trying to, as is everyone else on here who is adding something constructive, determine where this line is. I believe that babies born without a brain shouldn't be saved, but those born without a finger should. It's that grey area in-between that I'm still undecided on.

 

[medic170]

you did misquote me since you posted after i had edited. it's a moot point, now, however.

I t is not moot..you told a lie at the expense of my reputation by accusing me of misquoting, and I did not misquote you. Misquoting would be me saying you said something you did not say. I quoted EXACTLY what you wrote and what I read, and YOU ADMITTED ALREADY Where is your logic man, just fess up. Just stop, your are a dishonest jerk, and I can now see we can add bullheaded and ignorant to the list since you seem to make up your own logic now. I did NOT quote it after you edited it, that is just stuipid. You are a very dishonest person.

 

[medic170]

Should babies born without brains be saved? How aboud Spina Bifida? How about AIDS? How about DM? How about blind/deaf/mute (or all 3)? How about with a missing finger? believe that babies born without a brain shouldn't be saved, but those born without a finger should. It's that grey area in-between that I'm still undecided on.

I don't know what they are teaching you at your medical school Dr. Brown, but I am pretty sure a baby born without a brain is going to be dead as a stillborn, and there is nothing medical technology can do now, or will EVER be able to do, for a baby with no brain Nobody would try to save a stillborn baby with no brain. In fact, the mothers own body would most likely induce abortion before term if there were no brain, hence, no heartbeat or neural activity. If not, the doctor would recommend an abortion of the dead fetus long before term.

 

[medic170]

you should've put in a reason for your edit, then the edit time would've showed up.

It is because he did it deceitfully after I quoted him in order to make it look like I was being deceitful by misquoting him. He is a liar.

 

[SocialistMD]

so i am forced to go against nature and save a child that would have most likely died at birth had it occurred outside of a hospital?

It is this view that really makes me wonder why you want to be a physician. Everything that we do in medicine is "against nature." Any surgical procedure is completely against nature; nature would have you die of cancer or a small bowel obstruction or even appendicitis. Most medical treatments are against nature; most of the medications we use today are synthetic, and those that aren't are usually in such high concentration you'd never be able to find them in nature. Hell, 100% oxygen isn't natural. Yet you use this phrase over and over to justify your opinion that you should have the right to let your child die simply because s/he may be less than you desired. The lack of consistency in applying your reasoning to all aspects of medicine shows your lack of understanding of the field or your lack of rational and logical thinking, and to justify your opinion here by stating that we are "going against nature" calls into question the thought you have put forth in deciding on this profession.

In a way, I agree with you in principle; there are more than a few "futile" attempts made to save a life (be it of a baby, a child or an adult), and I don't necessarily agree with all of them. Working in a neonatal intensive care unit, a stroke unit or a neuro intensive care unit, you see patients every day that would have been dead had they not been brought to the hospital and who are left permanently handicapped as a result.

Neonatologists know when it is futile to continue life and will most often side on the withdrawal of care because most of them see it as inhumane. However, if a child has a treatable illness/disease/defect that may lead to a decreased quality of life but that will lead to life, they will go forth with management as they see life as precious. To arbitrarily pick and choose the pathology that qualifies one to live and die as you wish to do leads to a very slippery slope that probably should not be traversed.

I don't know what they are teaching you at your medical school Dr. Brown, but I am pretty sure a baby born without a brain is going to be dead as a stillborn, and there is nothing medical technology can do now, or will EVER be able to do, for a baby with no brain

Actually, this isn't true. There is the case of Baby K, an anencephalic baby born whose mother refused to let her go, hoping God (or the wizard of Oz; sorry to sound callous) would grant her a miracle and give her baby a brain. She lived for 2 and a half years before the courts finally intervened and stopped feeding her.

 

[medic170]

Actually, this isn't true. There is the case of Baby K, an anencephalic baby born whose mother refused to let her go, hoping God (or the wizard of Oz; sorry to sound callous) would grant her a miracle and give her baby a brain. She lived for four years before the courts finally intervened and stopped feeding her.

Explain to me how anything can survive without even a brain stem (which is part of a brain). Even with a heart and lung machine, and all the technology avaliable, it would be impossible. the first thing that comes to mind is temp regulation. The child would die of hyper or hypothermia. Even with all our life support technology, their has to be some brain with activity in order to survive, period.

In the case of baby K, "Baby K was born at the Hospital in October of 1992 with
anencephaly, a congenital malformation in which a major
portion of the brain, skull, and scalp are missing. While the
presence of a brain stem does support her autonomic functions
and reflex actions, because Baby K lacks a cerebrum, she is
permanently unconscious. Thus, she has no cognitive abilities
or awareness. She cannot see, hear, or otherwise interact
with her environment."

You see, baby K had a brain, she only lacked a Cerebrum, which is only part of the brain, Code Brown said "no brain". so the Baby K case would not apply since she indeed had part of her brain.

 

[1Path]

The answer to your question is no. You shouldn't be allowed to decide what happens to your disabled child - should you have one.

It would be my recommendation to you then, to have oodles and tons of genetic counseling, make sure that there are absolutely no harmful effects to any child that is yours in utero, not allow any drugs to be administered prior to, during, or post delivery, and say a lot of prayers...

I would say that the vast majority of people who end up with disabled children don't do it on purpose.. have absolutely NO prior knowledge that their child may be disabled or premature.. and simply are forced to deal with a particular situation. I would also hazard a guess that many of them (much like you) may choose NOT to have to deal with something like that.. but in all actuality... they aren't given the choice.. because life hands you what it hands you.. not what you want....

At the risk of becoming defensive... I don't think that anyone would choose just to "keep someone around so they can count their blessings". How base is that? You don't "keep someone around so they can serve as a bad example".. that's the nature of humanity. Some people are just bad examples, period...

The circumstances of your life can change in an instant... riding along in a car and you're hit.. and you're suddenly a paraplegic... or like the child I mentioned.. perfectly healthy in utero.. but you consent to drugs during delivery that damage the baby's brain (yes they do cross the placenta!) and all of a sudden you have a child with CP.. it does happen... you don't get to choose what your circumstances are.. maybe it's Karma.. divine intervention.. I don't know.. but you don't get to actively choose...

I would also recommend to you that if you should by any chance have a disabled child, that you give him/her up to someone who is willing to care for them... as they'd get far more compassion from those people than you could ever provide....

Life sucks... deal with it.. things don't always happen how we want... not all babies are born healthy or "perfect". Problems occur.. in utero, at birth, and after...it happens... unexpectedly...

who are we to abandon someone in need? answer that question...

As a fellow parent, great posts!!!

 

[tigress]

Explain to me how anything can survive without even a brain stem. Even with a heart and lung machine, and all the technology avaliable, it would be impossible. the first thing that comes to mind is temp regulation. The child would die of hyper or hypothermia. Even with all our life support technology, their has to be some brain with activity in order to survive, period.

look up anencephaly...they have brain stems, just nothing more than that

edit: you added to your post. So generally when people talk about the brain they mean the cerebrum and other higher parts. Anencephaly is known to many people as "being born without a brain."

 

[SocialistMD]

Explain to me how anything can survive without even a brain stem. Even with a heart and lung machine, and all the technology avaliable, it would be impossible. the first thing that comes to mind is temp regulation. The child would die of hyper or hypothermia. Even with all our life support technology, their has to be some brain with activity in order to survive, period.

She had a brainstem, but was anencephalic nonetheless.

I looked up the story (I first heard about it in a medical ethics class in undergrad) and found this website. While it doesn't answer all the questions, it does give a bit more information on the case.

 

[medic170]

She had a brainstem, but was anencephalic nonetheless.

I looked up the story (I first heard about it in a medical ethics class in undergrad) and found this website. While it doesn't answer all the questions, it does give a bit more information on the case.

I just added to the post, if she had a brain stem, then she had a brain. Code brown said "no brain", not "anencephalic".

 

[tigress]

I think you were addressing my point.

First off, enough of the "I'M A BIG JEW so i know all about suffering." YOU don't know anything about the holocaust personally. My parents lost everything when they were young due to a war, how does it affect me? Not at all. If you haven't noticed, no one cares about jews, in a good or bad way. There is no jewish cleansing in the USA, you're just another white boy here. Maybe at some country club in Alabama or something, but you don't personally know anything about persecution, torture, blah blah blah.

Second, I AM NOT A NAZI. I didn't say kill anyone. I just said deny expensive healthcare that results in limited returns for people who cannot afford it. Sure, in a perfect world all our terri schiavo's would be rosy pink with strawberry ensure, and every human with a failing body would be hooked onto full life support, but there's not enough money for that. And in my opinion, it is not humane.

But seriously, who said eliminate these people? Are you just looking for a fight? I think that people on my side of the argument are just saying don't waste money. What's the point of spending tons of money to let someone live just a little longer wiht a profoundly diminished quality of life? Especially when that money could save more people who actually have hope.

You're clearly on "I'm a jew" and a "your thoughts sorta NAZI" period of your life, so i'll let you be. I hope you can reach a poing in your life where a speeding BMW doesn't give you flashbacks of messerschmitt 109g's strafing your grandfather's shoe repair store.

Oi Evey!

It bothers me that this guy mentioned ONCE that he's Jewish, only in the context of other examples, and you pick up on that and bash him for it. You claim that people don't care about Jews one way or the other, but your post is evidence to the contrary. And the last line was really unnecessary.

(all this, and he wasn't even addressing you, nor did he call anybody a Nazi!)

 

[SocialistMD]

I just added to the post, if she had a brain stem, then she had a brain. Code brown said "no brain".

Whatever. For all practical purposes she had no brain. Many people refer to anencephaly slangly as "no brain," and that is what I assume Code Brown meant. You are correct that a lack of brainstem would be incompatible with life, but then there would be nothing to, as Code Brown put it, "save," so it only makes sense to think Code Brown was using the slang term for anencephaly.

 

[medic170]

Whatever. For all practical purposes she had no brain. Many people refer to anencephaly slangly as "no brain," and that is what I assume Code Brown meant. You are correct that a lack of brainstem would be incompatible with life, but then there would be nothing to, as Code Brown put it, "save," so it only makes sense to think Code Brown was using the slang term for anencephaly.

Well, I take things as they are written, If he was using slang, he should have been more clear. I responded to what he wrote, so don't flame me for it. When someone says "no brain" I have to assume they mean "no brain".