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

[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.