Is it ethical to let a baby born without a face die?

[oxdt83]

I believe compassion is a part of being human, compassion from those who desire to care for those who have limitations physically and mentally demonstrates that these caretakers are truly the strongest of human beings.

Sure, but that's exactly the opposite of the Darwinistic behaviour your "biologically determined" morality would lead to.

The example you provide and those who are born with special needs are clearly different situations, one deserves compassion, the other has no need for compassion.

My point had nothing to do with special needs children, it was that appealing to biology for your ethical precepts is silly.

Your statement that the fetus is not a personality or human being is an opinion, not fact. Stating your opinion as fact does not make it valid. And of course I am emotionally attached to my child, hopefully you would be too, otherwise I would certainly have compassion for them if you did not.

OK, the foetus *could* be conscious, but shows no signs of being so, like plants and rocks - after all we don't *know* what causes consciousness. But if we accept scientific evidence on brain activity, then I don't think it's a terribly controversial statement. Of course I would expect you to be emotionally attached to your children, that's not what I was criticising. I was pointing out that you have simply generalised your feelings for your children into a general moral precept without much further thought.

Again, how do you know that these children have a painful and unpleasant life? Downs' children and people are some of the happiest I know. This statement points out that you have no interaction with folks like this, thus your judgement of them is extremely one sided, clearly.

As I think I made clear, it's quite possible for these children to have happy and fulfilling lives. But again it seems uncontroversial to state that they are at a disadvantage.

So, if it is the responsibility of the parents to care for their children, why would they just toss a potential of a human life out?

Because it would (sometimes) be uncaring not to do so.

But that problem can become an even worse one because of the emotional trauma it may lead to. I know abortion itself can wreck havoc on a woman's conscience, let alone letting her child die after she has endured 9 months of feeling life within her. Again, medical advances have allowed screening at an early stage of the pregnancy for genetic and physical deformities. To share here, I had an ultra screen done just a few weeks ago because of the family history of Downs. I was still in my first trimester of pregnancy, the time when abortion is the most safe, least invasive, and less traumatic should it have been an option depending on the test results. In essence what I am saying is, there is plenty of opportunity to find out in the pregnancy what limitations the child may have, so why wait until the child has been born and fully developed to an independent human being to make such a decision for it?

I accept this point, there is clearly a major trauma associated with depriving parents of a newborn baby which they have become attached to in the course of a pregnancy, just as there is a physical (and emotional) trauma involved with abortion. My point was that, given the choice between the two, it was probably more dangerous to attack the recently won (and still fragile, cf right to abortion in the first place) control women have over their own bodies.

Again, you are assuming that the child has a disadvantaged life without any sort of awareness of what potential they can truly have, and what sort of lessons they can teach you about reality. You also have to remember, they know nothing else but what they have been given in life, thus they may have an incredible amount of (emotional) strength to deal with their limitations, unlike perhaps you who feels it is just an awful condition to have from your own personal perspective.

I am fully aware of the potential they have. I am also aware of the limitations they undeniably have, and of course they will be aware of the limitations, be aware that they are "different", and even in a world completely free of prejudice, they are going to feel bad about not being able to do some of the things "normal" people do. Doesn't mean disabled people can't leave rich and fulfilling lives. But why, given the choice, insist on bringing a disadvantaged life into the world?

And as medicinal advances are made, they can contribute even more. Several "disadvantaged" folks have made me gain awareness that I wouldn't have from being around "normal" people.

It's wonderful that your experience with disabled people has given you a richer understanding of life. But that can't possibly be a justification for having them be born in the first place. There's plenty of painful and unpleasant experimentation we could do on people which would give us a lot of useful knowledge and insight, but it's banned on humanitarian grounds.

I am strongly in favour of "difference", of people in different situations developing, exchanging and together enriching their understandings of the world. That is undeniably an advantage of being "disabled" for both the disabled person and the rest of society. And I can't deny that I'm rather attracted by this romantic idea of value in life being triump over adversity, finding value in your life whatever it is. And certainly if for whatever reason your values turn out different from the mainstream, they are likely to be deeper and better considered.

However, I don't think this weighs infinitely against the undeniable disadvantages these people face. We're talking about the extreme case here. This girl is missing about 50% of the bone in her face, she's being fed into her stomach. She can't talk, she presumably can't see, she's had 15 operations to date and will need about 30 more. There's got to come a point where any compassionate person says, "enough, you can't put a person through life in this condition". Where to draw the line? Very difficult question. But there is a line to be drawn, pro-life fundamentalism is not the easy or obvious answer.

I think it is horrible you compare parents who are brave enough to take on the responsibilities of these children to those who are abusive. My mother is extremely courageous to raise my brother, something I couldn't do, but she has done everything in her power to give my brother the best education and exposure to help him live his life to his greatest potential. This show of bravery is a far opposite from one who abuses a child. No offense, but I find your lack of compassion and narrow minded outlook scary. It would be a huge life changing experience for you if you volunteered your time at a home that sheltered people with special needs.

As I said before, I don't accuse these parents of having bad intentions, I don't deny they are brave and sacrifice a huge amount. But that doesn't mean (necessarily) that they are not harming the child - and it is the child's welfare here which is most important. I don't think all special needs children should be aborted - there is the harm it would do to the parents to consider, as well as the potentially richer understanding of life the child will develop. But I try to demonstrate that these reasons aren't automatically overriding with the example of the child-abusing parents. What if a parent poked their child's eyes out and said, "there, they'll develop a much richer understanding of life now"? I'm not comparing the characters of my hypothetical parents and real parents of disabled children, I'm just pointing out that in both cases a conscious decision is made to bring a disadvantaged life-form into the world. The difference is that with the parents of the disabled child, the alternative involves a huge emotional trauma to the parents, which weighs against the decision to abort. But not always.

Again please don't accuse of me of a lack of compassion just because I disagree with you. You seem like a good and caring person, but I think you're the one who's being narrow-minded here. I haven't disagreed really with anything you've said - the value of the lives of disabled people, the courage of the parents of such people, and the trauma it would do to the parents to abort their offspring. But I'm adding that there is another side to disability - discomfort, pain, adversity, and in some cases those costs are so fantastic, that it seems insane to choose on the side of life. I don't, as you do, assume a single right answer to the question, because I consider both sides of the situation.

Now the comeback obviously is the slippery slope from this point to eugenics where we live in a dystopia of uniform perfection. But my argument goes completely against that as well, because it is based on faith in people's ability to make difficult decisions, and not follow simple rules to determine their view on moral questions. There is a genuine moral dilemma here, we don't just wave people through into life, and then see what we can do to help them later.

 

[oxdt83]

If this child was born in a third world country she would not have the resources she needs to survive and she would die. That would be natural selection at work. This child was born to parents in a society that has the resources to provide for her. If there is no struggle over resources then there is no reason for her to die, let alone be killed.

Should we start killing children because of a theory, even a well-documented one, that doesn't require the death of the child? That's extreme dogma, unscientific, and not correct according to natural selection. Darwin did not create the laws of nature.

Of course not, that was my point. Above you were talking about social Darwinism, not biological Darwinism. My point was you can't import the laws of nature into your ethical theory, no questions asked. My justification for aborting newborns is not that they couldn't survive in the natural world, it's that they'd lead an unpleasant life.

No. The murder of children is illegal because the government recognizes a child's rights. It defines a child as any person under 18 years of age. That would include newborns. A child also does have the right to be raised by her parents as long as it is in the child's best interest. A person is entitled to their legal rights even if they don't know them. The problem in that case is exercising their rights. These are general laws as provided by the 1989 UN declaration of the rights of children. States and nations have some leeway in the interpretation of these laws so I suggest you check the laws of your nation. http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-rights-of-children-and-young-people/introduction/introduction.shtml

We have these rights because they are agreed upon and made into law. If you don't like your laws you can vote for new leadership if you can find any who will support your views.

You're talking about legal rights, but we were having a moral debate. Laws concerning the treatment of children have been incorporated into our rights framework because it's convenient (we have an existing framework) and it clearly spells out how children are to be treated. But these legal rights are expressing societies' responsibilities, they are not rights as a political philosopher would understand them.

I would very much like to see some general evidence of this claim. Do you personally have experience with these people? Do you have some evidence that you can post here stating that disabled people with caring parents lead miserable lives? Even a reference to a reputable text. I'll need more than your opinion to believe this forecast.

Argh, this isn't a forecast, I was saying that society's views might change if this came about. And spelling out again that you can't have a one-sided view of disability. There's the upside of celebrating difference, and living surrounded by caring and compassionate people, and returning that compassion. (Although I can't say this is doing much for the health of our society as a whole. We've failed to develop compassion for the millions dying every year in the third world, for the poor and the socially disadvantaged, for the average person we pass in the street...) But there's a definite downside, which is not always overriden.

Killing a disabled child definitely disadvantages them.

No it doesn't. Unless you want to argue male masturbation, or intercourse with contraception "disadvantages" the potential lives those millions of sperm could have developed into. And look where that line of reasoning's got us - the African AIDs epidemic.

Beating children's heads to give them brain damage and removing their eyes definitely disadvantages them. I find this train of thought very distasteful and unnecessary.

Only because you seem to be missing the point. If beating an already-born child's head to give them brain damage disadvantages them, what's the difference with choosing to allow to develop into consciousness a child that you know will have brain damage? My answer: the trauma aborting does to the parents. But these have to be balanced, and it seems clear that in extreme cases that trauma is insufficient to justify allowing life.

The key word here is potential, not disabled.

For disabled people who already exist. I've accepted they can gain valuable, indeed unique insights from their conditions. So can having your legs bitten off by a shark, or losing loved ones in a car crash. The best art is produced under extremely adverse conditions. But I don't think any of these people would want to impose their situations on any future people, and I don't think it provides an argument for doing so. It's a paradox to be sure: the best of human life emerges in the worst situations, yet most of us devote most of our effort to avoiding those situations. Here's my way of viewing it: the people in these situations, in finding ways to cope, contribute a great deal; but I don't think they get a great deal back, they're not as well-off as most people. So allowing disabled people to be born on those grounds, would be using people. Life as a disabled person is certainly of a higher value than "normal" human life, but welfare is certainly lower.

 

[Huckleberry]

How do you justify taking the right to bear children away from the parents?

 

[oxdt83]

As I said at the very beginning, it's not obvious to me that there is a right in the first place. Who on Earth has the right to play God and create conscious life? But given that they do, why shouldn't we screen parents in the same way we screen those who wish to adopt? There are plenty of irresponsible and in some cases abusive people who have children - I don't see why they're entitled to, just because they're biologically equipped.

 

[Huckleberry]

Your argument is riddled with flaws.

Firstly you tell Kerrie that she cannot argue biological propensity in a philosophical discussion and in the next breath you attempt to use Darwinism to support your argument.

If your argument is that we should act according to the laws of nature, e.g. survival of the fittest, Darwinism, then clearly in this case the child should be allowed to die.

Should we start killing children because of a theory, even a well-documented one, that doesn't require the death of the child?

Of course not, that was my point.

This contradicts itself. It also doesn't matter if it's social Darwinism, biological Darwinism or a note from John Darwin down at the local Texaco. Darwin's theories explain evolution and do not create them. By killing a child so that everything is in accordance with Darwin's theories you are being dogmatic. I do not believe that this is what Darwin intended. Probably why you changed your opinion, yet continued to argue the point.

And here you do it again. You make a series off grossly innacurate statements and when I correct you, you tell me that the answer is invalid because I use politics.

No I think murders of newborn children are illegal because of the harm it would do to the parents. And being raised by loving parents isn't a right of the child...
...
We must understand that we have responsibilities towards children, they don't have rights. A right is a political freedom and as such can only be possessed by those who understand what they are and how to exercise them.

No. The murder of children is illegal because the government recognizes a child's rights. It defines a child as any person under 18 years of age. That would include newborns. A child also does have the right to be raised by her parents as long as it is in the child's best interest. A person is entitled to their legal rights even if they don't know them. The problem in that case is exercising their rights. These are general laws as provided by the 1989 UN declaration of the rights of children. States and nations have some leeway in the interpretation of these laws so I suggest you check the laws of your nation. http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-r...roduction.shtml

These are corrections to your statements. The laws are indeed what give people legal rights. Laws are what society uses to maintain order in society. In this country we elect our leaders to make laws in the best interest of the majority. The ethics of the majority are what determine the laws that we have regarding children's rights.

This is a perfectly valid argument. Philosophy is not restricted to ethics and morals. The origins of science are rooted in philosophy. It wasn't all that long ago that many of the branches of science that we have departmentalized into their own categories were all clumped up into the category of science. Philosophy is most certainly alive and strong in political science.

But these legal rights are expressing societies' responsibilities, they are not rights as a political philosopher would understand them.

Yes, these legal rights are expressing societies responsibilities. That's what laws do. And it was political philosophers who designed them to draft the 1989 UN declaration of children's rights.

And here you dismiss the most important quetion of all.

...But there's nothing to say that, when the miracles of medical science have saved even less viable children, many of which have miserable lives, commit suicide perhaps, and the equality of women is better established, such measures won't be seen as justified.

I would very much like to see some general evidence of this claim. Do you personally have experience with these people? Do you have some evidence that you can post here stating that disabled people with caring parents lead miserable lives? Even a reference to a reputable text. I'll need more than your opinion to believe this forecast.

Argh, this isn't a forecast, I was saying that society's views might change if this came about. And spelling out again that you can't have a one-sided view of disability. ...

I have a view with at least one side. Your view has no sides. You provide no evidence whatsoever that a disabled child that is cared for by caring parents will lead a miserable, unfulfilled life. You are making an argument out of nothing.

Beating children's heads to give them brain damage and removing their eyes definitely disadvantages them. I find this train of thought very distasteful and unnecessary.

Only because you seem to be missing the point. If beating an already-born child's head to give them brain damage disadvantages them, what's the difference with choosing to allow to develop into consciousness a child that you know will have brain damage? My answer: the trauma aborting does to the parents. But these have to be balanced, and it seems clear that in extreme cases that trauma is insufficient to justify allowing life.

I don't think I'm missing the point. I just don't agree with you. And this paragraph isn't very clear. Your quetion seems to be asking 'What's the difference between an intentionally braindamaged child and a naturally braindamaged child?' I would say the difference is that one is intentional and one is natural. You say the answer is trauma from abortion when neither of the children in your scenario has been aborted. I'm confused.

As I said at the very beginning, it's not obvious to me that there is a right in the first place. Who on Earth has the right to play God and create conscious life? But given that they do, why shouldn't we screen parents in the same way we screen those who wish to adopt? There are plenty of irresponsible and in some cases abusive people who have children - I don't see why they're entitled to, just because they're biologically equipped.

Hmm, I would say the obvious answer to this would be that if we did not procreate then we would be extinct. People are not only biologically equipped, but biologically driven to procreate. And instead of looking to kill potential in children we should be spending more effort helping the perfectly healthy ones that are abused and are far more likely to lead unhappy lives.

Again, please provide some evidence that disabled children lead miserable lives and receive nothing in return for their efforts. Your argument relies on it or else your promoting the death of children for no reason and that is despicable.

 

[owl3951]

This is a wonderful discussion of what the medical community faces all the time. The reason I believe it to be wonderful is that it represents the many facets of viewpoints surrounding the issue: religious, ethical, moral; government vs. individual liberty; and humanity and compassion for both the infant and the parents. I understand that those proponents of letting the child die believe they are being as compassionate towards the child and the parents as those who propose making the child live, or letting the parents choose, or letting the child choose when she gets old enough, however old that may be.

As you can see from the discussion, people can hold exactly the opposite moral points of view. That is why someone rightly declared this issue a moral dilemma. Having spent my career in health care administration, I can state that the medical community, being able to find no consensus on the moral issue, has adopted certain principles in order to be able to take at least some action. As you may surmise, the only way to achieve any sort of moral consensus would be by general referendum. After the referendum, society would still splinter as it does over the abortion issue, the right to medical care issue, the costs of medical care issue, and so forth. But at least the doctors would be relieved of choosing in each case. And no one could sue them if they then stuck to the letter of the law.

It seems to me that certain other principles are not touched on, here. The first is, what principle gives strangers the right to intervene in the parent's choice? I can think of none. We may offer to assist, but if that assistance is rejected, what law or precedent says we should remove the right of informed parents to decide if they want to "bear the burden" or not? In the absence of law or precedent, we become nothing more than interfering busybodies, assuming some superior right to choose for others. This is the same objection so many people have to the religion forum issue within PF. If we wish not to be hypocrites, we must uniformly apply this principle of letting people make their own choices--whether moral or otherwise. It is irrelevant whether we believe we can make the choice better than the parents. It is neither our choice nor our business.

Another principle that the medical community recognizes is that medicine learns a lot, even from its failures. This is a somewhat cold-hearted view, if you believe the child discussed herein is a guinea pig for future children. It becomes an issue of "Is the welfare of the one more important than the welfare of the future many?" Since we have no law regarding specific cases like this, the medical community is able to sidestep the issue of experimentation on humans. But doctors do, indeed, think this way.

Another principle is the issue of the doctor's dilemma. Doctors idealistically are trained to save lives. Consequently, the principle doctors operate under is that they will do whatever it takes for each patient without prejudice. Let society, say the doctors, make choices about who to treat and who not to. Although this is an emotional issue for doctors, it is also an issue of convenience. At least it lays down a principle that allows a decision and a course of action. Left to others, as the discussion herein suggests, the choice and the action may never become clear.

The only principle that seems to allow people other than the parents and the doctors to get involved revolves around the fact that all resources are ultimately limited. Thus, many who decry the high cost of health care, and many who have specific agendas about who should get care and how much it should cost (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid [Medi-Cal in CA], people with AIDS, societies for the rights of patients afflicted with various diseases such as Alzheimer's, people who champion universal immunizations for children, and on and on) all believe that the resources in health care should be channelled for their particular populations of patients.

However, after 20 plus years in health care, I believe this issue is a chimera. Health care is basically administered by inertia and stupidity, like all other large human endeavors. The quality of management settles to the lowest common denominator among all of these special interests groups, county, state and federal administrators who regulate health care, hospital management, doctor-office management, doctors themselves who have shown themselves to be poor administrators, and on and on.

Therefore, there is no mechanism that says if we divert the funds from the care for this child under question, it will be spent in a way (immunizations, for example) that will benefit many. Rather, the funds will be used to hire another public relations officer for an HMO, another groundskeeper for a hospital, another VP of Human Resources for the AMA, and on and on.

Thus, given that there is no mechanism to allocate health care resources to where they will do optimal good, anyone not directly involved in the decision, if any, regarding this little girl cannot have a say in the decision. While it is true that the health care premiums of the healthy, and the taxes of all, go towards supporting care in cases such as these, the refusal of the people who pay those taxes and those premiums to tale the bull by the horns and CHOOSE about health care issues invalidates their right to be part of the decision-making process.

For those who pay for the care to exercise their right to be part of the decision-making process, those people need to manage their responsibilites that attend their rights. In the USA, for example, health care is a right for select portions of society (Medicare and Medicaid, for examples) but a commodity for others (the working class who pays for Medicare and Medicaid care in this case.) Hence, this child has no "right" to the care she is given (unless her family is forced to go on Medicaid), but no one has the "right" to prevent her from receiving it.

There is no plan, no rhyme, no reason to anything about health care in the USA, other than which special groups may legislate what, or who may afford what. Therefore, no subsequent policies about issues such as organ replacement, expensive premies, immunization, and on and on may be made. There is no will of the people, so there is no responsibility of the people, so there is no right of the people.

Under any and all circumstances, then, the whole decision must remain solely in the province of the parents and the attendant doctors. Regardless of our morals or opinions, we have no place therein.

 

[Pengwuino]

My question: should the doctors/parents have just let her die?

But no matter what, these new parents had a wish. "That if there was something wrong, she wouldn't be alone. We wanted to make sure she felt loved," said Tom, as he began to cry. "She squeezed my hand."

I think there's your answer

 

[juvenal]

Therefore, there is no mechanism that says if we divert the funds from the care for this child under question, it will be spent in a way (immunizations, for example) that will benefit many. Rather, the funds will be used to hire another public relations officer for an HMO, another groundskeeper for a hospital, another VP of Human Resources for the AMA, and on and on.

Owl3951, nice post, but I don't buy this.

As you mention later on, premiums will go up. Most people will probably not complain if the increase per person is low, but that doesn't make it right.

A more general comment, not related to owl3951 - I think that, apart from the issue of the health care cost burden on society, technology will help solve this problem:

1. One day, medical advances may allow such a person to become normal in appearance, and possibly in bodily function.

2. Even before such medical advances are possible, the increasingly larger virtual, Internet-based world will allow such a person to socialize with others. It's quite possible that the future for all of us will be largely virtually-based.

 

[Kerrie]

Wow Huck, you did it again. Any words on my part would just be reiterating your points here.

Oxdt83, you clearly show a lack of compassion-regardless of whether I agree with you or not. Again, try interacting with folks who are "disadvantaged", then tell me again they are. It would appear to me you have no experience with anyone with special needs, thus your opinion is based on your own personal fears of ever becoming "disadvantaged", not from a wider scope of experience. By the way, did you read the link I provided about the woman who has the same condition of the baby and how she makes the best of her life? Who are you to judge when someone's life is worth living when it is based on your personal opinion of what "quality of life" is? Your argument basically states in so many words, "I myself would never want to live like that, thus no one would, therefore those people should be allowed to die".

If anything, society has done a wonderful task at making the lives of those with limitations more fulfilling and easier. Our society has made it easier for the caretakers of those with limitations as well. Education and medicinal advances have made the responsibility easier then 100 years ago. Perhaps your point of view may have been more acceptable in the dark ages, but there is no excuse today to allow a child with potential to die because you have the opinion they wouldn't lead the sort of life YOU think is quality.

As I stated before, abortion is always the option for the mother unwilling to take on the responsibility, but she has just a few months to make that decision, after that, she is choosing RESPONSIBILITY of some degree-whether to raise the special needs child, or to give up for adoption so that another willing to take on the responsibility will do so.

Stephen Hawking is a reminder of why our physical limitations shouldn't prevent us from being all we can be.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/disable/dindex.html

 

[Huckleberry]

owl3951, I was expecting the health insurance and economic burden to society issue to come up as a major point of argument a long time ago. You are right, this is an important topic that has not been touched upon. Thank you for your post. I will consider it carefully.

edit:
One of the people I most admire is Helen Keller. Blind, deaf and dumb, she was eventually able to lead a rewarding life. Her parents found the burden of raising her too difficult, but thankfully there was someone compassionate enough to provide the direction that Helen needed.
"The world is full of trouble, but as long as we have people undoing trouble, we have a pretty good world."
—Helen Keller

 

[Kerrie]

owl3951, I was expecting the health insurance and economic burden to society issue to come up as a major point of argument a long time ago. You are right, this is an important topic that has not been touched upon. Thank you for your post. I will consider it carefully.

edit:
One of the people I most admire is Helen Keller. Blind, deaf and dumb, she was eventually able to lead a rewarding life. Her parents found the burden of raising her too difficult, but thankfully there was someone compassionate enough to provide the direction that Helen needed.
"The world is full of trouble, but as long as we have people undoing trouble, we have a pretty good world."
—Helen Keller

Taking care of those with special needs certainly has its costs, but as I see it, if we are spending the R & D on advances in medicine that proove fruitful, then we have a responsibility to utilize these advances for those in need. Where these funds come from is more of a political topic.

Huckleberry, Helen Keller is a perfect example of what compassion can do for those with extra limitations.

 

[owl3951]

Owl3951, nice post, but I don't buy this.

As you mention later on, premiums will go up. Most people will probably not complain if the increase per person is low, but that doesn't make it right.

Ah, right and wrong. An interesting concept to apply here. There has never been a referendum on Medicare or Medicaid. They are just things other people have imposed upon you, upon us. If your employer pays for health care, fully half of his premium is a hidden tax to pay for these programs, which is a tax over and above overt taxes for Medicare. Is this "right"? The amount that premiums will rise due to the cost of the care for this one child is of uttermost triviality relative to these entitlement programs, and will always remain so. And the principle is the same in both cases. Your employer gives his money over to other people to spend as they deem fit, both for this child and for entitlements. We elect the government officials who pass the laws, as we choose which health insurance plan we have for employees. No. Without people making choices regarding health care overall, so that subsequent policies can then be developed, there is no right or wrong in how the money in health care is allocated. I assure you there is no mechanism that will, in and of itself, appropriately allocate funds for best usage.

A more general comment, not related to owl3951 - I think that, apart from the issue of the health care cost burden on society, technology will help solve this problem:

1. One day, medical advances may allow such a person to become normal in appearance, and possibly in bodily function.

Yes. this pertains to the same concept I mentioned about doctors learning, even from their mistakes.

2. Even before such medical advances are possible, the increasingly larger virtual, Internet-based world will allow such a person to socialize with others. It's quite possible that the future for all of us will be largely virtually-based.

A wonderful insight.

if we are spending the R & D on advances in medicine that prove fruitful, then we have a responsibility to utilize these advances for those in need. Where these funds come from is more of a political topic.

And this is the point, is it not? In the USA, we have well-established, at least by law, if not in all hearts, the general principle of non-discrimination, regardless of caste, gender, credo, religion and national origin. In the absence of any other ruling, doctors have merely added another category: regardless of current organic injury or sickness. Given that the political issue is unaddressed, what other option do physicians have?

 

[Huckleberry]

Taking care of those with special needs certainly has its costs, but as I see it, if we are spending the R & D on advances in medicine that proove fruitful, then we have a responsibility to utilize these advances for those in need. Where these funds come from is more of a political topic.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here...

I was guessing that someone would come up with the argument that some parents may not be willing to care for a disabled child, or they might be unfit for the job or just not have the financial ability to do it themselves.In these cases the babies economic expenses will be societies burden. If society receives the responsibility for providing for these children then shouldn't they have a right in deciding the life of this child? These children need more care than healthy children and without it they may not be able to find their potential. Many people who do not know the child may not have compassion for them and would not want to see their money being spent for a purpose that they believe is hopeless.

Where the money comes from is a political topic, but if society pays for it then it is also an ethics topic. Does society have the right to refuse to pay for the provision and care of disabled children? If this point was argued then I would have to agree that it is the decision of the majority of society. I may not like the result of the decision, but I would have to abide the law. (I could also lobby to change the law. And I could encourage non profit organizations and adoption of disabled children.) This is why I quoted Helen Keller. It would become the responsibility of the minority who do care to provide care that will not be provided by the majority who don't.

owl3951 provided some nice answers to this argument in his post that I would not have thought of.

 

[Kerrie]

Where the money comes from is a political topic, but if society pays for it then it is also an ethics topic. Does society have the right to refuse to pay for the provision and care of disabled children? If this point was argued then I would have to agree that it is the decision of the majority of society. I may not like the result of the decision, but I would have to abide the law. (I could also lobby to change the law. And I could encourage non profit organizations and adoption of disabled children.) This is why I quoted Helen Keller. It would become the responsibility of the minority who do care to provide care that will not be provided by the majority who don't.

In theory, it should be a decision of society, but as we well know, society doesn't always have the final say in where their tax dollars go. (USA I am referring to at least) Society benefits from the medical care that becomes better and better with the generations. Those with special needs are a part of this society, and if we take the responsibility to help them as best as we can, they may be less of a "burden" and more productive in our society. Society has no choice in providing tax dollars to state prisons, but we have the responsibility of housing, feeding, and clothing them as well. Yes, inmates do have jobs/tasks to be productive, but that is because we as a society provide them with the tools to do so. For example, my father works for the NC state prison (low security) teaching inmates landscaping and gardening in hopes to show them a more nurturing part of life, and to give them job skills should they choose a career in landscaping. My father's time and education is a tool that society has footed the bill for so we can help those who may have a chance in becoming productive in society.

If we can provide this much help for someone who has deliberately broke the law, then why couldn't we do the same for one who has not chosen their condition, but is willing to make the best of it?

 

[Huckleberry]

I agree that society should help people if it has the resources to do so. There's a line that must be drawn somewhere at the limits of those resources. How many people can the welfare system support? Prisons are already a huge economic drain. Wars are expensive. Social security costs go up and benefits go down. And then on top of all this, and much more, there are those disabled children that need societies help. Is a person uncompassionate if they choose to save money out of concern for the future of themselves and their family?

Since we cannot choose how money is allocated many people will attempt to vote down any bill that would cost them. They would feel no sense of responsibility for the consequences because the choice of how their money is spent has been taken away from them. Isn't it preferable if responsibility is accepted by, rather than forced upon society? Is an ambiguous health care system really aiding children with disabilities?

 

[owl3951]

In General

I do not mean to present a one-sided view of funding. Because I have spent a career in health care, and because my wife is also in health care, I can temporarily lose sight of the big picture.

Altho' humanity has been around a long time, our actual experience with "managing" a huge country and economy, such as the USA, is tiny. Huge issues, such as allocating funding across scientific investigation, the arts, defense, medical research, transportation, etc., has never before been attempted. There seems to be a consensus in the USA that we do want programs to benefit others. Hence, we (reluctantly) pay taxes.

But after establishing this general consensus, based upon the ages-old concept of community, we run into difficulties. How, exactly, shall limited resources be allocated? Every cause can make valid claims that it does great good and deserves funding. Individuals, because of their unique experiences, talents, insights, expertise and inclinations, become endorsers of specific interest groups. Passion for these specific interests is worthy.

Yet, it appears right now to be impractical for all voting members of the USA to decide each issue. We elect officials to government to decide on issues for us. They, in turn, budget, create programs, appoint administrators, and so forth. Taxpayers, including businesses and individuals, pay for it all.

By so operating, taxpayers have in effect said to the government, "We relinquish the right to have a say in each and every issue. Otherwise, we will be bogged down in endless debate, and you will be powerless to get anything done. Go do your best on our behalf." We all have feelings to what extent this works, and to what extent the government remains responsive to the people that elect it.

Thus, by allowing gov't to set up orphanages, we have agreed to support those children whose parents cannot or will not care for those children. No specific John Q. Public taxpayer retains the right to enter an orphanage and proclaim, "For this child here, spend this much on food, this much on clothes and this much on health care." The system would break down. We must, in practicality, leave it to the administrators of Medicaid, the orphanage, and so forth. Similarly, no specific taxpayer can dictate to government, "Spend this much on defense, on culture, on research, on transportation, on education, on health care, on crime prevention,..."

For representative government to operate, we, at this time, appear to have no other choice than to do thus. However, the flip side is that we can become complacent with this inactivity towards managing societal issues. To keep government from becoming torn between all manner of special interest groups, society needs to provide overall policy guidelines to government. This is something we certainly can do, but which we do not. For example, we want government to solve the, in my opinion fake, health care crisis. But we take no initiative to resolve whether health care is a right or a commodity. So it is both, to the detriment of society as a whole, but to the benefit of specific special interest groups.

With very little effort, any of us can see how this same line of thought may easily be applied to every general issue of community interest and welfare. We may have a "government of the people" and "for the people." It is not so clear that we have "government by the people."

There exist no rights that are not accompanied by concommitant responsiblities. My own viewpoint is that government is powerless to solve societal problems, much less create advancment. Government's job is to organize, inform and inspire. The power to achieve lies with the grass roots of every nation and people. It is futile to send representatives to government with the expectation that they will fix everything and that we need do nothing further. All that does is invite the media to point the finger constantly at government and proclaim, "Scandal! Inefficiency! Abuse! Ineffectiveness!" Both we and the government we elect grow dispirited and hopeless. The finger needs to point at us.

 

[Kerrie]

I agree that society should help people if it has the resources to do so. There's a line that must be drawn somewhere at the limits of those resources. How many people can the welfare system support? Prisons are already a huge economic drain. Wars are expensive. Social security costs go up and benefits go down. And then on top of all this, and much more, there are those disabled children that need societies help. Is a person uncompassionate if they choose to save money out of concern for the future of themselves and their family?

Since we cannot choose how money is allocated many people will attempt to vote down any bill that would cost them. They would feel no sense of responsibility for the consequences because the choice of how their money is spent has been taken away from them. Isn't it preferable if responsibility is accepted by, rather than forced upon society? Is an ambiguous health care system really aiding children with disabilities?

When we invest in helping those to help themselves, we actually end up helping society as a whole. The expenses incurred are a necessary evil, if we don't spend the funds to help them, we can overload the welfare system even more. It is easy for one who doesn't have a family member with limitations to scowl at the money being spent on them. Without help and funds, it takes a toll on everyone. If we didn't spend the money on resources for inmates, we might have more criminals out who have never been rehabilitated. This affects everyone in the long run. We can grumble about how money is wasted in our government very easily, this is where we need to correct our money shortage problems first, and then perhaps bearing the financial burden of helping those in our society with limits won't hit our tax pocketbook so hard. Volunteering is also a great way to provide help, it only costs time.

 

[oxdt83]

Your argument is riddled with flaws.

Firstly you tell Kerrie that she cannot argue biological propensity in a philosophical discussion and in the next breath you attempt to use Darwinism to support your argument. This contradicts itself. It also doesn't matter if it's social Darwinism, biological Darwinism or a note from John Darwin down at the local Texaco. Darwin's theories explain evolution and do not create them. By killing a child so that everything is in accordance with Darwin's theories you are being dogmatic. I do not believe that this is what Darwin intended. Probably why you changed your opinion, yet continued to argue the point.

No I wasn't trying to use Darwinism to support my position, I was pointing out that if *you* were going to follow a biologically determined morality then my case was the one you would ultimately have to support. My argument for my position is completely different.

And here you do it again. You make a series off grossly innacurate statements and when I correct you, you tell me that the answer is invalid because I use politics.
These are corrections to your statements. The laws are indeed what give people legal rights. Laws are what society uses to maintain order in society. In this country we elect our leaders to make laws in the best interest of the majority. The ethics of the majority are what determine the laws that we have regarding children's rights.

This is a perfectly valid argument. Philosophy is not restricted to ethics and morals. The origins of science are rooted in philosophy. It wasn't all that long ago that many of the branches of science that we have departmentalized into their own categories were all clumped up into the category of science. Philosophy is most certainly alive and strong in political science.
Yes, these legal rights are expressing societies responsibilities. That's what laws do. And it was political philosophers who designed them to draft the 1989 UN declaration of children's rights.

Look the reason I tried to make the distinction between children's legal rights, and the philosophical interpretation is this. If we (mistakenly, in my view) believe children to have rights, then we assign to them a capacity for understanding their relationship to the world which they do not in fact have. Rather we have responsibilities to children, most conveniently expressed through an extension to our legal rights framework.

And here you dismiss the most important quetion of all.
I have a view with at least one side. Your view has no sides. You provide no evidence whatsoever that a disabled child that is cared for by caring parents will lead a miserable, unfulfilled life. You are making an argument out of nothing.

Again I think there's a failure here to understand the distinction I'm making between the ex post welfare of a disabled person, which may in fact be very high, and the ex ante disadvantage you would impose on someone if you made them disabled. I'll continue this point below.

I don't think I'm missing the point. I just don't agree with you. And this paragraph isn't very clear. Your quetion seems to be asking 'What's the difference between an intentionally braindamaged child and a naturally braindamaged child?' I would say the difference is that one is intentional and one is natural. You say the answer is trauma from abortion when neither of the children in your scenario has been aborted. I'm confused.

Indeed. My point here is that in both cases the braindamage is intentional. My argument runs in two parts. Part one - the newborn baby is just like a foetus, it has no identity, no self-awareness, so "post-natal abortion" is not murder. Normally the child would be protected on the basis of the welfare of the parents, and after a time (let's be generous and say a few weeks) it begins to acquire self-awareness and hence rights of its own. The second part was that knowingly not aborting such a child is directly comparable with taking a healthy newborn and damaging it in the same way. The motivation of the parents isn't relevant - what we're surely concerned about is the welfare of the child. My point here is at this stage this foetuses/newborns are only potential people. There's nothing wrong with aborting and trying again (except the trauma to the parents).

If you're going to deny that, then you'll have to explain to me why it's wrong to poke a newborn's eyes out. I believe that one of the reasons is the effect it would have in disadvantaging the child, but you would seem to believe that the only thing making this an immoral act is the malice of the parents. So a parent who thinks they're doing the right thing by poking their child's eyes out should presumably be allowed to do so.

Hmm, I would say the obvious answer to this would be that if we did not procreate then we would be extinct. People are not only biologically equipped, but biologically driven to procreate. And instead of looking to kill potential in children we should be spending more effort helping the perfectly healthy ones that are abused and are far more likely to lead unhappy lives.

Again - you assume that it would be bad if we went extinct. And then justify that by saying we're biologically driven to procreate. I reiterate - biological propensity is not a replacement for an ethical argument, nor has any ethical system tenably drawn on "the laws of nature".

Again, please provide some evidence that disabled children lead miserable lives and receive nothing in return for their efforts. Your argument relies on it or else your promoting the death of children for no reason and that is despicable.

My argument relies on no such thing. As I said above, we can be presented with a disabled child and ask "can this child lead a happy and fulfilling life?" and the answer may well be yes. And we can take a potential person, and ask "would we rather this person were disabled or not, or are we indifferent?" Now I think it's perfectly natural to prefer that people grow up without disability - and remember - even after the child is born the person doesn't exist yet, only the vessel, just like the foetus, just like the ovum and the sperm. Given our preference to bring people into the world without disability, there is an argument to abort at any of these stages. As I said, there is also a counter-argument, where we weigh up the costs of the disability, against the trauma to the parents of abortion. But it's a genuine point of decision, with two sides to be weighed up.

 

[oxdt83]

On this whole funding issue... Here in the UK the NHS covers everyone for central medical treatment such as this - and the fact we all pay taxes to sustain this system isn't taken to imply any social right to decide on life/death in cases such as the one we are discussing. It's simply an insurance system - everyone pays their taxes knowing they could be anyone else if things had turned out differently for them - so people who are unlucky enough to become disabled or are injured or whatever are always covered. I would never dream of making an economic argument to terminate anyone's life. My argument was based completely on the welfare of the (potential) person in question. In the UK, like most of Western Europe, we've pretty well divorced medical ethics from questions of resource availability, and no successful challenge has been mounted against the "from each according to her ability, to each according to her need" principle, at least in health care.

 

[oxdt83]

Oxdt83, you clearly show a lack of compassion-regardless of whether I agree with you or not.

The reason I object to you saying things like "you lack compassion" to me is that you make an assertion about my character, just because I have come to a different conclusion about this issue from you. You have to accept that people who regard themselves as just as compassionate and caring as you do have different views, and accusing them of having those views simply because they're bad people shows a lack of respect for their different point of view.

"I myself would never want to live like that, thus no one would, therefore those people should be allowed to die".

No no, again, crucial misunderstanding. It's a question about whether we want to introduce people into the world as disadvantaged people. My argument has nothing to say about the value of the lives of already-existing disabled people, or whether their lives are worth living. I think I've already expanded on this in my reply to Huckleberry.

there is no excuse today to allow a child with potential to die because you have the opinion they wouldn't lead the sort of life YOU think is quality.

If we're going down the road of arguing that we shouldn't allow any potential life to be lost, then we're going down the Catholic route of banning contraception, masturbation, and at the extreme you're telling women from the beginning of menstruation that they must be always impregnated. Just a second's reflection surely makes it clear this sort of path is pure madness - overpopulation, sexually transmitted diseases, the supression of women, sexual violence, the rest of it.

As I stated before, abortion is always the option for the mother unwilling to take on the responsibility, but she has just a few months to make that decision, after that, she is choosing RESPONSIBILITY of some degree-whether to raise the special needs child, or to give up for adoption so that another willing to take on the responsibility will do so.

But my argument is that, in all cases, there's really no reason abortion shouldn't be a legitimate course of action until a few weeks after birth. Clearly this is out of line with reality, and moral consensus, but I want people to think about why the status quo is superior. I don't think it is.

Stephen Hawking is a reminder of why our physical limitations shouldn't prevent us from being all we can be.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/disable/dindex.html

And here you do use my language - limitation or disadvantage - call it what you will, it by no means invalidates anyone's life, but given the choice, they'd rather be without it I'm sure.

 

[Huckleberry]

oxdt83, I have read your post and find no new argument in it. In order to argue it I would be saying the same things I have already said. That is fruitless. I'm going to ignore your post, atleast until you have some sort of evidence.

You keep on insisting that sperm and ovum are potential people. They are not. A sperm will never form into a human. Neither will an ovum. Not until the two share genetic information will a fetus develop. Even this is a topic that you have brought up before, but has gone unanswered.

Again, please provide some evidence that disabled children lead miserable lives and receive nothing in return for their efforts. Your argument relies on it or else your promoting the death of children for no reason and that is despicable.

My argument relies on no such thing. ...

 

[oxdt83]

oxdt83, I have read your post and find no new argument in it. In order to argue it I would be saying the same things I have already said. That is fruitless. I'm going to ignore your post, atleast until you have some sort of evidence.

No there is no new argument, I'm trying to make things clearer because you continue not to understand my argument. I'm trying to point out clearly where our assumptions diverge (or possible points of divergence) so you can make a clearer critique. And what evidence do you demand? That disabled people have bad lives. As I've made clear, my argument doesn't rest on any such assertion. I'm not going to bother reiterating any more, you can read up.

You keep on insisting that sperm and ovum are potential people. They are not. A sperm will never form into a human. Neither will an ovum. Not until the two share genetic information will a fetus develop. Even this is a topic that you have brought up before, but has gone unanswered.

Again you need to think more carefully about these arguments. OK, the development of an ovum or a sperm into a human is contingent on them meeting a sperm/ovum. But you can't argue that the fact a foetus/newborn "left to its own devices" will develop into a person is a valid point of distinction. For one thing, using viability as a criterion is strongly in tension with the rest of your argument about disabled people. Secondly, the development of both is still contingent on a lot more external intervention - the decision of the mother not to abort, and then the years of care required by the child. Again you seem to be appealing to the "natural course of events".

 

[Tinkstar]

The decision is made, please lay off.


This is a truly sad thing, ie: a child being born an by the age of two suffering so much, only to suffer what is likely to be a lot lot more throughout her life, I wouldn't wish it on anyone*.

The thing is, it is terrible that these things happen, but they do, and this did.
THis little girl is hanging on, and that how it is, her family chose life, and that was their decision, and they made it.

There is no need to further debate the issue, this is how it is.
This is a little girl. She is going to grow up. She has a loving family. She is going have hard times, much harder than most pehaps, but they are hers to have.

If I was a parent and found out my baby girl were in that situation, I don't know what I would do. I don't know what decision I would make, or even if I could decide.

Current laws obviously stipulate that it is the parents decision. Her parents made the decision. Thats just how it is. It is unfair to go around saying they made the wrong one, none of us can possibly no what they went through; what they are still going through.

This little girl has apparently normal intelligence. She will grow up. She will know about this debate, that people believe her parents should have let her die. I would not wish THAT on anyone, especially not on top of the other struggles she has to face.



*Well, there are a couple of people, but we won't go into that.

 

[gravenewworld]

If you want to see suffering look up pics of Harlequin babies. God I feel sorry for them. Don't look at this site if you have a weak stomach.
http://asylumeclectica.com/malady/archives/harlequin.htm
And yes, those babies are still alive when they are born.

 

[Kerrie]

If you want to see suffering look up pics of Harlequin babies. God I feel sorry for them. Don't look at this site if you have a weak stomach.
http://asylumeclectica.com/malady/archives/harlequin.htm
And yes, those babies are still alive when they are born.

Taken from the site:

As you've seen, this is a truly horrific malady... and the babies are fortunate to not survive the pain and suffering that such a disorder would doubtlessly bring throughout their tragic lives.

This is truly sad. These children are definitely in pain because of their condition. I think with the Treacher Collins Syndrome though, the real pain is emotional because of what society imposes on them. That is the real point of this discussion. When society imposes the opinion that a condition such as TCS is ugly and unbearable, those with TCS would have to be pretty strong inside to ignore this and still deal with their limitations.

 

[Esnas]

The question as to what becomes of babies born with severe physical and/or mental aberrations depends on (1) the severity of the aberration, (2) the amount of money and resources available to support such babies and (3) how much people with the necessary resources identify with the unfortunate baby. How many of these babies would even a privileged and wealthy country like the U.S. support if the cost were 20 million dollars a year per baby? I think that social compassion would eventually be inversely proportional to cost. Also, there are still many birth deformities every day in countries that were exposed to “agent orange” or depleted uranium (just to mention a couple of well known substances deliberately used). Why is there little talk of compassion for them? Who would pay the cost of treatment and long-term support?

 

[alison]

We have just had the documentary 'born without a face' in New Zealand. It is horrific and the shorts of the documentary made it seem really scary.
When we saw the documentary what we saw was a precious little girl, with gross facial deformities, needing constant love and support, and will do for a very long time. Her parents deserve and angel award or something because there are people who would have just abandoned her. They are very special people and Juliana is here for a special reason that's what I am thinking. With all the pain and suffering from a very early age she will be wiser beyond her years.
I would like to see what kind of adult Juliana turns into. I bet it will be a very special one.

 

[DaveC426913]

Anyone who wants to know if it is "worth it" to save the life of someone who requires heroic efforts of medical intervention should talk to the families of those who have gone through with it.

Just yesterday I came from the 15th birthday party of my nephew who requires such intervention.

He has been my nephew for fifteen years. Would I erase those fifteen years if I could? What if I had had been asked that 15 years ago? If his parents had made the decision 15 years ago that it was too much to handle, none of us would ever have known him.

You see, disabled people are not defined by their disabilities. They are people, first. As such, they have the potential to be as loving, and loved and as big a contributor to society as anyone else.


This baby is not missing her heart, or any other part of her that is capable of loving or being loved, or bringing joy into the hearts of her parents, or for all that matter, contributing to society.

 

[arildno]

Anyone who wants to know if it is "worth it" to save the life of someone who requires heroic efforts of medical intervention should talk to the families of those who have gone through with it.

Just yesterday I came from the 15th birthday party of my nephew who requires such intervention.

He has been my nephew for fifteen years. Would I erase those fifteen years if I could? What if I had had been asked that 15 years ago? If his parents had made the decision 15 years ago that it was too much to handle, none of us would ever have known him.

You see, disabled people are not defined by their disabilities. They are people, first. As such, they have the potential to be as loving, and loved and as big a contributor to society as anyone else.


This baby is not missing her heart, or any other part of her that is capable of loving or being loved, or bringing joy into the hearts of her parents, or for all that matter, contributing to society.

Quite so.
But do I as an outsider, as part of the society surrounding your family, have any right to say that your family were obliged to make the decision you ended up with reaching?

Should not this be a decision of your family (rather than the decision of sombody not related to you), and if you had ended up with making the opposite decision should have been met with compassion, rather than vilification?

Isn't the main trouble here that those parents who do choose to care for their "disabled" child are not adequately recognized of having reached a decision we all should regard as, yes, heroic, i.e, doing (far) more than we as outsiders have any right of demanding of them?



And, to add, nor will I be part of a society which thinks it has the right to tell your family that you made the wrong decision by keeping your nephew alive.

 

[EnumaElish]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-12-14-baby-no-face_x.htm Very sad.

Why did I post this in philosophy? Here's why: This girl apparently has a normal brain, but is in for a really rough life. Will she ever eat normally? Will she ever breathe normally? Perhaps the doctors don't even know yet.

My question: should the doctors/parents have just let her die?

In this specific instance I tend to agree with Kerrie and Huckleberry. I would go as far as to say that in this instance the usual reaction "this is a tough choice" is sentimantalist and logically fallacious. Why? Because the child was born with this condition. She has no experience of anything better.

The original post is similar to asking "should each human commit suicide upon reaching 30 years of age, given that they will have to suffer a slow death spread over the rest of their natural lives and probably go through several surgeries which can be quite painful and costly, especially toward the end?"

I guess the child can imagine a life without surgery, but she wouldn't opt for the suicide option, any more than each of the "normal" people would for the reason that they cannot live like their favorite Greek deity and have to suffer a laborous, painful human life.