Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Baby Theresa
jmrozi1
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 79
From: Maryland
Joined: 12-09-2005


Message 1 of 40 (316869)
06-01-2006 3:32 PM


Theresa Pearson suffered from a condition known as anencephaly. Babies born with this condition are sometimes referred to as “babies without brains,” but this isn’t exactly the case. They do have a brain-stem, allowing for autonomic functions like breathing and a heartbeat. What they are missing is the cerebrum, cerebellum, and top of the skull, meaning the have no possibility for conscious thought. Most cases of these are detected during pregnancy and aborted; half of those not aborted are stillborn, and the rest die within a few days.
Theresa’s story is unique because her parents made the unusual request to volunteer her organs. The physicians agreed that this was a good idea, especially considering that there are at least 2,000 babies that need transplants each year, and there are never enough organs to provide for this. This was not done, however, because Florida law does not allow for the removal of organs until the donor is dead, and by the time Theresa died, her organs had deteriorated too much to have any further use.
A number of professional ethicists were called on by the press to comment, and a surprisingly small number of them agreed with the physicians and parents, saying things such as “It is unethical to kill in order to save” and “the parents are asking to kill a dying baby so the organs can be used by someone else. Well, that is a really horrendous proposition.”
So who’s right? The parents and physicians or “ethicists?”
Edited by jmrozi1, : Fixed grammar mistake

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 06-01-2006 7:08 PM jmrozi1 has not replied
 Message 4 by iano, posted 06-01-2006 7:50 PM jmrozi1 has replied
 Message 8 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-01-2006 11:40 PM jmrozi1 has not replied
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 06-02-2006 11:20 AM jmrozi1 has not replied
 Message 20 by rgb, posted 06-03-2006 12:15 PM jmrozi1 has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 40 (316885)
06-01-2006 5:07 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 3 of 40 (316909)
06-01-2006 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jmrozi1
06-01-2006 3:32 PM


So who’s right? The parents and physicians or “ethicists?”
It's always hard to judge on limited information. Based on what you have described, my support would go with the parents. In a tragic case such as this, the desires of the parents ought to be given considerable weight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jmrozi1, posted 06-01-2006 3:32 PM jmrozi1 has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 4 of 40 (316915)
06-01-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jmrozi1
06-01-2006 3:32 PM


I am not - therefore I don't think
meaning they have no possibility for conscious thought.
Maybe the problem arises in statements such as this. I looked up 'perversion' in the dictionary yesterday (in connection with another thread) and got a very ambiguous answer. It seems that 'perversion' is in they eye of the beholder. Presupposing that "person" equates to parts of the brain has no basis other than in the minds (another thorny one) of a segment of the population.
Edited by iano, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jmrozi1, posted 06-01-2006 3:32 PM jmrozi1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 06-01-2006 7:57 PM iano has replied
 Message 9 by jmrozi1, posted 06-02-2006 3:37 AM iano has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 40 (316917)
06-01-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by iano
06-01-2006 7:50 PM


Re: I am not - therefore I don't think
Presupposing that "person" equates to parts of the brain has no basis other than in the minds (another thorny one) of a segment of the population.
Is a dead body a person? I mean, the only difference between a living person and a dead one, medically, is that the brain has ceased operation.
But according to what you imply, the death of the brain can't be taken as the end of the person. Shouldn't we rethink the whole idea of post-mortem organ donation according to your position? The whole idea of embalmment and burial, for that matter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 06-01-2006 7:50 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by iano, posted 06-01-2006 8:15 PM crashfrog has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 6 of 40 (316921)
06-01-2006 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog
06-01-2006 7:57 PM


Re: I am not - therefore I don't think
iano writes:
....equates to parts of the brain has no basis other than in the minds (another thorny one) of a segment of the population.
crash writes:
Is a dead body a person? I mean, the only difference between a living person and a dead one, medically, is that the brain has ceased operation.
Hi Crash..
Can we agree that one part of the population has been dealt with in the above statement?
But according to what you imply, the death of the brain can't be taken as the end of the person. Shouldn't we rethink the whole idea of post-mortem organ donation according to your position? The whole idea of embalmment and burial, for that matter?
Another seqment, for example, Jehovahs Witnesses, might conclude this too - that the person is wrapped up in their organs
This person doesn't see a person wrapped up with the physical body at all. When the physical body dies you can do with it what you will. It affects the person who drove it ( vehicle style) not a jot
Edited by iano, : formatting
Edited by iano, : formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 06-01-2006 7:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 06-01-2006 8:43 PM iano has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 40 (316928)
06-01-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by iano
06-01-2006 8:15 PM


Re: I am not - therefore I don't think
Can we agree that one part of the population has been dealt with in the above statement?
I guess I don't see how that's the case. Could you elaborate?
Another seqment, for example, Jehovahs Witnesses, might conclude this too - that the person is wrapped up in their organs
Sure. And we allow the kin of certain individuals, who are JW's, to dispose of the remains of those individuals according to their own conscience.
Why can't the same thing apply here? If all the kin and professionals agree that this person is dead, surely they can dispose of the remains according to their own conscience? Why should they be limited by the differing beliefs of others? We don't limit the JW's; we don't force them to surrender their dead for organ extraction, because we recognize that they have differing beliefs about the end of life.
I get that people disagree about what constitutes a person. I just don't see where, in your implication, there's a basis for dictating one side of that debate to everybody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by iano, posted 06-01-2006 8:15 PM iano has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 8 of 40 (316940)
06-01-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jmrozi1
06-01-2006 3:32 PM


parents. the child is incapable of making a legally binding contract (especially this one). the parents are the legal decision makers. anyone with a decent conscience (and without specific religious opposition like jews who can't be buried without all their organs) supports organ donation.
it's simply not an issue. the child is brain-dead for all intents and purposes. sucks, but maybe they could have saved 10 other children with her blood and organs and tissue. do you know how many babies need skin grafts? i don't, but i imagine there's plenty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jmrozi1, posted 06-01-2006 3:32 PM jmrozi1 has not replied

  
jmrozi1
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 79
From: Maryland
Joined: 12-09-2005


Message 9 of 40 (316951)
06-02-2006 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by iano
06-01-2006 7:50 PM


Re: I am not - therefore I don't think
It seems that 'perversion' is in they eye of the beholder. Presupposing that "person" equates to parts of the brain has no basis other than in the minds (another thorny one) of a segment of the population.
I'm going to reply to my interpretation of what this means: Like the meaning of perversion, identifying the essence or soul of a person with body parts is subjective, therefore it cannot be used as a concrete medical reason to take any action.
If this is what you are arguing, I can grant some credence to your conclusion. However, I would like to clarify that I never identified the essence of a person with any particular body part:
A person is the result of an extremely elaborate and complex set of systems working in harmony to allow for the life of the unit as a whole. Most of these systems can be cultured to sustain life operations on their own; however, the life of the unit as a whole cannot exist without any vital system. The brain, an essential part of the nervous system, is one of these vital systems and therefore necessary for any human to live. I'm not saying that a "'person' equates to parts of the brain;" I'm merely saying that it's one of the key components. Although Theresa contains a set of systems working in harmony, the unit cannot function as a whole without the brain functioning correctly. It takes more than consisting of living material to attribute life to some entity. Consider, for example, that there exist communities of single-celled organisms that live and work together to divide labor and provide each other with their essential needs. Should it follow that this community is an organism just because it is composed of life? Note that it is actually widely accepted that to pronounce someone brain-dead is to pronounce that person legally dead. Given this, you cannot kill Theresa; you can only disassemble her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 06-01-2006 7:50 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by iano, posted 06-02-2006 10:26 AM jmrozi1 has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 10 of 40 (316986)
06-02-2006 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by jmrozi1
06-02-2006 3:37 AM


Re: I am not - therefore I don't think
jr writes:
However, I would like to clarify that I never identified the essence of a person with any particular body part:
A person is the result of an extremely elaborate and complex set of systems working in harmony to allow for the life of the unit as a whole. Most of these systems can be cultured to sustain life operations on their own; however, the life of the unit as a whole cannot exist without any vital system.
The life of a person is not necessarily tied up with the existance of the person. Either it is or it isn't - we can't say for sure. Life for want of knowing otherwise can be considered a vehicle for the person to express themselves in this world. Whilst fullness of life function can vary wildly, the expression of the person (to whatever degree) has the potential to continue until such time as the person is dead. Stone dead rather than brain dead - I mean.
Any line drawn through the scale of all possible function which attempts to comment on the persons personhood is purely and arbitarily subjective. Man assuming the role (irrespective of his motivations being noble or ignoble) of God.
Anyway, an opinion on your OP's question? I would take the view that organ donation is ethical only after the point of death. That is stone death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jmrozi1, posted 06-02-2006 3:37 AM jmrozi1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jmrozi1, posted 06-02-2006 2:28 PM iano has not replied
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 06-02-2006 4:29 PM iano has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 11 of 40 (316996)
06-02-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jmrozi1
06-01-2006 3:32 PM


It seems cut and dried to me.
The baby had no chance of life but could have saved others and given meaning to her death for the parents.
Does the Florida law prevent donations of kidneys by siblings?
I say the organs should have been harvested as soon as it became clear that the baby had no higher brain fuctions and never would.
I can't see a reason not to.
ABE: Just seen you post above me Iano. Do you think we will ever agree?
Edited by Larni, : Silly aside to Iano

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jmrozi1, posted 06-01-2006 3:32 PM jmrozi1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 06-02-2006 11:27 AM Larni has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 12 of 40 (316997)
06-02-2006 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Larni
06-02-2006 11:20 AM


All aboard thats going aboard..!
Do you think we will ever agree?
If I was a betting man I would lay money down that one day we will. But I'm not a betting man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Larni, posted 06-02-2006 11:20 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Larni, posted 06-02-2006 12:43 PM iano has not replied
 Message 14 by jmrozi1, posted 06-02-2006 12:59 PM iano has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 13 of 40 (317015)
06-02-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by iano
06-02-2006 11:27 AM


Re: All aboard thats going aboard..!
Well, if you are right I will find out eventually
Of course I may be in a much hotter place than you
Sorry to drag this of topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 06-02-2006 11:27 AM iano has not replied

  
jmrozi1
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 79
From: Maryland
Joined: 12-09-2005


Message 14 of 40 (317024)
06-02-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by iano
06-02-2006 11:27 AM


Re: All aboard thats going aboard..!
Edit: I think this is an interesting lesson, but alas, it is off topic so don't respond.
If I was a betting man I would lay money down that one day we will.
I'm going to paraphrase a relevant story taken from "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" by James Rachels:
A group of investigators had themselves admitted as patients to various mental hospitals. The staff didn’t know the investigators were normal, however, their very presence in the hospital created the assumption that they were mentally disturbed. Though they did nothing to feign illness, everything they did was interpreted as a sign of whatever mental illness that was enlisted on their admission forms. When the investigators took notes, the staff would make entries in their records such as “patient engages in writing behavior.” During an interview, an investigator admitted to being closer to his mother as a child, and then became more attached to his father as he grew older. This is a normal turn of events, but was taken as evidence of “unstable relationships in childhood.” The staff never caught on, but the other patients saw through the experiment.
This experiment shows the power of a controlling assumption. Once a hypothesis is accepted, everything can be interpreted to support it. The human brain is a remarkable feature in that it can find a theme where one does not exist; it can find patterns in chaos, despite chaos being defined as being having no pattern.
If you have a difference in faith, whether be the intention or existence of God, you may find that you will never agree because faith is the belief in something that hasn’t or can’t be proven. Faith is at its heart an assumption, and therefore subject to the same consequences explained in the story above. Furthermore, everyone, even the agnostic and especially the atheist, has faith. Long story short, I’ll take that bet.
Edited by jmrozi1, : added edit note

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 06-02-2006 11:27 AM iano has not replied

  
jmrozi1
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 79
From: Maryland
Joined: 12-09-2005


Message 15 of 40 (317040)
06-02-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by iano
06-02-2006 10:26 AM


Re: I am not - therefore I don't think
Any line drawn through the scale of all possible function which attempts to comment on the persons personhood is purely and arbitrarily subjective.
I'm not sure what it means for something to be arbitrarily subjective, or what a persons personhood is. This seems to be your conclusion, so I need you to elaborate before I can make a meaningful response.
I would argue, however, that almost nothing is purely subjective. Life isn't just some human invention; it is a tangible, observed phenomenon. Human life, complex as it is, broken down to its atomic components would probably seem nothing more romantic than a giant chemical box serving no discretional qualities. It can be artificially seeded (consider organ farms), assembled (constructive surgery, organ transplants, etc.) and even cloned (similar to Dolly). Though ethically speaking this may be repugnant, theoretically it is even possible to copy a persons brain and reproduce it while preserving thought patterns and memory.
We must be subjective when describing life not because it doesn't have any material basis, but because we don't posses the capacity to fully understand its complexity. It should not follow from this that life is purely subjective. On the contrary, life possibly has the potential to be explained completely objectively on a basis of the complexity of chemical interactions. Just because we don't know how to draw the line doesn't mean it can't be drawn; it simply means our intelligence has bounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by iano, posted 06-02-2006 10:26 AM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024