Alfie Evans, right to life or needless suffering?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by SireofSuns, Apr 24, 2018.

  1. Varthas

    Varthas The King of Potatoes

    Sure, but you can lead a horse to better drinking waters, and you can lead the horse to a better playing field.

    Wich would increase the horse`s quality of life, then you perhaps could reach a point where the horse didn`t need sheperding 7 days a week, but it became a more healthy and independent horse who maybe could reach a point of good health where it could be put to use.
     
  2. nepyonisdead

    nepyonisdead I need me some PIE!

    there was a story a while back about a girl who had condition that left her blind , deaf , paralysed and unable to speak. Her parents refused to give up on her so she was allowed to live, the ethical dilemma happened when the parents wanted to give her anti hormonal medication to stop her growing and essentially make taking care of her easier for them on a daily basis.

    I think parents are allowed to want the best for their kids but a line has to be drawn somewhere and I have to agree with davre's opinion. Imagine if someone asked you whether ud want to be in that position and left alive?

    and going on a bit of a tangent but the above makes me wander why do people want to live till they are 90 and more, after a certain age you'd hate life because you can't do the same things that made life worth living.
     
  3. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    nepyonisdead likes this.
  4. nepyonisdead

    nepyonisdead I need me some PIE!

    "These are old people who may have health problems, but none of them are life-threatening. They're old, they can't get around, their friends are dead and their children don't visit anymore," he said. "This kind of trend cries out for a discussion. Do we think their lives are still worthwhile?"

    this stood out to me, because the ''we'' is the reason a lot of ethical dilemmas happen in the first place, who has the right to tell a person who is suffering with his own life that he should carry on because ''his number isn't up yet''. The problem with the vast majority of countries ((and Ireland specifically)) is that a lot of laws from abortion to gay rights to euthanasia are based on old school religion driven laws and that would be the biggest obstacle in the way.

    Also one final note on the Alfie case, medical law dictates that a patient has a right to refuse treatment but doesn't have the right to ''demand'' treatment, thats why DNR is made without the consent of the parents / family because you are withholding treatment ((resuscitation)) and they can't ''force'' you to administer it, Couple that with 2 main ethics principles (do no harm and act in the patients interest) he was never gonna be ethically resuscitated. So it wasn't a story of barbarian doctors but rather doctors who followed the law to the letter ((rightly so in my opinion)) and parents who couldn't accept their loss at the time ((they were well within their rights ofc)). This is just the practical breakdown of what went on during that decision making process
     
    Geressen likes this.
  5. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    yeah the tone of the article is a bit alarmist but the numbers are correct.
    I forgive american and english news sources for slanting things into their particular viewpoint.

    the important part is that because it has become accepted people are less scared to ask for it, and doctors are more likely to consider the request as a valid choice for the patient to make.
     
    nepyonisdead likes this.
  6. SireofSuns

    SireofSuns I need me some PIE!

    Define "suffering".

    I misspoke. Perhaps a better way to say it would be to say "saving what remains of their life."

    The line between trying to prolong life vs cut it short? I thought that was already pretty well defined.

    They went there and agreed that there was no hope of preventing the child's death. They still wanted to continue giving him palliative care.

    I think you misunderstand my position.
    In general, I would prefer it if the parents were relied on more than the government for making decisions regarding their children, because parents (or close guardians) are historically more likely to make better decisions for their children than anyone else.

    However, I believe that the government should never be allowed to decide when someone's life needs to be ended. I also believe that the government should not be able to prevent others from trying to save lives, assuming that the act of saving life does not require the sacrifice of a greater number of lives.

    I do believe that the government should do what it can to help protect and save life. However, in general, I prefer other non-government organizations to do so instead.

    In regards to the other things you mentioned, and really as a response to all of the things you mentioned, refer to the hyppocratic oath. I base pretty much all of how I believe medical professionals (and others) should behave based on that (in regards to the care taking of life).
     
  7. davre

    davre The Benevolent Technofascist

    This is a very contestable point, consider using a reference here if you want anybody to take your argument seriously.
     
  8. SireofSuns

    SireofSuns I need me some PIE!

    Almost any medical journal, comment, or analysis of why parents are relied on and deferred to the majority of the time when it comes to medical treatment of their children?
    Here's a random link: https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/parent.html
     
  9. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    we've established this wasnt about saving a life, that is impossible. are we talking human lives or lives in general? if they didn't want the goverment involve why fight the hospital on the decision? seems weird to get courts involved if you do not want the goverment to adjucate.
     
  10. davre

    davre The Benevolent Technofascist

    That link does not have any evidence that :

    "parents (or close guardians) are historically more likely to make better decisions for their children than anyone else."

    It has a generalized statement that they are deferred to because they know the subject better than others. In the case of a baby with no brain (and therefore no personality that one can know better than others) that has spent its entire life in a hospital, that rationale does not hold up at all.

    If almost any medical journal will back up your statement with evidence, it should be easy for you to find such evidence and present it here. Or else you might as well refer to "common sense" in your arguments.

    Here is an article that provides evidence contradicting your statement that "parents (or close guardians) are historically more likely to make better decisions for their children than anyone else." The practice (and outcomes) in this article has been happening for centuries.

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/us/family-farms-child-workers.html
     
  11. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    There is a reason why in many cases we have people recuse themselves voluntarily, or are required to by law, when they have to make important decisions regarding things or people they have close ties to.

    It's not because we want WORSE outcomes. It's because we recognize that emotional investment often makes us less objective.
     

Share This Page