Euthanasia discussion
in Epiphanies
This discussion was created from comments split from: Abortion.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Downs sufferers are no more a "group of people" than are paraplegics who've lost the use of their legs following road accidents and I assume you're not against measures to prevent road accidents on the grounds that it will lead to fewer paraplegics.
Attempting to eliminate debilitating and life-long medical conditions from society is a good and noble thing to do. Yes, it uses similar tools to those that are used in eugenics, but its aim is a million miles away from attempting to create a race of blond Übermenschen.
Most folk with Down's aren't "sufferers" any more than anyone else. They may suffer from how others treat them. Can you not see a distinction between trying to prevent an individual having a condition and killing that individual to replace them with another? I don't think anyone would complain if you could make Down's less likely to occur, but that's not what we're talking about.
My view, fwiw, is that that a fertilised egg has potential to become a human being, a potential that increases in ?strength? the longer it continues. I’d want a much better reason to abort a pregnancy at eight months than one - and indeed late abortions are rare and I think that reflects most people’s default moral understanding.
But I do not think that, this child will have a survivable congenital disability Means their potential life would not be worth living.
I also think this a moral question that can’t be usefully regulated by legislation.
@Colin Smith some people with Downs Syndrome get university degrees - are they good enough for you ?
I don't regard any foetus or embryo as human, let alone an individual
Indeed, that is the nub of it. But regardless of what other people's morality might be, the only person whose morality is applicable to the situation is the woman who is carrying the foetus/embryo. In essence, then, I agree with you that this a moral question that can’t be usefully regulated by legislation but argue that it must be the individual's choice.
That some people with Downs get university degrees is besides the point. The question is whether anyone has a right to impose a Down's sufferer on parents who would rather have a fully healthy child.
I said fully healthy. Fully functioning on a physical and cognitive level. If Downs sufferers were fully healthy then they would require no more care than those born with green eyes or red hair and would be as capable as the average fully-healthy individual.
But if the lack of legs was diagnosed during pregnancy would you support someone who chose to abort?
The point is an embryo of foetus is not a person so how we deal with a foetus or embryo with a condition is completely different from how we deal with a person with the same condition.
You may disagree with my position but that disagreement is irrelevant because abortion is about freedom of choice and the choice they make is based on a person's individual circumstances and individual values.
What make that a problem is societal framework.
Being in a wheelchair is a disability. What it needn't be is perceived as lesser.
I like the presenters² on The Last Leg. They do not pretend that they are not disabled or that it does not affect their lives, but they also do not let that inhibit who they are.¹ Society doesn't need to pretend that people don't have disabilities, but decide that doesn't make people less valued.
¹Granted, they are privileged by wealth and fame.
²Especially poor Josh. Imagine being born a ginger!
That said, choosing to terminate based on imperfections is eugenics.
The other factors, such as ability to cope, change how this applies in individual cases.
The difference is in the perception of the individual. For someone born able who loses their legs, a wheelchair feels ‘disabling’ because they knew what life was like before. To someone born without legs, a wheelchair can feel hugely enabling because it gives them movement and freedom that they’ve never known before.
If you’ve never had legs, you can’t miss ‘em. Many people born with impairments don’t feel disabled because they’ve never known what it’s like to be ‘able’. But they do feel disabled by society because of lack of opportunity, prejudice, and infrastructure that doesn’t support them through lack of thought or awareness.
I don’t have wings, I can’t fly. It’d be cool if I could fly, but I don’t miss having wings, because I’ve never had any, and society isn’t structured so that wings are necessary for everyday life.
The patronising response from ‘able’ people is to tell them that they should feel disabled, that they’re missing out, that they should feel less of a human because of their lack of leg use, or their autism, or their learning difficulty, or their Down’s syndrome.
The enlightened response is to listen and digest, and to learn that there is more to life and existence than having arms, or legs, or only two #21 chromosomes - and to realise that by having unique experiences and insights, those with disabilities can actually bring something unique to society and teach us more about being human. So rather than looking to eradicate those people from society, we should be treasuring, supporting and learning from them.
Second time at the very least since I used it in my previous host post. The phrase "people with Downs syndrome" would be fine regardless of your views, which are entirely irrelevant to what term you use. If you have more discussion of this, take it to the Styx please.
Ah. I did not see your previous comment.
Yeah, it’s not a perfect model, and should really be used alongside the medical model, not in its place.
But it has an important role in challenging the paradigms of people who have never lived with a disability, and not considered the world from the perspective of people with different abilities than themselves.
Support from society make things better, but it doesn't change abilities. Re-framing it as society making the disability doesn't change anything. Educating society to change itself so that able ≠ valuable, does.
I have a friend who lost the use of his legs due to a motorcycle accident when he was 20. (In his words, "I was a young idiot".) I can promise you that it's not his wheelchair that he finds disabling - it's the fact that he can't move his legs.
With his wheelchair, his adapted car, and reasonable accommodations from his employer (a lower workbench, no stairs), he leads a full, happy, normal life. He'd still rather be able to walk, though.
Another friend is colourblind, and, as you would expect, has been from birth. On the scale of disabilities, colourblindness is pretty mild, and everyone forgets about it until someone's giving a presentation and starts talking about "the red curve" and he interrupts to ask which of the curves displayed is the red one. It doesn't impair his life significantly, but in his words "of course it's a bloody disability - I can distinguish fewer colours than normal people". If it could be fixed, so he had normal vision, he'd fix it. He doesn't see colourblindness as part of his identity at all.
Autism, I think, is very different, because being autistic is a fundamental part of an autistic person's personality. It's not surprising that most autistic people don't want to be "cured", because that would make them into a completely different person - whereas you could "cure" my colourblind friend, and he'd be exactly the same person, with better vision.
For example, talking to a friend who’s never had the use of his legs, his experience is that able-bodied people often make out that he should feel worse about it than he does, that he must feel really sad all the time that he can’t walk. Whereas, his response is more ‘meh, legs would be nice, as wings would be nice, sure.’
But anyway, I’ve spoken for people with disabilities enough. They don’t need me to speak for them other than to stand up for them when necessary. Better to hear their voices than mine.
Why? Why should people with Downs Syndrome not exist?!
Because in my view people are better off not having Downs Syndrome and it can be eliminated at no moral or practical cost by aborting fetuses that test positive for it.
I'm not employing logic. I am employing pragmatism.
I also have a problem with the Social Model of Disability and I have to teach it on a health theory module. A critical realist approach (as suggested by many disabled academics such as Tom Shakespeare) is better, IMO, as it recognises that impairment is a real lived experience which disables people alongside the disabling societal barriers. The social model was also written with wheelchair users in mind and doesn’t fit in well with other disabilities, including mental health challenges and chronic ill health. As someone with a disability, the social model has always annoyed me, I find it disempowering to move all the emphasis on to society and away from disabled people. I’m currently exploring the emancipatory model of disability as part of my research into the experiences of students with mental health challenges.
On the subject of foetal testing for Downs, I also refused the tests and explained there was no point as I wouldn’t be having an abortion. But I didn’t experience any conflict with my midwife over this, she just made sure I knew what the test was about and she accepted my decision without my feeling under any pressure. I did get the impression I was unusual though.
Down’s is more prevalent the older you get, which means there are very real practical costs and considerations, especially for women who have struggled to conceive for years and may struggle to ever get pregnant again (and will also be that little bit older again if they do). And given that women are on average having children later in life, these are not uncommon considerations.
However, pragmatism as an evaluative path to a decision does use logic.*
*a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:
Yes, pragmatism requires some sort of logic. However, pragmatism is essentially self-serving, as in what is convenient for me, how do I wish the world to be, and so on, therefore the logical element is curtailed. Further, because the nature of what serves my interests and convenience is somewhat varied the logic employed in the services of one particular instance might be at odds with the logic employed in another. The only thing that must be consistent is that my self-interest and convenience are always met.
And I am saying that slightly tongue in cheek even if it is essentially how I live my life.
Logic by itself is much more open-ended and has a habit of biting the person using it.
In your opinion. You're defining personhood to facilitate your desire to eliminate people with Down's syndrome.
Everything on this thread is a matter of opinion. And yes, that a foetus is not a person is my opinion and it's based on sound reasoning. Further, given that abortion is a matter of choice I'm not sure how the decision to abort or not abort can be made outside of the relevant person's opinion.
And I'm not defining personhood to facilitate the elimination of Down's Syndrome. My definition makes perfect rational sense to me and if it helps facilitate guilt-free abortion on demand then great.
My point is that regardless of whether anyone approves, disapproves, or loathes my position, a pregnant woman who wants an abortion has the right to make her choice based on whatever position she chooses.
Are you talking about a moral or a legal right?
Perhaps you could share your reasoning on personhood, as bald assertion is not particularly conducive to discussion. To my mind it seems reasonable to say that the ball of cells at 3 weeks gestation is not a person, but equally reasonable that at 39 weeks the being in the womb is a person as, in almost all respects, they're the same as they would be if they'd been birthed 12 hours previously.
Moral and legal: her body, her choice. It's quite possible that the woman may at some point regret having an abortion and may even suffer some form of psychological damage from her choice and that must be made clear to her at the time of the abortion. Bit imo, what is done to the embryo/foetus is of no more moral significance than what is done to a tumour.
Personhood. Okay, I think I have stated this elsewhere but here goes.
A person is someone with memories, experiences, wit, empathy, imagination, personality, and so on. In other words they have, albeit in young children only in rudimentary form, those attributes which we ascribe to humans. In fact, imo to be human is to be a person.
Now, from that it's clear that, imo, a new-born is also not human, however my position has no practical relevance because an embryo that has reached that stage is wanted by its parents and they are willing to nurture it until it becomes a person.
It's also clear that I do not regard an adult who is in a persistent vegetative state or has advanced dementia as a person. I'm fine with that. My mother 'died' in 2013 when Alzheimer's robbed her of her identity and memories. Her body took another seven years to die but she was already dead inside.
A while back this appeared to be @Colin Smith 's position when discussing my grandson's situation on another thread. Little Beaky was a child who sustained catastrophic brain damage due to mistakes made during his birth, thereby leaving him severely disabled. Knowing that he could not stay in NICU forever, his parents eventually decided to do what the hospital suggested about "letting nature take its course" and said their goodbyes but he did not die when taken off the life support machines and they then began the long journey of caring for him. They believe he is a person but as far as I recall Colin Smith would suggest otherwise.
One of many observations I could make about Little Beaky would be that he is greatly loved and gives back love to all those who choose to engage with him.
I would support the right of the parents to make that decision. Supporting someone's right to make a decision is not the same as supporting the decision they make.
It's still the case that I would not regard "Little Beaky" as a person but as I have said repeatedly, people are free to make choices based on their values and degree of commitment.
Your last comment could be said of a pet cat or dog and we do not regard cats and dogs as people.
Not at all. I've rescued animals that were in need so why would I expect anyone to not rescue a baby?
At what point does this supposed right expire?
I don't know is the simple answer. Taking each case by itself is probably the sensible answer.
I don't see why I should have to come to a logical position that covers all eventualities when, here at least, the belief that human life is 'special' compared to the life of other animals and human life begins in the womb is illogical.
@Colin Smith You mention choice but I don't see how it applies here.
What choice was available other other than to love and care for a child who did not die as expected? Or are you suggesting that active measures should be taken in these situations to kill full-term children unexpectedly born with/ acquiring disabilities?
What's illogical about human life beginning in the womb?
I am indeed suggesting that active methods should be available to those parents who do not wish to raise a child unexpectedly born with/ acquiring disabilities. I am not saying they should use them, I'm saying they should be available. Not everyone wants to make the choice you did.
I've already stated my position on what constitutes human life.
To be human is to be a person: the two are inseparable.
I prefer to look at the abortion debate as an argument over who has the power to make life and death decisions in our society. We have given our leaders the authority to kill literally thousands of persons to gain land and resources. We give police the power to kill innocent persons with impunity. Numerically, the persons with life-and-death power over other persons in our society are usually men; the institutions of power are dominated by men. That is the context in which we are debating the morality of an individual woman making a life and death decision about her own body.
It sure seems like the morality of killing persons depends on who is doing the killing, and for what reasons. So it's strategic to kill thousands of Iraqis to control oil supply, but it's immoral for a woman to weigh up the impact of another child on her family, added expenses and responsibilities, lost income, health risks, etc. and choose to terminate a pregnancy.
@Colin Smith the only choice I have made is to support my daughter in what life has thrown at her. This child is now a much loved member of our family but the decision was as you say quite rightly for the parents. Please do not attribute things to me which I have not attributed to myself.
Apologies. I did not intend to attribute anything to you. I understood you to be opposed to (as in would seek to prevent) any parent choosing to terminate a full-term child unexpectedly born with/ acquiring disabilities. If that is not the case then we agree that any decision after the birth is solely that of the parents.
I don't think the word "terminate" is used about children who are born alive. There are I know clear guidelines about what is allowed ethically/ medically at this point. You are right to deduce that I would not make that choice myself but I find it interesting and concerning that you had concluded that I would seek to impose my views on someone else.
What I would and have tried to do in situations of unwanted pregnancy or traumatic births is to act with compassion and kindness towards the people involved.
As, I said, apologies for misunderstanding. It was your comment "You mention choice but I don't see how it applies here. What choice was available other other than to love and care for a child who did not die as expected? " that led me to believe you did not think any other choice could be made in the circumstances. I now see that you were speaking for yourself rather than stating a position that should apply to everyone.
I agree "terminate" was the wrong word. I should have said euthanase.