6 forever

[Sam Or I]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241279,00.html

Her name is Ashley X, and she is the little girl who will never grow up.
Until New Year’s Day, not even her first name was known. Ashley was a faceless case study, cited in a paper by two doctors at Seattle Children’s Hospital as they outlined a treatment so radical that it brought with it allegations of “eugenics”, of creating a 21st-century Frankenstein’s monster, of maiming a child for the sake of convenience.
The reason for the controversy is this: three years ago, when Ashley began to display early signs of puberty, her parents instructed doctors to remove her uterus, appendix and still-forming breasts, then treat her with high doses of oestrogen to stunt her growth.

In other words, Ashley was sterilized and frozen in time, for ever to remain a child. She was only 6-years-old.
Ashley, the daughter of two professionals in the Seattle area, never had much hope of a normal life.

Afflicted with a severe brain impairment known as static encephalopathy, she cannot walk, talk, keep her head up in bed, or even swallow food. Her parents argued that “keeping her small” was the best way to improve the quality of her life, not to make life more convenient for them.

By remaining a child, they say, Ashley will have a better chance of avoiding everything from bed sores to pneumonia — and the removal of her uterus means that she will never have a menstrual cycle or risk developing uterine cancer.

Because Ashley was expected to have a large chest size, her parents say that removing her breast buds, including the milk glands (while keeping the nipples intact), will save her further discomfort while avoiding fibrocystic growth and breast cancer.

They also feared that large breasts could put Ashley at risk of sexual assault.

The case was approved by the hospital’s ethics committee in 2004, which agreed that because Ashley could never reproduce voluntarily she was not being subjected to forced sterilization, a form of racial cleansing promoted in the 1920s and known as eugenics (it was satirized in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby). However, the case of Ashley X was not made public, and, as a result, no legal challenges were ever made.

Ashley’s doctors, Daniel Gunther and Douglas Diekema, wrote in their paper for the October issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine that the treatment would “remove one of the major obstacles to family care and might extend the time that parents with the ability, resources and inclination to care for their child at home might be able to do so."

The paper inspired hundreds of postings on the internet: many supportive, some disapproving but sympathetic, others furious. “I find this offensive if not perverse,” read one. “Truly a milestone in our convenience-minded society."

It was the critical comments that finally provoked Ashley’s father to respond.

While remaining anonymous, he posted a remarkable 9,000-word blog entry at 11 p.m. on New Year’s Day, justifying his decision.

The posting includes links to photographs of Ashley, in which the faces of other family members, including Ashley’s younger sister and brother, have been blanked out. “Some question how God might view this treatment,” he wrote. “The God we know wants Ashley to have a good quality of life and wants her parents to be diligent about using every resource at their disposal (including the brains that He endowed them with) to maximise her quality of life.”

Ashley’s father went on to describe how her height is now expected to remain at about 4ft 5in, and her weight at 75lb.
Without the treatment, she would have grown into a woman of average height and weight, probably about 5ft 6in and 125lb, with a normal lifespan.
The medical profession is divided. “I think most people, when they hear of this, would say this is just plain wrong,” wrote Jeffrey Brosco of the University of Miami, in an editorial. “But it is a complicated story . . . you can understand the difficulties. [But] high-dose oestrogen therapy to prevent out-of-home placement simply creates a new Sophie’s Choice for parents to confront.
“If we as a society want to revise the nature of the harrowing predicament that these parents face, then more funds for home-based services, not more medication, is what is called for.”

George Dvorsky, a director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, countered: “If the concern has something to do with the girl’s dignity being violated, then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity.

“The oestrogen treatment is not what is grotesque here. Rather, it is the prospect of having a full-grown and fertile woman endowed with the mind of a baby.”

[Gaidin]

I think right now the only reason i haven't gone straight against it as soon as I read it(I'm still merely in WTF mode) is after watching what my grandmother is like in her state of Alzheimer's.

It's odd the stuff you'll look at with a straight face after dealing with someone who's a shell of a human.

[nickolay1]

I can't think of any good reasons against the procedure in this specific case.

[FedRebel]

three years ago, when Ashley began to display early signs of puberty, her parents instructed doctors to remove her uterus, appendix and still-forming breasts, then treat her with high doses of oestrogen to stunt her growth.

okay...what's the number for Social Services?

In other words, Ashley was sterilized and frozen in time, for ever to remain a child. She was only 6-years-old.
Ashley, the daughter of two professionals in the Seattle area, never had much hope of a normal life.

Afflicted with a severe brain impairment known as static encephalopathy, she cannot walk, talk, keep her head up in bed, or even swallow food. Her parents argued that “keeping her small” was the best way to improve the quality of her life, not to make life more convenient for them.

Seems pretty morbid to me

By remaining a child, they say, Ashley will have a better chance of avoiding everything from bed sores to pneumonia — and the removal of her uterus means that she will never have a menstrual cycle or risk developing uterine cancer.

And the parents will always have cute six year old daughter, that they'll never have to see grow old

They also feared that large breasts could put Ashley at risk of sexual assault.

That's right ladies! If you don't want to get raped, off with your tits!

The case was approved by the hospital’s ethics committee in 2004, which agreed that because Ashley could never reproduce voluntarily she was not being subjected to forced sterilization,

"On one hand we have 'Do no harm', on the other the kid is a vegetable and more than likely hasn't a clue what we intend to do...so let's agree to mutilate the kid"

However, the case of Ashley X was not made public,

...with good reason

and, as a result, no legal challenges were ever made.

The same principle as a tree falling in the forest and no one around to hear it

Ashley’s doctors, Daniel Gunther and Douglas Diekema, wrote in their paper for the October issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine that the treatment would “remove one of the major obstacles to family care and might extend the time that parents with the ability, resources and inclination to care for their child at home might be able to do so."

What did the parents say...oh yes...

Her parents argued that “keeping her small” was the best way to improve the quality of her life, not to make life more convenient for them.

The Doctor's say the operation makes the kid less resource intensive for the parents, and the parents say the the operation was not done out of convenience

The paper inspired hundreds of postings on the internet: many supportive, some disapproving but sympathetic, others furious. “I find this offensive if not perverse,” read one. “Truly a milestone in our convenience-minded society."

well, duh

It was the critical comments that finally provoked Ashley’s father to respond.

While remaining anonymous, he posted a remarkable 9,000-word blog entry at 11 p.m. on New Year’s Day, justifying his decision.

The posting includes links to photographs of Ashley, in which the faces of other family members, including Ashley’s younger sister and brother, have been blanked out. “Some question how God might view this treatment,” he wrote. “The God we know wants Ashley to have a good quality of life and wants her parents to be diligent about using every resource at their disposal (including the brains that He endowed them with) to maximise her quality of life.”

So money which could've been used to "improve quality of life" was splurged on a mutilating operation?

Ashley’s father went on to describe how her height is now expected to remain at about 4ft 5in, and her weight at 75lb.
Without the treatment, she would have grown into a woman of average height and weight, probably about 5ft 6in and 125lb, with a normal lifespan.

So what? the kid will now always be easy to carry? I fail to understand how his daughter's height and weight inhibit quality of life

George Dvorsky, a director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, countered: “If the concern has something to do with the girl’s dignity being violated, then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity.

"ethics" my ass! The kid is still a living thing that feels pain, and is to an extent aware of her suroundings

“The oestrogen treatment is not what is grotesque here. Rather, it is the prospect of having a full-grown and fertile woman endowed with the mind of a baby.”

The operation interferes with normal human development, preventing said deveopment is hardly ethical. The operation was a waste of money, which fails to change the end result, the kid will now for the foreseeable future be a conveniently small package for the parents, but they can't care for her forever. The thousands of dollars spent on the operation could have instead been invested to ensure the "quality of life" for Ashley when she grew beyond the parents ability to care for her.

[Diomedes]

Afflicted with a severe brain impairment known as static encephalopathy, she cannot walk, talk, keep her head up in bed, or even swallow food. Her parents argued that “keeping her small” was the best way to improve the quality of her life, not to make life more convenient for them.

Seems pretty morbid to me

As I was reading the article, I felt the same way, until I read that she's practically a vegetable. I am not an expert on static encephalopathy, but the symptoms described indicate to me that there probably isnt a whole lot of advanced thought going on within the girl's brain.

Let me ask you - if a child is born with no brain at all, what would be wrong with "mutilating" it? Or even using it for spare parts? If you agree that nothing is wrong with this, then you must agree that there isnt some mystical "sanctity of human life" independent of a human being's ability to think above a certain level. It is therefore not sacriligeous to alter a human body to better suit the particular needs of the individual and better serve their interests. And yes, we are better at determining what her interests are than she is.

Her parents argued that “keeping her small” was the best way to improve the quality of her life, not to make life more convenient for them.

The Doctor's say the operation makes the kid less resource intensive for the parents, and the parents say the the operation was not done out of convenience

Has it occurred to you that the kid being less resource intensive for the parents might also lead to a better quality of life? If she grew to a normal size, she would be astly less mobile and transportable. If there is some level of awareness, she will be better able to experience something of the world if she's less hindered by deadweight size she cannot use. If there is no level of awareness, then it doesnt matter anyway. And as the article states, she will likely suffer less due to bedsores and other problems caused by being ordinary-sized but immobile.

So money which could've been used to "improve quality of life" was splurged on a mutilating operation?

Do you know how much it would cost to care for her, for her entire life, as an immobile, normal scale vegetable, in a proper facility? I dont. But I'm certain it's greater than the cost of the operation plus subsequent, decreased cost of maintenance for her at her limited size for the rest of her life.

The second fact to consider is the suffering of the parents. Why should we ignore the fact that their lives would basically be ruined if they had to care for her, as she would naturally have developed, for the rest of their lives? Do you have any idea of the burden they would face? Significantly more stressful lives, probably less productive lives. Consider this: Spending the massive effort required to care for the daughter would probably cause them to choose not to have another child which would be healthy, and which for the same level of effort, spending etc, could probably have a much more enjoyable life.

I think the case could be made for the euthenisation of the girl on the basis of the cost (and dont forget opportunity cost - what could be done with the money spent on this girl, fully grown or modified version?), and the burden to the family. Why should this vegetable, or near vegetable cause the wasting of thousands of $, possibly hundreds of thoudands over her lifespan, when the same money could save multiple normal people through any number of means? Perhaps the operation was a waste of money -but not for the reasons you think.

The operation interferes with normal human development, preventing said deveopment is hardly ethical.

What makes "normal human development" valuable, independent of it's value to any particular individual? Is there an objective value to it? I cannot see that there is, and I welcome you to demonstrate it. If not, then there is nothing unethical about retarding the physical development of a being so intellectually primative as to lack the capability to appreciate it.

[Molyneux]

I can't think of any way that this operation could possibly make life easier for her parents.

Think about it - they will ALWAYS have a small girl to take care of. She will never get better, she will never function as an adult human - and she might outlive her parents, in which case they will literally spend the rest of their lives taking care of her.

[Broomstick]

By remaining a child, they say, Ashley will have a better chance of avoiding everything from bed sores to pneumonia — and the removal of her uterus means that she will never have a menstrual cycle or risk developing uterine cancer.

And the parents will always have cute six year old daughter, that they'll never have to see grow old

Chronic, bed-ridden invalids are many things. "Cute" is usually not among them. We're not talking about a normal little girl with pigtails and My Pony dolls.

They also feared that large breasts could put Ashley at risk of sexual assault.

That's right ladies! If you don't want to get raped, off with your tits!

Sad, but true - incapcitated women in nursing homes ARE at risk of sexual assault. I don't know if tit-removal would work or not, because the sort who would fuck comatose female bodies obviously don't have high standards.

Ashley’s doctors, Daniel Gunther and Douglas Diekema, wrote in their paper for the October issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine that the treatment would “remove one of the major obstacles to family care and might extend the time that parents with the ability, resources and inclination to care for their child at home might be able to do so."

What did the parents say...oh yes...

Her parents argued that “keeping her small” was the best way to improve the quality of her life, not to make life more convenient for them.

The Doctor's say the operation makes the kid less resource intensive for the parents, and the parents say the the operation was not done out of convenience

Ever care for a helpless, truly bed-ridden adult? Even a small adult is difficult to manage. I don't know if I can condone this or not, but I understand there is a temptation there. It really will be easier to care for this person if they're smaller - easier to turn her over, easier to get here in and out of wheelchair, etc.

So money which could've been used to "improve quality of life" was splurged on a mutilating operation?

I'm not sure how much "quality of life" this girl had before the operations.

So what? the kid will now always be easy to carry? I fail to understand how his daughter's height and weight inhibit quality of life

As as I said - ever have to take care of a truly helpless human being? It's not so much the height, it's the weight. The easier it is to shift and move such a person the less likely they are to wind up in a nursing home sitting in their own piss and shit, or to wind up with pressure sores.

George Dvorsky, a director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, countered: “If the concern has something to do with the girl’s dignity being violated, then I have to protest by arguing that the girl lacks the cognitive capacity to experience any sense of indignity.

"ethics" my ass! The kid is still a living thing that feels pain, and is to an extent aware of her suroundings

I very much doubt they operated without anesthesia or post-operative pain medication.

“The oestrogen treatment is not what is grotesque here. Rather, it is the prospect of having a full-grown and fertile woman endowed with the mind of a baby.”

The operation interferes with normal human development, preventing said deveopment is hardly ethical.

It doesn't sound like this kid was developing normally anyhow. Certainly not mentally. And puberty at 6 isn't normal either.

The operation was a waste of money, which fails to change the end result, the kid will now for the foreseeable future be a conveniently small package for the parents, but they can't care for her forever.

No, but they might be able to care for a 75lbs invalid longer than they could have cared for a 125lbs invalid.

The thousands of dollars spent on the operation could have instead been invested to ensure the "quality of life" for Ashley when she grew beyond the parents ability to care for her.

You mean put her in a nice nursing home?

I have a lot of qualms about what these parents did, it does creep me out, but I can't condemn them out of hand either.

[FSTargetDrone]

I must agree with Diomedes, if there was ever a case for euthanasia, this is it. It seems that they are essentially butchering this child to make it easier on them. Hacking of parts of her? Monstrous.

The medical community has to have the euthanasia option in these cases (assuming the parents agree, of course. From what the article says, there is no person there to improve quality of life for. They will be sustaining a body, nothing more.

[Gaidin]

I must agree with Diomedes, if there was ever a case for euthanasia, this is it. It seems that they are essentially butchering this child to make it easier on them. Hacking of parts of her? Monstrous.

The medical community has to have the euthanasia option in these cases (assuming the parents agree, of course. From what the article says, there is no person there to improve quality of life for. They will be sustaining a body, nothing more.

Me and a friend were talking about this and our conclusion was...odd. To say the least. In general any medical operation is taken due to the desire of the one being operated on. It's done to improve their life. Typically(exceptions abound of course, plastic surgery being the first to come directly to mind), as far as health is concerned, the operation is considered necessary, but in the end, fixing those problems improves their life.

If the person is a vegetable, then honestly, the want or need for those improvements shifts from the patient that doesn't have a damned clue, to the caretakers. In a case like this where a lot of people are willing to consider the euthanasia option as a legitimate possibility it shifts from a win/lose to a lose/lose situation. Right and wrong disappear, and you're stuck trying to figure out which wrong is more right.

At this point we could only guess that the parents were reaching for self-justification and trying to find a way to believe it was for her and not for themselves. This is where it was more a matter of what they could drive themselves to do without thinking for the rest of their lives "We did this to our own daughter just to make our lives easer".

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I must agree with Diomedes, if there was ever a case for euthanasia, this is it. It seems that they are essentially butchering this child to make it easier on them. Hacking of parts of her? Monstrous.

The medical community has to have the euthanasia option in these cases (assuming the parents agree, of course. From what the article says, there is no person there to improve quality of life for. They will be sustaining a body, nothing more.

Me and a friend were talking about this and our conclusion was...odd. To say the least. In general any medical operation is taken due to the desire of the one being operated on. It's done to improve their life. Typically(exceptions abound of course, plastic surgery being the first to come directly to mind), as far as health is concerned, the operation is considered necessary, but in the end, fixing those problems improves their life.

If the person is a vegetable, then honestly, the want or need for those improvements shifts from the patient that doesn't have a damned clue, to the caretakers. In a case like this where a lot of people are willing to consider the euthanasia option as a legitimate possibility it shifts from a win/lose to a lose/lose situation. Right and wrong disappear, and you're stuck trying to figure out which wrong is more right.

At this point we could only guess that the parents were reaching for self-justification and trying to find a way to believe it was for her and not for themselves. This is where it was more a matter of what they could drive themselves to do without thinking for the rest of their lives "We did this to our own daughter just to make our lives easer".

If euthanasia is, for whatever reason, not an option, then even a low-functioning human being is entitled to the best quality of life that can be provided for him or her. And, as has been mentioned, this is much easier to provide for a small, light, person than it is a full-grown adult. Even one whose muscles have atrophied due to lack of motor function. They're easier to bathe, easier to move, which makes them less susceptible to developing sores and the other extraordinarily unpleasant consequences of being bed-ridden 24/7 for extended periods of time.

Since the person in question (and according to the BBC, she had roughly the same level of mental function as a three month old baby,) is entirely incapable of caring for themselves, it's arguable that their quality of life is directly dependent on whatever quality of care and interaction the caretakers can provide. If preserving this person at the physical level of development of a small child will make it easier to care for them and reduce the risk of complications further down the line, then I can't really see any reason to condemn the treatment.

[Gaidin]

With my indirect experience with my grandmother(I hardly know how to care fr something with conditions like these or have real experience, but I've observed), I doubt I could honestly condemn them if I tried regardless of their reasons for doing it. Apologies for not making that clear.

[FSTargetDrone]

I just wish we were at a point in society where a medical professionals and counselors could legally, ethically sit down with the family members and say to them, "You know, she's never realistically going to have much of a life. She isn't self-aware (assuming this can be determined), she doesn't know what's happening to her. She can't feel anything or express herself. Sadly, what we have here is a tragic case and nothing we do is going to make her well. Any action we take is going to be for your benefit. Your daughter has a terrible, irreversible condition and she will never get better. You might want to consider letting nature take its course. Or, we can ease her along and she won't feel any pain."

Something like that, though expressed with a lot more sensitivity that I could. I know it's easy for me, some witless outsider to think of this, but I just find the entire affair ghoulish.

[Spin Echo]

. She isn't self-aware (assuming this can be determined),

Functional MRI could tell you that. When neurons activate, their need for oxygen increases. A technique called Blood Oxygen Level Dependence (BOLD) MRI is used to see what parts of the brains are getting more oxygen, and hence are activated. If the parts of the brain required for higher level thought aren't firing, then the person isn't self aware. Or something along those lines. I know more about the experimental technique than its interpretation.

[FSTargetDrone]

At what point to we stop the more radical methods in cases like this? Delving into the hypothetical, what if a parent had a mentally disabled child who was older and more physically mature, who flails about in the bed, who has little control over his or her body? Do we keep the child restrained at all times, bound to a bed? What if such a child can walk, but is otherwise so profoundly mentally disabled that he or she cannot take care of him or herself? Would we object to say, surgical removal of the child's legs? What if the child is constantly vocalizing, or screaming? Do we remove the voice box? I'm just curious about what sorts of limits there should be in these questions of someone's "best interests" and "quality of life."

[Slacker]

I can't think of any way that this operation could possibly make life easier for her parents.

Think about it - they will ALWAYS have a small girl to take care of. She will never get better, she will never function as an adult human - and she might outlive her parents, in which case they will literally spend the rest of their lives taking care of her.

She was never going to function as an adult human anyway. She would've just been a larger human turnip. Cruel, but that's the reality. I don't *like* what was done, but I certainly see the reasoning behind it.

[FTeik]

I have to agree on the euthanasie. If I were in that or comparable condition (and I've heard enough horror-stories about the treatmeant in homes for elder people) hopefully somebody would put me out of my misery. I think the parents truly love their child to do such things to her so they can take care of her for years, if not decades to come. If this were all about convenience letting "nature take its course" would have been better. Materially/physically they would also be unburdened when having a second child.

[Broomstick]

I have to agree on the euthanasie.

I can't. Nope. I can't justify killing this girl anymore than I can justify killing a 3 month old infant.

Granted, it's a very limited existance but assuming she DOES have the cognitive awareness of such an infant then she is capable of feeling pain, pleasure, and can respond to others, albeit in a very limited manner. This is NOT a coma, it is, as near as I can tell, NOT the classic "vegetative state" although it's probably close.

Sorry, I can't condone killing her - even under the term "euthanasia". She's brain damaged, but she'd still too human for me to simply kill her.

[Diomedes]

I have to agree on the euthanasie.

Sorry, I can't condone killing her - even under the term "euthanasia". She's brain damaged, but she'd still too human for me to simply kill her.

Many dogs exhibit intelligence greater than that of a 3 month old baby. If a dog were unable to walk, relied on feeding tubes since it couldnt eat, and due to it's limitation would significantly burden it's owners, or cost huge sums of money to care for in some sort of facility, would you disagree with euthenasia?

Putting the dog down would probably be the humane thing to do. I think this girl is deserving of humane treatment.

I suspect the difference for you hinges on the fact that she's human. It doesnt automatically follow that she therefore should be treated differently to an equivalent dog. If my suspicion is correct, how do you justify your speciesism in this case? What is the fundamental difference between us and other species, if not our intellect, something that has been established she doesnt have?

Finally, comparisons in intelligence can be made between her and a 3 month old baby, but that doesnt not make euthenising her analogous to euthenising a 3 month old normal baby. Such a baby can be reasonably expected to develop greater intelligence, and mature into an independent and productive human being. She has no such potential.

Further responses may be delayed, as I just finished moving into a new place that isnt yet connected to the net.

[Broomstick]

Many dogs exhibit intelligence greater than that of a 3 month old baby. If a dog were unable to walk, relied on feeding tubes since it couldnt eat, and due to it's limitation would significantly burden it's owners, or cost huge sums of money to care for in some sort of facility, would you disagree with euthenasia?

There are people willing to take care of their disabled pets. If they choose to do so I don't have a problem with that.

Putting the dog down would probably be the humane thing to do. I think this girl is deserving of humane treatment.

There is the issue of precedent, and slippery slope. It wasn't that long ago that people seen as "defective" were forcibly sterilized or systematically neglected - people who were much more high-functioning than this young girl/woman.

I suspect the difference for you hinges on the fact that she's human.

Yes.

It doesnt automatically follow that she therefore should be treated differently to an equivalent dog. If my suspicion is correct, how do you justify your speciesism in this case?

I don't - I do favor the human species in general and I don't apologize for it.

What is the fundamental difference between us and other species, if not our intellect, something that has been established she doesnt have?

We can't be 100% sure what her mental function is or isn't - so I prefer to err on the side of caution.

[Diomedes]

There are people willing to take care of their disabled pets. If they choose to do so I don't have a problem with that.

That's not quite what I asked - would you disagree with euthenising the dog? Unless you're some form of PETA activist, I'm guessing you'd have no problem with putting down an equivalent dog.

Putting the dog down would probably be the humane thing to do. I think this girl is deserving of humane treatment.

There is the issue of precedent, and slippery slope. It wasn't that long ago that people seen as "defective" were forcibly sterilized or systematically neglected - people who were much more high-functioning than this young girl/woman.

The fact that they were higher functioning is what makes that morally reprehensible. I'm confident that with brain scans and so forth, a solid set of criteria can be devised that wont allow things to go "too far".

What was your position on the Terry Schiavo issue?

I suspect the difference for you hinges on the fact that she's human.

Yes.

I'm interested to know whether if an alien species made contact with us, one that was equivalent in intelligence, capable of the same feelings and so on as a normal human being at adult level, would you would consider its members worthy of the same consideration as human beings?

It doesnt automatically follow that she therefore should be treated differently to an equivalent dog. If my suspicion is correct, how do you justify your speciesism in this case?

I don't - I do favor the human species in general and I don't apologize for it.

From what I've observed about these forums, it is expected that you justify your claims and positions, and if you cant, you'll generally be ridiculed. I'm glad that you admit you cant justify it rather than attempting some half-arsed excuse for a justification, but I cant really take this as anything other than an admission that your position is... unjustifiable.

What is the fundamental difference between us and other species, if not our intellect, something that has been established she doesnt have?

We can't be 100% sure what her mental function is or isn't - so I prefer to err on the side of caution.

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.

[Darth Wong]

I tried to read this thread but I had to duck to avoid the force of FedRebel's relativistic knee-jerking.

FedRebel, this is not the FOXNews feedback forums. If you want to make a serious ethics-related argument, make it. I have no time for knee-jerk grandstanding bullshit.

[Broomstick]

There are people willing to take care of their disabled pets. If they choose to do so I don't have a problem with that.

That's not quite what I asked - would you disagree with euthenising the dog? Unless you're some form of PETA activist, I'm guessing you'd have no problem with putting down an equivalent dog.

It doesn't matter whether I agree or disagree - pets are property and, aside from egregious abuse, it's up to the owner. If an owner wishes to assume responsibility for a crippled pet that's their affair.

People, however, are not animals.

Putting the dog down would probably be the humane thing to do. I think this girl is deserving of humane treatment.

There is the issue of precedent, and slippery slope. It wasn't that long ago that people seen as "defective" were forcibly sterilized or systematically neglected - people who were much more high-functioning than this young girl/woman.

The fact that they were higher functioning is what makes that morally reprehensible. I'm confident that with brain scans and so forth, a solid set of criteria can be devised that wont allow things to go "too far".

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.

What was your position on the Terry Schiavo issue?

After so many years, withdrawal of supportive care was justified if that was what the family wanted and had reason to believe were her wishes. The problem was, the family was divided. I wish to hell the government had stayed out of it.

I suspect the difference for you hinges on the fact that she's human.

Yes.

I'm interested to know whether if an alien species made contact with us, one that was equivalent in intelligence, capable of the same feelings and so on as a normal human being at adult level, would you would consider its members worthy of the same consideration as human beings?

Probably. Get back to me when we actually discover such.

But I should probably add that I do, in fact, value some humans over others. For example, I value my family/friends over strangers. Which isn't to say I wouldn't be willing to make noble sacrifice on behalf of strangers, just that I am far more likely to do so for those I know, as opposed to those I don't.

It doesnt automatically follow that she therefore should be treated differently to an equivalent dog. If my suspicion is correct, how do you justify your speciesism in this case?

I don't - I do favor the human species in general and I don't apologize for it.

From what I've observed about these forums, it is expected that you justify your claims and positions, and if you cant, you'll generally be ridiculed. I'm glad that you admit you cant justify it rather than attempting some half-arsed excuse for a justification, but I cant really take this as anything other than an admission that your position is... unjustifiable.

Not half-assed - just honest. Rather than bullshit my way through a made-up justification I have the guts to admit my position is based on species bias. Which is really just an extension of my valuing of family/friends over strangers. My fellow humans - even those unknown to me as individuals - are closer relations than dogs.

Which is not to say I wouldn't make sacrifices for a pet - I consider pets part of my family. But if it came down to saving the life of my husband versus saving the life of my birds I'm sorry, but the cockatiels are going to be on the losing side.

What is the fundamental difference between us and other species, if not our intellect, something that has been established she doesnt have?

We can't be 100% sure what her mental function is or isn't - so I prefer to err on the side of caution.

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.

And if you'd been here a little longer than your "redshirt" status indicates you'd be aware of just how often "everything I've read" on a subject amounts to very little. I am not privy to the actual details of this case, everything is second hand at best. I doubt your knowledge is greater than mine in this case.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Which is not to say I wouldn't make sacrifices for a pet - I consider pets part of my family. But if it came down to saving the life of my husband versus saving the life of my birds I'm sorry, but the cockatiels are going to be on the losing side.

Well, I would agree with you, but it doesn't follow that if you rid yourself of a species bias you must treat all species equally anyway. You wouldn't even have to choose between a cockroach or a human, since, even if we don't have un unjust bias, equality of consideration doesn't mean equality of treatment. Not all species are capable of having the same interests.

A Human can be worth more for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with it simply "being human." You don't have to make up a bullshit answer to defend your position. It's rather easy.

[Molyneux]

People, however, are not animals.

In any kind of technical sense, actually, we are indeed animals.
Unique animals, to be sure, but that uniqueness is typified in our intelligence.

[Darth Servo]

People, however, are not animals.

In any kind of technical sense, actually, we are indeed animals.
Unique animals, to be sure, but that uniqueness is typified in our intelligence.

We respect a person's rights more than those of animals. But a dog owner does NOT have the right to treat his pet in "any" way he wants. Cruel and abusive treatment of said pet is enough to get the animal taken away and the owner facing other penalties.