6 forever

[Darth Wong]

I'm not confident that medical science in regards to the brain is, in fact, that exact. I base that on my day job, which involves working with medical researchers. While our imaging technology has made some remarkable advances in recent years there are still a lot of areas where matters are uncertain.

Add to that the fact that human brains are not identical. For example, while a particular area controlling, say, speech is USUALLY located on one particular side of the brain in some individuals it is located on the opposite side of the brain, the other hemisphere. This is one reason why brain surgery still carries great uncertainties and why medicine justifies spending tens of thousands of dollars per case studying a particular patient before proceeding.

That is just one reason why I prefer to err very much on the side of caution. We don't really know, for sure, just how self-aware this girl is. It's not solely a matter of intelligence - geniuses are not more self-aware than people of average intellect. It's not based on speech capability or ability to walk - Stephen Hawking is, in those areas, just as disabled as this girl yet it would be a mistake to claim is not self-aware.

Just how much knowledge do you have of the diagnostics performed in this case, that you can proclaim the medical experts in this case (none of whom seem to disagree about her level of disability) are a bunch of reckless fools?

[Lusankya]

I'm not confident that medical science in regards to the brain is, in fact, that exact. I base that on my day job, which involves working with medical researchers. While our imaging technology has made some remarkable advances in recent years there are still a lot of areas where matters are uncertain.

Add to that the fact that human brains are not identical. For example, while a particular area controlling, say, speech is USUALLY located on one particular side of the brain in some individuals it is located on the opposite side of the brain, the other hemisphere. This is one reason why brain surgery still carries great uncertainties and why medicine justifies spending tens of thousands of dollars per case studying a particular patient before proceeding.

That is just one reason why I prefer to err very much on the side of caution. We don't really know, for sure, just how self-aware this girl is. It's not solely a matter of intelligence - geniuses are not more self-aware than people of average intellect. It's not based on speech capability or ability to walk - Stephen Hawking is, in those areas, just as disabled as this girl yet it would be a mistake to claim is not self-aware.

Just how much knowledge do you have of the diagnostics performed in this case, that you can proclaim the medical experts in this case (none of whom seem to disagree about her level of disability) are a bunch of reckless fools?

Broomstick hasn't been saying that the doctors are reckless in this case. She's said that it makes her feel uneasy, but she understands it. Her argument above was part of a euthanasia tangent.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Darth Wong]

Broomstick hasn't been saying that the doctors are reckless in this case. She's said that it makes her feel uneasy, but she understands it. Her argument above was part of a euthanasia tangent.

I honestly don't see how anyone should have any cause for unease without knowing more about the case. If the girl is indeed just this side of a vegetable, what difference does it make? As for euthanasia, it seems like we're going back over Terri Schiavo ground, and that particular horse was beaten to death a long time ago. Appeals to vague uncertainty and hairs standing up on the back of your neck didn't work for shit there, and I don't see what merit they have anywhere else either.

[Lusankya]

Broomstick hasn't been saying that the doctors are reckless in this case. She's said that it makes her feel uneasy, but she understands it. Her argument above was part of a euthanasia tangent.

I honestly don't see how anyone should have any cause for unease without knowing more about the case. If the girl is indeed just this side of a vegetable, what difference does it make? As for euthanasia, it seems like we're going back over Terri Schiavo ground, and that particular horse was beaten to death a long time ago. Appeals to vague uncertainty and hairs standing up on the back of your neck didn't work for shit there, and I don't see what merit they have anywhere else either.

The impression I got was that she found it a bit creepy on a gut level, and not an intellectual one. I only really piped up because it sounded as though you'd interpreted what Broomstick was saying as an argument against what the doctors have said in this case, rather than an argument against euthanasia in this case. She certainly never implied that the doctors in this case were a bunch of reckless fools.

... actually, reading over her posts again, she seems to be sending out a lot of mixed messages, so perhaps I should just butt out and let Broomstick make herself clearer.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Spin Echo]

Everything I've read about this case indicates that her brain itself is known to be functioning at an extremely primative level, and will never develop further. I'm arguing from that basis, but if there were any serious contention on that issue, Spin Echo has already pointed out how it could be determined for sure.

I'm not confident that medical science in regards to the brain is, in fact, that exact. I base that on my day job, which involves working with medical researchers. While our imaging technology has made some remarkable advances in recent years there are still a lot of areas where matters are uncertain.

Add to that the fact that human brains are not identical. For example, while a particular area controlling, say, speech is USUALLY located on one particular side of the brain in some individuals it is located on the opposite side of the brain, the other hemisphere. This is one reason why brain surgery still carries great uncertainties and why medicine justifies spending tens of thousands of dollars per case studying a particular patient before proceeding.

That is just one reason why I prefer to err very much on the side of caution. We don't really know, for sure, just how self-aware this girl is. It's not solely a matter of intelligence - geniuses are not more self-aware than people of average intellect. It's not based on speech capability or ability to walk - Stephen Hawking is, in those areas, just as disabled as this girl yet it would be a mistake to claim is not self-aware.

Recent reseach showed that self awareness is located in the superior frontal gyrus.

Flippancy aside, what fMRI shows us is where and when portions of the brain are activating. Even though you may have a result, you don't necessarily know what it means. That's going to require many years of college students being put in magnets and being asked questions about shapes and colors before we have a highly detailed map of the brain.

And then, like Broomstick said, you have to take into account that every so often you get someone whose brain is laid out differently from the norm. IIRC, the brains of stroke and other brain injury victims managed to map the functions of damaged areas onto new parts of the brain.

However, a trained neurologist should be able to look at the brain activity of a person and say with high certainty what the person's mental functioning status is. (I assume it's not as clear cut of a case as with Terri where there was a huge gaping hole in her brain) It then boils down to a situation similar to that of a death row inmate. You may be 99.99% certain of your case, but are you willing to take an irreversible action affecting another human being knowing there's still a possibility you may be wrong?

[Broomstick]

Just how much knowledge do you have of the diagnostics performed in this case, that you can proclaim the medical experts in this case (none of whom seem to disagree about her level of disability) are a bunch of reckless fools?

I don't think they're reckless fools, but the fact this went before an ethics review committee says that the doctors involved were themselves concerned about the issues in this case.

I honestly don't see how anyone should have any cause for unease without knowing more about the case. If the girl is indeed just this side of a vegetable, what difference does it make?

I'm not clear on just how messed up this girl is. I keep hearing that she's functions on the level of an infant, but what, exactly, is meant by that? Just how much does she respond to others? In a true vegetative state the person's eyes are open but they don't, for example, track another person's face except briefly. Does Ashley track faces if, for example, someone speaks to her, or not? Does she react to facial expressions? Can she swallow on her own, or is she tube fed? Even an infant is more functional and animated than a "vegetable".

If she is truly functioning on the level of an infant then I can no more justify euthanizing her than I can justify euthanizing an infant.

And I'm going to point out that it was this thread that brought up euthanasia - neither the doctors nor the parents seemed to have considered that.

As for euthanasia, it seems like we're going back over Terri Schiavo ground, and that particular horse was beaten to death a long time ago.

Hey, I didn't bring it up...

The impression I got was that she found it a bit creepy on a gut level, and not an intellectual one.

Yes.

... actually, reading over her posts again, she seems to be sending out a lot of mixed messages, so perhaps I should just butt out and let Broomstick make herself clearer.

I do have mixed feelings about this case. The treatments given to this girl are permanent and in today's practice of medicine extreme. There is little, if any, precedent. In my mind, it's on par with removing half a child's brain to prevent death - you don't do that without sufficient reason to justify the operation. The history of medicine is littered with treatments that did more harm than good, or were foisted on people for less than wonderful reasons.

[Velthuijsen]

An 10 line article in the newspaper this morning stated that doctors in Belgium are using the hormone treatments on severely disabled children to keep them small as well. The difference being the scale of the treatment. I expect that it happens in the Netherlands as well then.

And in case people haven't found this yet. The explanation by the parents on what and why: link

[Diomedes]

Sorry for the slow response, been very busy, and I'll try to keep this brief.

I'm not clear on just how messed up this girl is. I keep hearing that she's functions on the level of an infant, but what, exactly, is meant by that? Just how much does she respond to others? In a true vegetative state the person's eyes are open but they don't, for example, track another person's face except briefly. Does Ashley track faces if, for example, someone speaks to her, or not? Does she react to facial expressions? Can she swallow on her own, or is she tube fed? Even an infant is more functional and animated than a "vegetable".

I read that she cannot swallow - have you read both articles? And the parent's website? They're not even sure she recognises them.

If she is truly functioning on the level of an infant then I can no more justify euthanizing her than I can justify euthanizing an infant.

Do you really see no difference? I've already covered this ground. An ordinary infant can be reasonably expected to mature into an intelligent, independent, productive individual. Not only will she never be as beneficial to society as a normal infant will be, and not only is her ability to live a satisfying, joyful life seriously compromised, but she is also a far greater burden on her parents and those around her and, ultimately, society. We're better off using her for spare parts, putting her out of her misery, and spending the money on orpans from africa.

I'm not sure there's much point debating any of this with you though. You've already admitted that you cant justify the speciesism that underlies your dog/vegetable discrimination. If you dont want to apply reason to the issue, what am I supposed to do? Reason with you?

[Broomstick]

I read that she cannot swallow - have you read both articles?

Now I have - I was a bit preoccupied the last few days, what with being in the hospital and all.

And the parent's website? They're not even sure she recognises them.

"Aren't sure" means maybe she does, maybe she doesn't. She does appear able to communicate discomfort by crying. There are pictures of her smiling. Clearly there is some rudimentary emotional life, a perception of pain and pleasure. She is more than an empty shell.

If she is truly functioning on the level of an infant then I can no more justify euthanizing her than I can justify euthanizing an infant.

Do you really see no difference? I've already covered this ground. An ordinary infant can be reasonably expected to mature into an intelligent, independent, productive individual. Not only will she never be as beneficial to society as a normal infant will be, and not only is her ability to live a satisfying, joyful life seriously compromised, but she is also a far greater burden on her parents and those around her and, ultimately, society.

I understand your point about financial and other burdens, however, we don't execute people with Alzheimer's because they have become a burden on their families and society. We don't execute people for being quadraplegics. Medical care is not handed out based on one's "worth to society" but rather individual need (at least, that's the ideal)

We're better off using her for spare parts, putting her out of her misery

Please provide proof that this child is "miserable". Occassionally in discomfort, yes - she does cry when uncomfortable or unhappy - but show me where her life is miserable. It's not the life you or I would choose but then, we're not her.

and spending the money on orpans from africa.

Except that people care less about African orphans than they do about one brain-damaged girl in Seattle. Any such funds would never reach those orphans.

I'm not sure there's much point debating any of this with you though. You've already admitted that you cant justify the speciesism that underlies your dog/vegetable discrimination.

It's not that I can't, it's just that I haven't bothered turning it into a formal system.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with "speciesism" - it does seem to be the natural way of things. Just as an individual may sacrifice him/herself for a family member, individuals likewise prefer their own species to another (with rare exceptions). If we didn't have a preference for preserving our own relatives, and by extension, our own species, it would work against our continued survival rather than for it.

If you dont want to apply reason to the issue, what am I supposed to do? Reason with you?

I do apply reason - it's just that I draw the lines on what constitutes "acceptable killing" in a different spot than you do. I do not find infanticide acceptable except in the most horrific and terminal cases. This girl is messed up, but it seems she actually experiences fewer medical problems than most children in her situation. She's not experiencing a painful, terminal condition.

And you can't consider an issue like this without considering the impact of emotions, because it IS an emotionally charged issue. People are not Vulcans, they do allow themselves to be swayed by emotion. Rationally, why would these parents, or the parents of any such child, try to keep the child at home and within the family? That's not logic, that's emotion such as parental love.

[Diomedes]

I read that she cannot swallow - have you read both articles?

Now I have - I was a bit preoccupied the last few days, what with being in the hospital and all.

Sorry to hear that you were in hospital - hope it wasnt anything serious.

And the parent's website? They're not even sure she recognises them.

"Aren't sure" means maybe she does, maybe she doesn't. She does appear able to communicate discomfort by crying. There are pictures of her smiling. Clearly there is some rudimentary emotional life, a perception of pain and pleasure. She is more than an empty shell.[/quote]

I dont see that as a positive for her. If she must live, then I am glad that the parents take very seriously the issue of making sure she doesnt get bored. Without the ability to move or interact with anything, she is completely reliant on others to keep her entertained. I'm not confident that they can ensure she has a pleasant life though, and I know that it will require a lot more work than any normal child who can play on their own, or with other children at least some of the time.

Do you really see no difference? I've already covered this ground. An ordinary infant can be reasonably expected to mature into an intelligent, independent, productive individual. Not only will she never be as beneficial to society as a normal infant will be, and not only is her ability to live a satisfying, joyful life seriously compromised, but she is also a far greater burden on her parents and those around her and, ultimately, society.

I understand your point about financial and other burdens, however, we don't execute people with Alzheimer's because they have become a burden on their families and society.[/quote]

I've spent a fair bit of time around people with alzheimers, dementia and so forth - stage 5's, as the most severely affected of them are called - and in some cases, I would support euthenasia for sufferers of age-related mental disorders. Some people with alzheimers arent that much of a burden - they need some supervision, a little assistance here and there, but they still have moments where they seem quite normal, and other times, while obviously not all there, they're still enjoying themselves and can have positive interactions with others.

The bad cases though, sometimes end up much like this girl - people curled up in the fetal position, in a bed, never moving, unable to communicate and barely responding - it's undignified to see a person in that state, and at that stage they are nothing more than a burden.

We don't execute people for being quadraplegics. Medical care is not handed out based on one's "worth to society" but rather individual need (at least, that's the ideal)

I dont believe that it is impossible for a quadruplegic to be a productive member of society, and the obvious difference is that they do possess advanced thought, the only remotely morally significant trait upon which we can really differentiate between human beings and animals. I agree with the ideal you state, but the problem is that we dont have an unlimited capacity to provide medical care.

That being the case, I believe we have to prioritize medical care according to what will provide the greatest benefit. Sometimes that's probably going to be difficult to determine, but in this case it's not. Why should this virtually paralyzed zombie live instead of some working mother who cant afford health insurance?

We're better off using her for spare parts, putting her out of her misery

Please provide proof that this child is "miserable". Occassionally in discomfort, yes - she does cry when uncomfortable or unhappy - but show me where her life is miserable. It's not the life you or I would choose but then, we're not her.[/quote]

It's not the life she'd choose either, if she were capable of understanding the concept of choosing. In any case, if she were a dog, unable to move or swallow, merely capable of barking or whining and laying still, I'm sure you wouldnt criticize me for using the expression I used. This girl may not be miserable in every moment of her life, but it is a miserable excuse for existence and one with vastly diminished capacity for joy and fulfillment, and vastly greater potential for suffering.

and spending the money on orpans from africa.

Except that people care less about African orphans than they do about one brain-damaged girl in Seattle. Any such funds would never reach those orphans.[/quote]

We're already dealing with moral principles rather than pragmatic possibilities by discussing euthenasia at all, if my assumption that removing her feeding tubes to kill her would be illegal is correct. There are often barriers to doing the right thing, but I'm still interested in exploring exactly what that is, or would be. If it makes you more comfortable, we can talk about helping white orphans in America with cancer or something. I'm sure you can envision some way in which the money could be better spent, a greater number of lives saved than lost.

I'm not sure there's much point debating any of this with you though. You've already admitted that you cant justify the speciesism that underlies your dog/vegetable discrimination.

It's not that I can't, it's just that I haven't bothered turning it into a formal system.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with "speciesism" - it does seem to be the natural way of things. [/quote]

The natural way of things isnt automatically the best or right way. Of course, if we consider nature the benchmark for what's right, this girl should already be dead.

Just as an individual may sacrifice him/herself for a family member, individuals likewise prefer their own species to another (with rare exceptions). If we didn't have a preference for preserving our own relatives, and by extension, our own species, it would work against our continued survival rather than for it.

Why should we prefer our own species? Surely it is for a reason, rather than "just because". It must be something about our species that makes it worthy of special consideration. I'm not denying that we have that instinct, but instead asking that we try to look at the issue objectively. Why should humans favour humans? Why should humanity survive?

I think that the only justification to favour beings such as us is that we possess advanced reasoning. The problem is, not all human beings possess this trait. It is a normal trait, but occasionally, like with this girl, someone turns up who doesnt have that one significant characteristic. What is left to differentiate her from any other animal? The fact that she looks the same or similar to a normal human being? Do you have any suggestions?

If you dont want to apply reason to the issue, what am I supposed to do? Reason with you?

I do apply reason - it's just that I draw the lines on what constitutes "acceptable killing" in a different spot than you do. [/quote]

The reasoning you do apply is founded upon an assumption (speciesism) which you wont justify - in other words apply reason to. Actually, it looks like now you may be attempting to apply reason to the speciesism issue, but earlier on you stated essentially that you couldnt justify it and didnt care.

I do not find infanticide acceptable except in the most horrific and terminal cases. This girl is messed up, but it seems she actually experiences fewer medical problems than most children in her situation. She's not experiencing a painful, terminal condition.

Do you agree that her capacity for a joyful, fulfilling life is seriously limited? People with severe disabilities tend to have a disadvantage when seeking an enjoyable life.

And you can't consider an issue like this without considering the impact of emotions, because it IS an emotionally charged issue. People are not Vulcans, they do allow themselves to be swayed by emotion. Rationally, why would these parents, or the parents of any such child, try to keep the child at home and within the family? That's not logic, that's emotion such as parental love.

Appeal to emotion?

Emotions caused by irrational beliefs, incorrect reasoning, or flawed morality arent usually worthy of consideration, otherwise we'd have to give consideration to the attempts by christian evangelicals to remove the barriers between church and state, to ban gay marriage - and so on - after all, these guys feel really strongly about it. They get sad when two men kiss, and baby jesus cries as well. Of course, homosexuals have emotions too... If only we could tell who cared the most about it, we'd know what to do!