NationStates Jolt Archive

Baby K Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K)

Anencephalic Infants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly)

In the case of Baby K, the situation was that the hospitals saw the treatment for an anencephalic infant was futile since most of them are either stillborns, or they only live for a few hours to days after birth. These are infants with no cerebrum, just the brain steam.

Should the hospitals continue treatment for Baby K even though the infant wasn't going to live for very long? Did the courts make the right ruling in regard to what hospitals are required to do in the care of anencephalic infants? Finally, was the mother acting in the best interest of the child?

I will be honest, my personal view is that abortion is murder, even though the government has no right to tell a woman that she can't get an abortion. However, when it comes to anencephalic infants, I think about the quality of the life that child is going to have. Brain steam, all they do is keep your heart going, and breathing rate. This is a blind, deaf, unconscious child that feels no pain. I really don't see any point for these children to be carried to term other than to give parents some kind of comfort of being able to see the baby for awhile until it passes away.

As for Baby K, honestly I think the hospitals should've taken the usual route it does with Anencephalic infants, which is offer hydration, nutrition and comfort measures, even though I respect the courts for upholding the law at the time, they could've at least rewarded custody to someone who isn't so emotionally involved. As for the mother herself, honestly this is where I disagree with religion completely. The quality of life should matter more than the fact that it's "a life". I mean Terri Schiavo was "alive" but her cerebral has been turned to mush, there's nothing there. Sometimes it's more humane to let babies, or people in persistent vegetative state pass away than to keep them alive for some emotional or sentimental reasons.

Anencephaly should always be treated by abortion. Anencephalic infants will never achieve consciousness, so any treatment - including delivering it - is unnecessary and wasteful.

The mother in this case is a hypocrite. She believed that god should decide how long it would live - and yet she accrued many thousands of dollars of medical expenses to 'treat' the 'condition'.

from wiki: baby k
"As the irreversibility of anencephaly is highly accepted in the medical community, he argued that the decision to continue futile care only resulted in irresponsible diverting of medical resources..."

Oh wow. The irreversibility of anencephaly just "highly accepted". :eek2: I guess this means that there's a 1% chance at least to regrow a brain. There is still some hope for the Shrub then.

By the way: an anencephalic baby is not a living human being. It is a human body lacking a human brain... hence without a human mind.

The mother in this case is a hypocrite. She believed that god should decide how long it would live - and yet she accrued many thousands of dollars of medical expenses to 'treat' the 'condition'.

I agree with doing this. If the mother knows the child is coming with a condition that will impare him/her from having a normal life, with normal opportunities, with independency, ending the pregnancy is the best choice. But, many people will accuse her of having strong eugenic tendencies. I still would do it if that were my case.

What a waste of medical resources. The same resources could be used on an infant who may be premature but has a hell of a chance that Baby K doesn't.

We should research and find a way to keep the infant alive until adulthood. Then we can use them for transplant organs.

We should research and find a way to keep the infant alive until adulthood. Then we can use them for transplant organs.

That's a horrible idea. You're calling for experimenting on a being that cannot give you consent.

Anencephaly should always be treated by abortion. Anencephalic infants will never achieve consciousness, so any treatment - including delivering it - is unnecessary and wasteful.

Yep.

Related side note:

I took a neuroanatomy class in the medical school at my university, and one of the sections of the course was on anencephaly and other catastrophic fetal malformations. During this unit I was seated next to a fellow PhD student, a friend of mine. Who was 6 months pregnant.

Honestly one of the most horrible, depressing, and uncomfortable two-hour periods in my entire life.


The mother in this case is a hypocrite. She believed that god should decide how long it would live - and yet she accrued many thousands of dollars of medical expenses to 'treat' the 'condition'.
I cannot agree more.

I see this routinely. Religious individuals make some bullshit claim about how it is "in God's hands," while they demand that medical professionals and medical technologies be employed to care for their loved one. And if, through some great fortune, the loved one does pull through, the credit is ALWAYS given to God. Not to the men and women who actually saved a life. It's one of the most revolting behaviors I can think of.

That's a horrible idea. You're calling for experimenting on a being that cannot give you consent.
To be fair, an anencephalic infant is not a being.

That's a horrible idea. You're calling for experimenting on a being that cannot give you consent.

As opposed to aborting it?
Look the purpose is to save lives, we have a shortage of organs in this world do we not.
Here we have a being that is not a consciousness but has organs to keep functioning members of our society alive.
Seems immoral to waste such good material.

The baby's mother was apparently aware of her condition prior to her birth, but chose to carry the child to term because of "a firm Christian faith that all life should be protected".
Anyone who expresses such a position should have a mandatory DNR applied to any of their newborns with serious defects. The only way to teach sense to some people is force.

Fairfax Hospital doctors strongly advised a Do Not Resuscitate order for the child, which the mother refused.
Hypocrite.

As opposed to aborting it?
Look the purpose is to save lives, we have a shortage of organs in this world do we not.

It's better aborting the child. The stem cells would be put to better use than having an ancephalic child strapped to machines to harvest it like we harvest corn.

I can understand people wishing to save lives. But there's a place where one needs to draw the line.

Here we have a being that is not a consciousness but has organs to keep functioning members of our society alive.
Seems immoral to waste such good material.

This being (for lack of a better word, Bottle:wink:) is not a source of 'material', Greed. I know he/she lacks a brain, but was intended to be a human being.

It's better aborting the child. The stem cells would be put to better use than having an ancephalic child strapped to machines to harvest it like we harvest corn.

I can understand people wishing to save lives. But there's a place where one needs to draw the line.

There should easily be enough stem cells from those choosing to abort. and easily there could be a profession of women made who are paid to carry and give birth to artificially induced baby K's.
Stem Cells are nice but we also need organs.



This being (for lack of a better word, Bottle:wink) is not a source of 'material', Greed. I know he/she lacks a brain, but was intended to be a human being.
But it is not a human being, that said it belongs to society and serves to benefit society.

Anyone who expresses such a position should have a mandatory DNR applied to any of their newborns with serious defects. The only way to teach sense to some people is force.


Hypocrite.

My mother is in no way religious or even particularly superstitious but she held on so that I wouldn't be born on Friday 13th, I was therefore born just after midnight on Saturday 14th, personally I'd have preferred the 13th, I think I could get away with a lot more if I could swing a decision on that excuse.

Point being that mothers will go beyond sanity in order to save a child, before you understand that you should refrain from calling her a hypocrite.

To be fair, it should be a legal procedure, that where a foetus is so screwed it's a legal procedure to abort it, move the debate the other way if nothing else, so often legality on this issue always seems to be about limiting abortion, I digress, essentially it would take the responsibility off everyone.

But it is not a human being, that said it belongs to society and serves to benefit society.
Um...no?

If anything, it belongs to the woman who made it. Her body provided every process and raw material needed to build that infant. It is her property, not "society's" property.

Um...no?

If anything, it belongs to the woman who made it. Her body provided every process and raw material needed to build that infant. It is her property, not "society's" property.

Kids do not belong to their parents. They are free and separate beings. Those who are mentally unfit to take care of themselves are wards of the state, though the state may Delgado custody to a biological parent that is not a requirement.

There should easily be enough stem cells from those choosing to abort. and easily there could be a profession of women made who are paid to carry and give birth to artificially induced baby K's.
Stem Cells are nice but we also need organs.

Your idea chills me more than anything I have ever read on the internet. And I am a firm believer in pro-choice, which some people find disturbing enough.

But it is not a human being, that said it belongs to society and serves to benefit society.

We aren't anyone's property, not even society's. If anything, this child belongs to the mother.

Kids do not belong to their parents. They are free and separate beings. Those who are mentally unfit to take care of themselves are wards of the state, though the state may Delgado custody to a biological parent that is not a requirement.
Now you're just contradicting yourself.

It's not a "kid," remember?

And if it WERE a kid, then it most definitely would not be the property of society. At worst it might be placed in the custody of the state, but the state still would NEVER have the option of using the child's body for medical experimentation.

So you're wrong either way on this one.

To be fair, an anencephalic infant is not a being.
To nit-pick, it's not a sentient being, but it's a being in the same way a dandelion is, for example.

Now you're just contradicting yourself.

It's not a "kid," remember?

And if it WERE a kid, then it most definitely would not be the property of society. At worst it might be placed in the custody of the state, but the state still would NEVER have the option of using the child's body for medical experimentation.

So you're wrong either way on this one.

It isn't a kid i was using the example of current laws in regards to all Incompetence.
No one is suggesting doing such to any but the baby K cases. We could even induce this condition to harvest the organs and compensate the women for bearing them to term.

It isn't a kid i was using the example of current laws in regards to all Incompetence.
No one is suggesting doing such to any but the baby K cases. We could even induce this condition to harvest the organs and compensate the women for bearing them to term.

I doubt pregnancy would meet OSHA standards. ;)

I doubt pregnancy would meet OSHA standards. ;)

We can adjust those accordingly.

It isn't a kid i was using the example of current laws in regards to all Incompetence.
No one is suggesting doing such to any but the baby K cases. We could even induce this condition to harvest the organs and compensate the women for bearing them to term.
Now THAT is the most horrendous thing I've heard. Knowingly inflict this so we can disassemble "parts"?

Now THAT is the most horrendous thing I've heard. Knowingly inflict this so we can disassemble "parts"?

the pregnancy is knowingly begun this way. So it never feels pain or even knows what pain is.

We could even induce this condition to harvest the organs and compensate the women for bearing them to term.
Harvesting the organs, tissue, etc., from anencephalic infants to help other infants seems (with the consent of the parents) perfectly reasonable, but inducing the condition is out of the question.

the pregnancy is knowingly begun this way. So it never feels pain or even knows what pain is.

What about side-effects? I can't be easy to inhibit fetal cerebral development. I don't think they get 'Dancing With The Stars' in there. :p

What about side-effects? I can't be easy to inhibit fetal cerebral development. I don't think they get 'Dancing With The Stars' in there. :p

That's why there is compensation and consent in the procedure.

the pregnancy is knowingly begun this way. So it never feels pain or even knows what pain is.
If this would be all in aid of producing organs, I think the more ethical route would be to put our efforts into growing said organs in a lab.

If this would be all in aid of producing organs, I think the more ethical route would be to put our efforts into growing said organs in a lab.

In due time we should. Using what nature has given us looks more clearly with in our reach at current.

In due time we should. Using what nature has given us looks more clearly with in our reach at current.
But we don't know what causes anencephalia in infants; at least, not conclusively.

Further, you're going beyond "what nature has given us" if you're inducing the condition.

But we don't know what causes anencephalia in infants; at least, not conclusively.

Further, you're going beyond "what nature has given us" if you're inducing the condition.

seems pretty easy to me surgically keep the neural tube open around the 28th day of pregnancy.

Harvesting the organs, tissue, etc., from anencephalic infants to help other infants seems (with the consent of the parents) perfectly reasonable, but inducing the condition is out of the question.
Agreed. I similarly feel that using stem cells from aborted fetuses is a good idea, but beginning pregnancies JUST to abort them for the stem cells is completely unethical.

Agreed. I similarly feel that using stem cells from aborted fetuses is a good idea, but beginning pregnancies JUST to abort them for the stem cells is completely unethical.

It is jsut tissue being induced to grow. Their is no issue with either of those procedures if they have the woman's consent.

seems pretty easy to me surgically keep the neural tube open around the 28th day of pregnancy.
I wouldn't know; I'm not a paediatric/foetal neurologist.

I wouldn't know; I'm not a paediatric/foetal neurologist.

I do admit to say so easily is beyond my expertise. But from the wiki seems surgical inducement of the complication seems do able, though it has not be done yet.

It is jsut tissue being induced to grow.
Though anencephalic infants have no higher cognitive capabilities, they are more than just tissue.

If anything, it belongs to the woman who made it. Her body provided every process and raw material needed to build that infant. It is her property, not "society's" property.

Ok, it can be a property since it's not a human person (to be a person one needs a mind, and no functioning brain means no mind).
But if it can be the property of a person, under what laws it's a property? Is it to be treated as an animal (biologically, it's an animal after all)? Or as a plant (it hasn't a functioning central nervous system, after all)?
Or as part of a biological experiment? In this case it would be impossible for a mother to claim property thereupon, unless she's a biologist or a doctor herself.

I'm perplexed.

Though anencephalic infants have no higher cognitive capabilities, they are more than just tissue.

before the 1st trimester they are not.
After Birth they are community property.

before the 1st trimester they are not.
Yet your whole point is that these infants should be allowed to be born...

After Birth they are community property.
In general, or just your hypothetical induced anencephalic infants?

Yet your whole point is that these infants should be allowed to be born...

the surgical procedure to produce them would be done within the first trimester


In general, or just your hypothetical induced anencephalic infants?

Just the hypothetical.

I agree with doing this. If the mother knows the child is coming with a condition that will impare him/her from having a normal life, with normal opportunities, with independency, ending the pregnancy is the best choice. But, many people will accuse her of having strong eugenic tendencies. I still would do it if that were my case.

My children have a condition that impairs their ability to have a "normal" life. I do not think that the government should be telling people which pregnancies to abort.

I do think this mother possibly went to far, but I'm not sure it's really any of our business outside of how it's being paid for.

the surgical procedure to produce them would be done within the first trimester
Sure, but when the infant is born, it is not 'just tissue'.

That's my point.

Just the hypothetical.
Well, even with consent from the mother, I think you'd have some ethical and legal issues on your hands.

Sure, but when the infant is born, it is not 'just tissue'.

That's my point.

With out a brain it owns not itself, and is not human as far as I am concerned.


Well, even with consent from the mother, I think you'd have some ethical and legal issues on your hands.

fixed when the would be beneficiary sues to get those organs.
1 being already does not have what I would consider life. there is no reason to force another person to die a painful death whena good set of organs are there.

My children have a condition that impairs their ability to have a "normal" life. I do not think that the government should be telling people which pregnancies to abort.

I do think this mother possibly went to far, but I'm not sure it's really any of our business outside of how it's being paid for.

The government shouldn't, yes, have a thing to do with the decisions the mother makes. I agree with you there, which is why, once again, if I am told my child is coming with a condition that will not allow him/her independency or to have the same opportunities I did, I will end the pregnancy.

It's cruel, I know. You may find it horrible on my part, monstrous even, after all, you are a mother and I am not. You know what it's like to have a child with a condition (and please, I am not dissing on your children, I wouldn't dare do that), you know it's like to carry them, to give birth to them, to take care of them. But this is the way I think.

That's why this idea to 'harvest' these children for organs sounds monstrous to me.

Related side note:

I took a neuroanatomy class in the medical school at my university, and one of the sections of the course was on anencephaly and other catastrophic fetal malformations. During this unit I was seated next to a fellow PhD student, a friend of mine. Who was 6 months pregnant.

Honestly one of the most horrible, depressing, and uncomfortable two-hour periods in my entire life.




While I understand what you’re saying, I never appreciated, when I was pregnant, people who tried to whisper around possible problems or issues so as not to “upset” me. If you’re honestly planning on bringing another person into the world, it’s not just the pregnancy that you need to be concerned about. If you don’t have the constitution (or at least willingness) to face any potential problem that comes up for your child -- however horrible and upsetting it might be -- then you probably aren’t ready to be a parent. Like it or not, it’s part of what you sign up for.

I’m both an advocate for abortion rights and a parent of two children, and I honestly don’t know what I would do were I in this situation, but I do know that if I’d chosen to go to term, that I wouldn’t allow artificial means to prolong the life of an infant like this. I’d certainly never tell another woman what she should do with her body, so to me, the argument over allowing an anencephalic pregnancy to go to term and allow the infant to die a natural death or abort is a personal matter.

That said, I question the psychological state of a parent who would attempt to artificially prolong the life of a Baby K, and think that the religious argument is simply justifying their own inability to come to terms with the inevitable death and effectively grieve over it. In light of that, I can’t imagine that, both legally and ethically, the parent(s) was/were ever able to properly advocate for this infant. I think it’s terribly sad that these people didn’t have the proper ethical support to make a more humane decision at the time of birth. There is grief, and then there’s denial.

All I can say is that women of reproductive age are strongly advised to take their folate supplements. ;)

My mother is in no way religious or even particularly superstitious but she held on so that I wouldn't be born on Friday 13th...

That looks like a contradiction.

As opposed to aborting it?
Look the purpose is to save lives, we have a shortage of organs in this world do we not.
Here we have a being that is not a consciousness but has organs to keep functioning members of our society alive.
Seems immoral to waste such good material.

I agree, but there is also an emotional issue here

I think they should be aborted, it saves resources, heartache, and a million other things.
For those who argue if God didn't want them to live.. apparently it didn't want them to.

I think they should be aborted, it saves resources, heartache, and a million other things.

Sadly, some people can't see the big picture, just their own little muddled candid shot which doesn't reflect reality.

Should the hospitals continue treatment for Baby K even though the infant wasn't going to live for very long?

better question: should someone be allowed to keep an anencephalic infant artificially alive?

I will be honest, my personal view is that abortion is murder, even though the government has no right to tell a woman that she can't get an abortion.

this seems...crazily incoherent. it doesn't seem to hold for anything else we might reasonably call murder.

better question: should someone be allowed to keep an anencephalic infant artificially alive?

The problem with answering that is, if I* were to say "no", then it would be inevitable that someone would pose some silly hypothetical that would be comparing apples to oranges in an attempt to move the goalposts and corner me. If I said "yes", I would contradict what my instincts tell me; what my conscience tells me.

* I know it's directed at Wilgrove, but I still want to answer.

I will be honest, my personal view is that abortion is murder, even though the government has no right to tell a woman that she can't get an abortion. However, when it comes to anencephalic infants, I think about the quality of the life that child is going to have.

That's refreshing, because most abortions have nothing do with questions of quality of life for anyone. :rolleyes:

I know he/she lacks a brain, but was intended to be a human being.

So is a fetus.

this seems...crazily incoherent. it doesn't seem to hold for anything else we might reasonably call murder.

You know, I thought the same thing. How can one call something murder and yet, in the same breath, say that the government shouldn't regulate it? I mean, isn't that sort of arguing that murder shouldn't be illegal?

Isn't that sorta contrary to the very fundamental definition of murder, IE the unlawful taking of a human life?

My children have a condition that impairs their ability to have a "normal" life. I do not think that the government should be telling people which pregnancies to abort.

I do think this mother possibly went to far, but I'm not sure it's really any of our business outside of how it's being paid for.

Your kids have severe allergies. This would-be infant didn't have a brain. That's not just a difference of scale.

better question: should someone be allowed to keep an anencephalic infant artificially alive?

Sure, if that person was willing to pay for it (or had an insurance company that agreed to the contract to pay for it).

In a sensible healthcare system, this child would have been cut off and lit aflame in order not to waste valuable healthcare resources.

My children have a condition that impairs their ability to have a "normal" life. I do not think that the government should be telling people which pregnancies to abort.

I do think this mother possibly went to far, but I'm not sure it's really any of our business outside of how it's being paid for.

I don't think government should either, however I also don't think government should force hospitals to keep an anencephalic infant alive when the resources could be used for a premature infant that has a much better chance of survival than an anencephalic infant does.

better question: should someone be allowed to keep an anencephalic infant artificially alive?

I think that is left up to the parents and the hospital.

this seems...crazily incoherent. it doesn't seem to hold for anything else we might reasonably call murder.

*shrugs*

the pregnancy is knowingly begun this way. So it never feels pain or even knows what pain is.

Your idea is more ethical then late-term abortions for infants with brains, and we are in need of organs.

Sure, if that person was willing to pay for it (or had an insurance company that agreed to the contract to pay for it).

But that begs the question of whether we think that healthcare should go to the highest bidder. Should those with the most money be allowed to tie up valuable and scarce health care resources in ultimately futile endeavors, while save-able people perish because of a lack of money? Should we treat healthcare as a capitalist commodity or as a socialist public service?

That's a horrible idea. You're calling for experimenting on a being that cannot give you consent.

And? we do this to animal.

The difference? animals have brains and can fell pain.

Sure, if that person was willing to pay for it (or had an insurance company that agreed to the contract to pay for it).

well, clearly the mere ability to pay for something (and the existence of someone willing to accept payment and provide services) doesn't necessarily make it ok to do so. for example, hitmen. so the question is, does the use of medical resources to maintain life in these sorts of cases fall within the set of morally permissible things you could pay for, or not?

myself, i incline towards not. this is because medical resources are scarce, which means that resources allocated to the anencephalic are resources not allocated towards anyone else. i'd argue that ability to pay is at best a side concern when it comes to the distribution of medical resources. caring for those who can most benefit from care would seem to be a much more plausible principle of distribution.

Your idea chills me more than anything I have ever read on the internet. And I am a firm believer in pro-choice, which some people find disturbing enough.

I think you are disturbed by the concept of dissembling a living entity for organs more than you are bothered by the ethical implications.

We aren't anyone's property, not even society's. If anything, this child belongs to the mother.

Like a tree could belong to the mother. If that tree could be a medicine to save many lives, I support using it.

well, clearly the mere ability to pay for something (and the existence of someone willing to accept payment and provide services) doesn't necessarily make it ok to do so. for example, hitmen. so the question is, does the use of medical resources to maintain life in these sorts of cases fall within the set of morally permissible things you could pay for, or not?

This is morally permissible in my view, since hitmen are killing creatures that feel, while this involves no such thing; though it sucks that we live in a society in which rich persons' live take priority.

You know, I thought the same thing. How can one call something murder and yet, in the same breath, say that the government shouldn't regulate it? I mean, isn't that sort of arguing that murder shouldn't be illegal?

Isn't that sorta contrary to the very fundamental definition of murder, IE the unlawful taking of a human life?

Just because my personal opinion that it's murder, doesn't make it so under the law.

Sure, if that person was willing to pay for it (or had an insurance company that agreed to the contract to pay for it).

However, this does bring up the question of whether or not people should have the ability to tie up hospitals resources when trying to keep something artificially alive on some notion of "every life is scared" when the prognosis of that being is that it would die without the machines.

Shouldn't the hospitals get a say in how they want to treat the patient and how they want to use their machines and on who?

Like a tree could belong to the mother. If that tree could be a medicine to save many lives, I support using it.

How about a mother with a unique genetic makeup that grants her immunity to AIDS? Is it okay to harvest her innards if we can use them to make vaccines?

How about a mother with a unique genetic makeup that grants her immunity to AIDS? Is it okay to harvest her innards if we can use them to make vaccines?

If she will sell them to us, yes, though you are talking about taking the life of a sentient being, which I am not.

Shouldn't the hospitals get a say in how they want to treat the patient and how they want to use their machines and on who?

No. The Hippocratic oath forbids it. Doctors are mandated to treat patients to the extent of their abilities according to those whose lives are most seriously in danger. This is why we need the government to make laws establishing guidelines for that treatment.

No. The Hippocratic oath forbids it. Doctors are mandated to treat patients to the extent of their abilities according to those whose lives are most seriously in danger. This is why we need the government to make laws establishing guidelines for that treatment.

Sorry, Hispanics are on the bottom of the treatment list.

If she will sell them to us, yes, though you are talking about taking the life of a sentient being, which I am not.

Okay. What if it didn't necessitate her death? What if, say... and just go with me on this one, because I know it isn't likely to happen... what if, in order to make the vaccine, doctors needed to take her arms? A person can lead a healthy life without arms. They are part of a sentient being, but they are not in themselves sentient. Would that be permissible?

Sorry, Hispanics are on the bottom of the treatment list.

'Zactly. And hot girls that might sleep with their doctors are at the top.

No. The Hippocratic oath forbids it. Doctors are mandated to treat patients to the extent of their abilities according to those whose lives are most seriously in danger. This is why we need the government to make laws establishing guidelines for that treatment.

Ok, so in a hospital setting, let's say you have one incubator, you got a mother with an Anencephalic infant who wants to keep her baby artificially alive, and you got a premature child who was born 2 months early.

Who would, and should get the incubator?

Ok, so in a hospital setting, let's say you have one incubator, you got a mother with an Anencephalic infant who wants to keep her baby artificially alive, and you got a premature child who was born 2 months early.

Who would, and should get the incubator?

It would probably depend on whether either one could survive on a ventilator and other machines long enough to reach a different facility with another incubator. Assuming that there is no possibility of transport or bringing in additional machines, at that point the call would come down to best chance of survival, and doctors would place the premature infant in the incubator. Look up "triage".

Okay. What if it didn't necessitate her death? What if, say... and just go with me on this one, because I know it isn't likely to happen... what if, in order to make the vaccine, doctors needed to take her arms? A person can lead a healthy life without arms. They are part of a sentient being, but they are not in themselves sentient. Would that be permissible?

Yes, if she is willing to sell them.

But we don't know what causes anencephalia in infants; at least, not conclusively.

We do know that neural tube defects, as a whole, can be largely avoided by making sure the mother has enough intake of folic acid.

Personally, I'd say we should put more effort into avoiding these disorders than worrying about how they could be used.

I think you are disturbed by the concept of dissembling a living entity for organs more than you are bothered by the ethical implications.

Both things disturb me. What's being discussed here is a call for harvesting human beaings for organs. I find it both unethical and inhumane.

Like a tree could belong to the mother. If that tree could be a medicine to save many lives, I support using it.

If you, who had a productive life suddenly die, and your organs are harvested because you consented to it at some point while alive, that is understable to me. But strapping a being who cannot give consent, a being that is perhaps suffering, to a respirator just for the purpose of the ''greater good'' is just wrong.

And don't compare it to aborting a foetus. It's not the same, that was the mother's choice, and she is protected by the law when choosing to do this. But an anencephalic child does not has the same choice, to subject him to this is unethical.

Both things disturb me. What's being discussed here is a call for harvesting human beaings for organs. I find it both unethical and inhumane.

How so?

If you, who had a productive life suddenly die, and your organs are harvested because you consented to it at some point while alive, that is understable to me. But strapping a being who cannot give consent,

Do you eat meat?

a being that is perhaps suffering, to a respirator just for the purpose of the ''greater good'' is just wrong.

Without a reception center to feel pain, it cannot suffer.

And don't compare it to aborting a foetus. It's not the same,

They were both "meant to be human".

that was the mother's choice, and she is protected by the law when choosing to do this. But an anencephalic child does not has the same choice, to subject him to this is unethical.

Why should an anencephalic child have any more rights than a fetus?

My children have a condition that impairs their ability to have a "normal" life. I do not think that the government should be telling people which pregnancies to abort.

I agree. But I also don't think the government should force doctors to go above and beyond reasonable standards of care just because a mother can't accept the fact that her child was born without the vast majority of its brain and is going to die. The courts made the wrong decision here.

I do think this mother possibly went to far, but I'm not sure it's really any of our business outside of how it's being paid for.

There's also the issue of diverting medical resources away from patients who can actually be helped. Even if this woman had been the richest woman in the world, perfectly willing to pay for every procedure and the use of all the equipment out of her own pocket, it would still have been ridiculous to expect doctors to prolong the inevitable just because she was in denial.

Sure, if that person was willing to pay for it (or had an insurance company that agreed to the contract to pay for it).

I would add: and can find a willing doctor/facility that will do it for them.

How so?

You're advocating using a person, no matter how one looks at this child, for an organ breeding machine.

Do you eat meat?

No, I do not.

Without a reception center to feel pain, it cannot suffer.

Can we know this for sure? Just because it lacks a brain, just because there's a n organ that sends signals missing doesn't mean this being cannot feel pain.

They were both "meant to be human".

One was aborted, the other is strapped to a machine and made into an experiment.

Why should an anencephalic child have any more rights than a fetus?

Because the fetus never came to be, and this child did.

No. The Hippocratic oath forbids it. Doctors are mandated to treat patients to the extent of their abilities according to those whose lives are most seriously in danger. This is why we need the government to make laws establishing guidelines for that treatment.

Of course, most people who work in the government don't really understand medical science well enough to make these sorts of decisions. These are people who pass laws based on how "icky" a procedure sounds. Do we really want them making medical decisions?

Can we know this for sure? Just because it lacks a brain, just because there's a n organ that sends signals missing doesn't mean this being cannot feel pain.

Actually, it does, unless we're going to redefine pain to mean something completely different.

(not taking the other side in this argument, just pointing it out)

Actually, it does, unless we're going to redefine pain to mean something completely different.

(not taking the other side in this argument, just pointing it out)

I understand, Dempublicents.

You're advocating using a person, no matter how one looks at this child, for an organ breeding machine.

Rights should be chosen by sentience, not body.


No, I do not.


Do you support the banning of meat?


Can we know this for sure? Just because it lacks a brain, just because there's a n organ that sends signals missing doesn't mean this being cannot feel pain.

I believe it does. After all, pain is a matter of signals; what would be telling the infant that it was in pain?


One was aborted, the other is strapped to a machine and made into an experiment.

"Experiment"? No, a creature with the sentience of--how did Chum put?--a dandelion is being being recycled to save lives.

Because the fetus never came to be, and this child did.

"Came to be"...what? A non-sentient entity which cannot feel pain?

Thalamus is in the fore brain part of the cerebrum, which is the pain receptor of the brain. Since most Anencephalic infants are born without the thalamus, it cannot feel pain.

No. The Hippocratic oath forbids it. Doctors are mandated to treat patients to the extent of their abilities according to those whose lives are most seriously in danger. This is why we need the government to make laws establishing guidelines for that treatment.

The Hippocratic oath also says

I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.


Also it say do not harm to Anyone. Which this organ storage thing arguable is not.

You're advocating using a person, no matter how one looks at this child, for an organ breeding machine.

No, he's advocating using an empty shell for human organs. It's not a person. That which makes it a person, that which grants it its personhood, is absent. It isn't a person. It never was.


Can we know this for sure? Just because it lacks a brain, just because there's a n organ that sends signals missing doesn't mean this being cannot feel pain.

um.....yes, that is pretty much exactly what it means. No brain, no ability to feel pain. Those nerves aren't actually attached to anything.

um.....yes, that is pretty much exactly what it means. No brain, no ability to feel pain. Those nerves aren't actually attached to anything.

Well to be fair, it does go to the Central Spinal Cord, then up to the brain stem, but it pretty much stops at the brain steam. I already posted on what was needed to feel pain.

The Hippocratic oath also says

The modern oath that most doctors take says nothing about that.

Also it say do not harm to Anyone. Which this organ storage thing arguable is not.

No; it says "first, do no harm." A big difference.

Oh wow. The irreversibility of anencephaly just "highly accepted". :eek2: I guess this means that there's a 1% chance at least to regrow a brain. There is still some hope for the Shrub then.

pretty much what i thought. i wish the doctors who do not agree luck in regrowing that brain


Can we know this for sure? Just because it lacks a brain, just because there's a n organ that sends signals missing doesn't mean this being cannot feel pain.
if it lacks the facility to process those nerve signals, then it cannot feel pain. if its not even sentient, then i'm not sure it can 'feel' anything, but that's more subjective.
if the brain-stem can process pain receptors then it can feel pain. this is something i don't know (i'm no expert on neurology)

Stimulation of a nociceptor, due to a chemical, thermal, or mechanical event that has the potential to damage body tissue, may cause nociceptive pain.
...
Nociception is the unconscious afferent activity produced in the peripheral and central nervous system by stimuli that have the potential to damage tissue. It should not be confused with pain, which is a conscious experience.[9] It is initiated by nociceptors that can detect mechanical, thermal or chemical changes above a certain threshold. All nociceptors are free nerve endings of fast-conducting myelinated A delta fibers or slow-conducting unmyelinated C fibers, respectively responsible for fast, localized, sharp pain and slow, poorly-localized, dull pain. Once stimulated, they transmit signals that travel along the spinal cord and within the brain. Nociception, even in the absence of pain, may trigger withdrawal reflexes and a variety of autonomic responses such as pallor, diaphoresis, bradycardia, hypotension, lightheadedness, nausea and fainting.[14]

Brain areas that are particularly studied in relation with pain include the somatosensory cortex which mostly accounts for the sensory discriminative dimension of pain, and the limbic system, of which the thalamus and the anterior cingulate cortex are said to be especially involved in the affective dimension.

The brain stem provides the main motor and sensory innervation to the face and neck via the cranial nerves. Though small, this is an extremely important part of the brain as the nerve connections of the motor and sensory systems from the main part of the brain to the rest of the body pass through the brain stem. This includes the ... spinothalamic tract (pain, temperature, itch and crude touch)


The spinothalamic tract is a sensory pathway originating in the spinal cord. It transmits information to the thalamus about pain, temperature, itch and crude touch.

The modern oath that most doctors take says nothing about that.

The modern oath does not mention harm in anyway shape or form.
to my knowledge most American med schools now use the Prayer of Maimonides anyways. It also calls for the application of all measures to benefit the sick.



No; it says "first, do no harm." A big difference.

the original says

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

the modern one
here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html
never mentions the word harm.

Can we know this for sure? Just because it lacks a brain, just because there's a n organ that sends signals missing doesn't mean this being cannot feel pain.


Um, yeah, actually, it does. In order to feel pain, something has to receive the signal. You can create the signal all you want but if nothing receives it, it's not felt.

You know, I already addressed the pain issue people...

Thalamus is in the fore brain part of the cerebrum, which is the pain receptor of the brain. Since most Anencephalic infants are born without the thalamus, it cannot feel pain.

See?

Your kids have severe allergies. This would-be infant didn't have a brain. That's not just a difference of scale.

I realize it's a huge difference. I'm not stupid. I was responding to Nana's suggestion that any child who is abnormal should be aborted.

You know, I already addressed the pain issue people...

OK, what do you want? A cookie? People respond to posts as they see them.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FJU3YuNc4Uc/SRNgf_1pMhI/AAAAAAAAAcU/Gm_UtAgucV4/s320/not_this_shit_again.jpg

OK, what do you want? A cookie? People respond to posts as they see them.

Do we really need 10 post repeating the same thing though?

I realize it's a huge difference. I'm not stupid. I was responding to Nana's suggestion that any child who is abnormal should be aborted.

I know you're not stupid. I was just trying to counter your argument.

*wanders away, confused*

Carrying this wretched, pitiful thing to term should not have been a decision left to the woman in the first place. Society incurs so much more risk and cost by having it delivered full term! Abortion in this case---whatever you think of abortion in general---really should have been mandatory.

Society incurs so much more risk and cost by having it delivered full term!
Alright, but then you have to ban persons like Bush/Palin from candidacy.

No, he's advocating using an empty shell for human organs. It's not a person. That which makes it a person, that which grants it its personhood, is absent. It isn't a person. It never was.

It's not a person because it can't feel? That is rather sad, no matter what science says about it.

It's not a person because it can't feel? That is rather sad, no matter what science says about it.

These are precisely the same arguments that are used to oppose abortion.

It's not a person because it can't feel? That is rather sad, no matter what science says about it.

It cannot ever think, either.

You're advocating using a person

Can we know this for sure? Just because it lacks a brain, just because there's an organ that sends signals missing doesn't mean this being cannot feel pain.


I have to disagree, Nana-chan.

The problem here is that an anencephalic newborn lacks exactly the organs (the brain cortex) who would allow it to become a person (not just a living being but a living being who can receive stimuli, elaborate them and answer to them willingly).

And if I'm not much mistaken, if the organ that receives pain signals is missing... well, a priori it cannot feel pain.

And if I'm not much mistaken, if the organ that receives pain signals is missing... well, a priori it cannot feel pain.
...if we define pain anthropocentrically.

...if we define pain anthropocentrically.

Exactly.

...if we define pain anthropocentrically.

Of course.
Can we define it NOT anthropocentrically? Or, more accurately: can we define pain NOT neurocentrically? I don't think so.

...if we define pain anthropocentrically.

Which I do not. That is stupid.

Who thinks pain is unique to humans?

Sorry, Hispanics are on the bottom of the treatment list.
Por que?

Por que?

If doctors could choose priority, what would prevent them from picking certain races over others?

If doctors could choose priority, what would prevent them from picking certain races over others?

I think the Hippocratic oath establishes that doctors cannot discriminate against a patient seeking help.

I think the Hippocratic oath establishes that doctors cannot discriminate against a patient seeking help.

We were talking about greed and death's proposal that doctors be given more freedom in whom they treat.

If doctors could choose priority, what would prevent them from picking certain races over others?
I would hope the fact that there are doctors of all races, including the various varieties of Hispanics, Asians and South East Asians, Blacks from round the world as well as old Whitey.

I would hope the fact that there are doctors of all races, including the various varieties of Hispanics, Asians and South East Asians, Blacks from round the world as well as old Whitey.

I obviously used "priority" in the context of the debate with greed and death.

Of course.
Can we define it NOT anthropocentrically? Or, more accurately: can we define pain NOT neurocentrically? I don't think so.
If we're talking specific organs, if we're saying that without these organs, these neural interfaces, a being cannot feel pain, then we're certainly denying that any sentient alien with a different physiology to ourselves can feel pain.

And, perhaps, we're denying that nonhuman animals feel pain; for they have different organs or neural interfaces to ourselves; albeit a lot closer to us than the sentient alien.

Exactly.
I'm not saying that anencephalic infants would feel pain; I think there's clearly a necessity for certain neural pathways, certain portions of the brain, to be working optimally for humans to feel pain (otherwise, anaesthetic would be useless).

However, I wouldn't want to define pain in terms of human physiology.

However, I wouldn't want to define pain in terms of human physiology.

But would you not define it as unique to a creature with a brain?

I'm not saying that anencephalic infants would feel pain; I think there's clearly a necessity for certain neural pathways, certain portions of the brain, to be working optimally for humans to feel pain (otherwise, anaesthetic would be useless).

However, I wouldn't want to define pain in terms of human physiology.

That I understand, Chumbly, but although these children lack a brain, I don't want to think about the what if even lacking the brain, they could still feel some kind of pain. And we all know is not merely neurological.

That I understand, Chumbly, but although these children lack a brain, I don't want to think about the what if even lacking the brain, they could still feel some kind of pain. And we all know is not merely neurological.

"A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a main brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness. Reflex actions such as breathing and responses to sound or touch may occur. [2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

But would you not define it as unique to a creature with a brain?
Hmmmm... not really.

I could conceive of a sentient creature that has a phenomenological experience analogous to our phenomenological experience of pain, yet has no brain.

It's not outside the realms of possibility. That being said, I suppose this hypothetical creature would most probably have something analogous to our neural network for their phenomenological experience to be genuinely analogous to ours, and I suppose you could call this network a brain...

I would hedge my bets though.


That I understand, Chumbly, but although these children lack a brain, I don't want to think about the what if even lacking the brain, they could still feel some kind of pain. And we all know is not merely neurological.
Though anencephalic infants don't have the capacity to feel pain, nor do they have the capacity for psychological pain; it's my understanding that they're not self-aware.

I recognise your reluctance, however.

Hmmmm... not really.

I could conceive of a sentient creature that has a phenomenological experience analogous to our phenomenological experience of pain, yet has no brain.

It's not outside the realms of possibility.

Not on this planet.

Not on this planet.
No, but we must consider things outside our little rocky sphere.

Also, check my edit.

Though anencephalic infants don't have the capacity to feel pain, nor do they have the capacity for psychological pain; it's my understanding that they're not self-aware.

I recognise your reluctance, however.

Agreed on that count.

No, but we must consider things outside our little rocky sphere.

Also, check my edit.

Sure. We are not talking about such an entity, here.

Sure. We are not talking about such an entity, here.
Indeed, though I think it's a relevant point concerning Risottia's post.

My own philosophical peccadillo, perhaps.

I know you're not stupid. I was just trying to counter your argument.

*wanders away, confused*

My argument against eugenics. If you personally, think that you could not personally handle a child (for whatever reason) please feel free to abort the pregnancy.

If you because of your personal feelings on the subject want to tell others what they "should have done" please to be minding your own business.

Abnormal children are born all the time and they lead perfectly acceptable lives.

I don't begrudge someone the right to carry their pregnancy to term even if the child that results will die within a few hours. Their body, their choice.

I don't like this talk of using medicine more efficiently. The efficient thing would be to let my husband die. He takes up a lot of time and money and energy.....it's time, money, energy that could be spent on other patients. I don't want to do the efficient thing, I want to do the right thing.

I do not think that letting baby K live for so long was the right thing, mind you. I personally think it was a bad thing. I don't think we need to make a blanket law saying that "if they're going to die anyway, we should just ignore them medically".....lots of people are going to die anyway.....seriously.

My argument against eugenics. If you personally, think that you could not personally handle a child (for whatever reason) please feel free to abort the pregnancy.

If you because of your personal feelings on the subject want to tell others what they "should have done" please to be minding your own business.

Abnormal children are born all the time and they lead perfectly acceptable lives.

I don't begrudge someone the right to carry their pregnancy to term even if the child that results will die within a few hours. Their body, their choice.

Your argument is respected, Smunk, the same you respect another woman's choice to not carry a pregnancy to term, for whatever reasons. As I have said before, I do not know what it is to be a parent, and I wouldn't dare tell you, a mom, that having your kids was a mistake, even if they have conditions. All I know is that, if I knew I was going to give birth to a child with severe conditions like cerebral palsy or anencephalic, I will end the pregnancy. If that makes me a believer in eugenics, well, what can I do?

-snip-

The difference between Anencephalic infants, your husband, and your children is that they have a cerebrum, they can think, they can see, they can feel. They are a conscious. They aren't something that is basically a plant. There is a world of difference between alive, and living.

I just think that when it comes to anencephalic infants, if it is carried to terms, that it is made very clear to the parents that the infant will die within hours to a few days, and keeping it artificially alive will not help it.

There is no chance for an anencephalic infant, they also tend to have severe cardiological problems, which is why they most often die of cardiac arrest. I'd rather the doctors spend their time trying to keep a preemie alive than an anencephalic infant. Because at least a preemie has a cerebrum, at least it most likely doesn't have cardiological problems, and there is a chance that it'll out-live any anencephalic infant.

Carrying this wretched, pitiful thing to term should not have been a decision left to the woman in the first place. Society incurs so much more risk and cost by having it delivered full term! Abortion in this case---whatever you think of abortion in general---really should have been mandatory.

A woman's medical decisions should not be up to the government. They should not be able to force her to have an abortion any more than they should be able to force her to carry to term.

I do not think that letting baby K live for so long was the right thing, mind you. I personally think it was a bad thing. I don't think we need to make a blanket law saying that "if they're going to die anyway, we should just ignore them medically".....lots of people are going to die anyway.....seriously.

I don't think that's really what's being argued. It's not so much "If they're going to die anyways..." as "If we can't do anything for them...."

Nothing that a doctor does will improve the condition of an anecephalic infant. The same cannot be said of people with disorders that may eventually kill them, but could be treated in the meantime to improve their quality of life.

And it really isn't so much that a law should be passed saying that doctors cannot provide care in these situations. It's more that the law shouldn't require them to do it, especially not when said doctor feels that the resources would be better used on a patient that can be helped.

I don't like this talk of using medicine more efficiently. The efficient thing would be to let my husband die. He takes up a lot of time and money and energy.....it's time, money, energy that could be spent on other patients. I don't want to do the efficient thing, I want to do the right thing.

its not really about efficiency in terms of number of people cared for per dollar or something, but efficiency as regards making sure that as many currently living people as possible live high-quality lives of as full a duration as we can.

given the resources, we can prolong most any life we like. but when we expend resources maintaining lives of low or non-existent quality for an extra week or month or year, we condemn people that could otherwise have lived fuller, higher-quality lives to die instead. the only way out of making that choice is to come up with a way to invest effectively infinite resources into healthcare.

I think if a person (or couple) were prepared to pay all the costs of keeping the, er, body? alive, then why not. Kinda like a pet. I'm not worried about the rights of a brainstem.

Should the taxpayer support their very expensive and bizarre pet? Of course not.

I think if a person (or couple) were prepared to pay all the costs of keeping the, er, body? alive, then why not. Kinda like a pet. I'm not worried about the rights of a brainstem.

Should the taxpayer support their very expensive and bizarre pet? Of course not.

The problem is that keeping a body alive is tying up hospital resource that could be use to serve babies that actually have a chance of staying alive without artificial means.

Is it ethical of the couple to tie up such resource? If they buy their own equipment and hire their own doctor, then they can keep the body alive in their own home, but to tie up hospital resources and personnel is highly unethical, selfish, and wrong.

Sadly, some people can't see the big picture, just their own little muddled candid shot which doesn't reflect reality.

Was that a for or an against?

Your argument is respected, Smunk, the same you respect another woman's choice to not carry a pregnancy to term, for whatever reasons. As I have said before, I do not know what it is to be a parent, and I wouldn't dare tell you, a mom, that having your kids was a mistake, even if they have conditions. All I know is that, if I knew I was going to give birth to a child with severe conditions like cerebral palsy or anencephalic, I will end the pregnancy. If that makes me a believer in eugenics, well, what can I do?

^^^
This
I am appalled Nanatsu:eek: I can see terminating a pregnancy if a child was born anencephalic, but CP!?! Give me a break:mad: I have had several close friends with that condition. Just so you know, many are actually quite high functioning individuals, or have abilities that may not be apparent when you meet them in person (if you wind up meeting an individual with CP who has speech and severe coordination problems, which not all have). In fact, you may not know on the net whether someone has that condition unless they say so. What's saying some of the people you debate with on NSG were not born with CP?

If I found out my future wife was going to have a son or daughter with that condition, I would encourage her to keep it to full term as there could be things we could do to educate the child and help him or her become a productive member of society.

As far as anencephaly is concerned, I would not be surprised, if certain futurists/inventors I have met are correct, if a cure or semi-effective treatment could be developed through either gene therapy, stem cells, nanotech/robotics, or any combination thereof. But until that day comes there is little that one can do, so abortion currently is the best solution for such a case, imo. Tbqh, the wikipedia picture of the anencephalic infant was creepy beyond words:eek2:

^^^
This
I am appalled Nanatsu:eek: I can see terminating a pregnancy if a child was born anencephalic, but CP!?! Give me a break:mad: I have had several close friends with that condition. Just so you know,
*snip*

I do recall Nanatsu starting a thread about a woman and her son with CP who NnT met on a train. He was very severely impaired and the woman's life was pretty much monopolized by caring for him.

Her knowledge of CP is probably formed by that.

Doctor Bunny prescribes one strong dose of Wikipedia.

I know that can happen in the more extreme cases, but I have read of instances where people with CP lead full productive lives. A very close friend of mine lives with it, and, beyond some restrictions concerning athletic activity and driving, is able to lead a productive, happy life. However, she has admitted it is a relatively mild case in her instance and that some do fair far worse. I know some who do have it worse, and they are able to lead full lives as well if they are provided with a 'level playing field' in life.

*Sorry for possible threadjack, just kinda got under my skin as disability rights is sorta my cause, Nanatsu.*

I know that can happen in the more extreme cases, but I have read of instances where people with CP lead full productive lives. A very close friend of mine lives with it, and, beyond some restrictions concerning athletic activity and driving, is able to lead a productive, happy life. However, she has admitted it is a relatively mild case in her instance and that some do fair far worse. I know some who do have it worse, and they are able to lead full lives as well if they are provided with a 'level playing field' in life.

*Sorry for possible threadjack, just kinda got under my skin as disability rights is sorta my cause, Nanatsu.*

I wouldn't call this a threadjack, at all.

It is not my place to reply for Nanatsu no Tsuki though.

I'll just note that anecephalism isn't a disability, unless we are prepared to define a collection of human organs minus the brain as a "person." Brain-death is a widely-accepted definition of human death, so this ... organism? ... never was a human person.

^^^
This
I am appalled Nanatsu:eek: I can see terminating a pregnancy if a child was born anencephalic, but CP!?! Give me a break:mad: I have had several close friends with that condition. Just so you know, many are actually quite high functioning individuals, or have abilities that may not be apparent when you meet them in person (if you wind up meeting an individual with CP who has speech and severe coordination problems, which not all have). In fact, you may not know on the net whether someone has that condition unless they say so. What's saying some of the people you debate with on NSG were not born with CP?

If I found out my future wife was going to have a son or daughter with that condition, I would encourage her to keep it to full term as there could be things we could do to educate the child and help him or her become a productive member of society.

As far as anencephaly is concerned, I would not be surprised, if certain futurists/inventors I have met are correct, if a cure or semi-effective treatment could be developed through either gene therapy, stem cells, nanotech/robotics, or any combination thereof. But until that day comes there is little that one can do, so abortion currently is the best solution for such a case, imo. Tbqh, the wikipedia picture of the anencephalic infant was creepy beyond words:eek2:

Be appalled all you want. I'm sorry to be blunt, but be appalled all you want. You wouldn't be the first not will you be the last.

Be appalled all you want. I'm sorry to be blunt, but be appalled all you want. You wouldn't be the first not will you be the last.

You know there are massively varying degrees of CP? I had 2 friends at school who were just uncoordinated. Their mental capacities were completely unaffected, and they only walked with a slight limp/wobble.

Your argument is respected, Smunk, the same you respect another woman's choice to not carry a pregnancy to term, for whatever reasons. As I have said before, I do not know what it is to be a parent, and I wouldn't dare tell you, a mom, that having your kids was a mistake, even if they have conditions. All I know is that, if I knew I was going to give birth to a child with severe conditions like cerebral palsy or anencephalic, I will end the pregnancy. If that makes me a believer in eugenics, well, what can I do?

I learn a new word every day.

You know there are massively varying degrees of CP? I had 2 friends at school who were just uncoordinated. Their mental capacities were completely unaffected, and they only walked with a slight limp/wobble.

Yes, I am well aware of that, Adunabar. Still, I would end the pregnancy.

Yes, I am well aware of that, Adunabar. Still, I would end the pregnancy.

That's understandable. But luckaly I can't get knocked up.

That's understandable. But luckaly I can't get knocked up.

You want me to impregnate you, Kentian?:eek2:

I am sorry, but I lack the proper equipment to do such.

You want me to impregnate you, Kentian?:eek2:

I am sorry, but I lack the proper equipment to do such.

:eek: Did I say that?

:eek: Did I say that?

No, LOL! I was just trying to jest.:tongue:

I think if a person (or couple) were prepared to pay all the costs of keeping the, er, body? alive, then why not. Kinda like a pet. I'm not worried about the rights of a brainstem.

Should the taxpayer support their very expensive and bizarre pet? Of course not.

That's what I asked earlier. Do we want to treat medical care like a commodity, available to the highest bidder? Or do we want to treat it like a public service, available equally to everyone, regardless of ability to pay.

Hypothetically, who would a hospital treat if there were two anencephalic infants, and they only had the resources to take care of one? Whomever was able to pay more?

No, LOL! I was just trying to jest.:tongue:

I know,lol.

But with my lack of a uterus and your lack of a cock, I doubt it would work.

Hypothetically, who would a hospital treat if there were two anencephalic infants, and they only had the resources to take care of one? Whomever was able to pay more?
Whomever was more likely to survive, I'd imagine (and hope).

Though, and again this is supposition, many hospitals might not spend a huge amount of effort keeping the baby alive; they very well might discuss the hopelessness of the babies' situation with the respective parents.

I know,lol.

But with my lack of a uterus and your lack of a cock, I doubt it would work.

Indeed. The logistics are... too twisted.:tongue:

I wouldn't call this a threadjack, at all.

It is not my place to reply for Nanatsu no Tsuki though.

I'll just note that anecephalism isn't a disability, unless we are prepared to define a collection of human organs minus the brain as a "person." Brain-death is a widely-accepted definition of human death, so this ... organism? ... never was a human person.

I have to agree with that one as it makes no sense to carry a child to term if he or she is just going to die and possibly suffer anyway; it was the CP comment I did not understand. I know full well there is no treatment available for those who, literally, lack a brain.

As I said in my previous post, with the developments in medical science there might eventually be treatments, some prenatal, that can prevent or treat it effectively. In fact Greed & Death might be on to something:

If one can do prenatal surgery to correct a defect in a fetus, and it is theoretically plausible to surgically induce a birth defect such as anencephaly, then it should be equally possible to surgically correct it. Furthermore, as I recall, anencephaly and spina bifida are both caused by the failure of the neural tube to close properly, so if one can perfect a prenatal surgical technique to close up the neural tube, then one would have a potential cure for both defects. I have no idea what the side effects may be, so the patients who recieved such an operation before birth successfully could prove to be involved in later disability rights legislation.

That's what I asked earlier. Do we want to treat medical care like a commodity, available to the highest bidder? Or do we want to treat it like a public service, available equally to everyone, regardless of ability to pay.

Hypothetically, who would a hospital treat if there were two anencephalic infants, and they only had the resources to take care of one? Whomever was able to pay more?

How about neither one and just offer hydration, nutrition and comfort measures while the babies die out.

Like I said, if they want to keep the baby alive, then they have the right to buy their own equipment, and hire their own doctor. They have no right to tie up hospitals resources for their own delusion.

A woman's medical decisions should not be up to the government. They should not be able to force her to have an abortion any more than they should be able to force her to carry to term.
^This.

It's rather sickening to hear so many people on this thread blithely declaring that women should be given abortions regardless of their wishes, or (on the other side) that women should be shrieked at for choosing to have abortions for the "wrong" reasons.

^This.

It's rather sickening to hear so many people on this thread blithely declaring that women should be given abortions regardless of their wishes, or (on the other side) that women should be shrieked at for choosing to have abortions for the "wrong" reasons.

There are no wrong reasons to do it.

There are no wrong reasons to do it.
As long as the pregnant woman is content with her reasons, and as long as there is no MEDICAL reason to question her choice, then yeah.

The thing is, I understand why people get squigged out by the idea of a woman having an abortion because she found out the fetus has some serious disability or deformity.

My baby brother is missing most of his corpus callosum (that's the structure that links the two halves of the brain). He had seizures as a baby. He has several cognitive deficits that will be with him his whole life.

My mother had no way of knowing any of this about him while she was pregnant, but it's pretty much a sure thing that eventually we WILL have the ability to detect problems like what happened to my brother.

So then there comes the awful question:

Would my mom have carried to term if she knew about the problems my brother would have?

Yes, my mom would have.

Would I do the same in her place?

Uh oh.

Maybe not.

Fuck. Does that mean I hate my brother? That I wish he'd never been born?

I can see why questions like this bother people. I completely understand why the subject is emotionally charged.

But that is PRECISELY why these decisions are ones that have to be made by the individual.

As long as the pregnant woman is content with her reasons, and as long as there is no MEDICAL reason to question her choice, then yeah.

The thing is, I understand why people get squigged out by the idea of a woman having an abortion because she found out the fetus has some serious disability or deformity.

My baby brother is missing most of his corpus callosum (that's the structure that links the two halves of the brain). He had seizures as a baby. He has several cognitive deficits that will be with him his whole life.

My mother had no way of knowing any of this about him while she was pregnant, but it's pretty much a sure thing that eventually we WILL have the ability to detect problems like what happened to my brother.

So then there comes the awful question:

Would my mom have carried to term if she knew about the problems my brother would have?

Yes, my mom would have.

Would I do the same in her place?

Uh oh.

Maybe not.

Fuck. Does that mean I hate my brother? That I wish he'd never been born?

I can see why questions like this bother people. I completely understand why the subject is emotionally charged.

But that is PRECISELY why these decisions are ones that have to be made by the individual.

The issue is to close to some people and to distent to others, it's a big gap.

If one can do prenatal surgery to correct a defect in a fetus, and it is theoretically plausible to surgically induce a birth defect such as anencephaly, then it should be equally possible to surgically correct it. Furthermore, as I recall, anencephaly and spina bifida are both caused by the failure of the neural tube to close properly, so if one can perfect a prenatal surgical technique to close up the neural tube, then one would have a potential cure for both defects. I have no idea what the side effects may be, so the patients who recieved such an operation before birth successfully could prove to be involved in later disability rights legislation.

One problem with this idea is that the neural tube is supposed to close very early on in pregnancy. It's quite likely that, at the point that such a surgery would be necessary, the woman would not even be aware that she was pregnant. So, even if we had the technology to perform such a surgery (we really don't at this point - fetal surgeries that have been carried out occur much later in pregnancy), it would likely already be too late to correct the defect by the time it was detected.

I think it's probably best to put more effort into prevention than cure in this case.

As long as the pregnant woman is content with her reasons, and as long as there is no MEDICAL reason to question her choice, then yeah.

The thing is, I understand why people get squigged out by the idea of a woman having an abortion because she found out the fetus has some serious disability or deformity.

My baby brother is missing most of his corpus callosum (that's the structure that links the two halves of the brain). He had seizures as a baby. He has several cognitive deficits that will be with him his whole life.

My mother had no way of knowing any of this about him while she was pregnant, but it's pretty much a sure thing that eventually we WILL have the ability to detect problems like what happened to my brother.

So then there comes the awful question:

Would my mom have carried to term if she knew about the problems my brother would have?

Yes, my mom would have.

Would I do the same in her place?

Uh oh.

Maybe not.

Fuck. Does that mean I hate my brother? That I wish he'd never been born?

I can see why questions like this bother people. I completely understand why the subject is emotionally charged.

But that is PRECISELY why these decisions are ones that have to be made by the individual.

Indeed. There is a very important distinction to be made between "I would..." statements and "people should..." statements. I can completely respect someone's position that they, personally, do not believe they could handle having a child with a particular medical issue, and that they, personally, would choose to abort. Where I get irked is when people start with the "thus-and-such pregnancies should always be aborted" argument, because then they are telling a lot of actual people that they shouldn't have been born, and that's pretty damned rude, to say the least.

One problem with this idea is that the neural tube is supposed to close very early on in pregnancy. It's quite likely that, at the point that such a surgery would be necessary, the woman would not even be aware that she was pregnant. So, even if we had the technology to perform such a surgery (we really don't at this point - fetal surgeries that have been carried out occur much later in pregnancy), it would likely already be too late to correct the defect by the time it was detected.

I think it's probably best to put more effort into prevention than cure in this case.

Thanks for informing me. I was just thinking that there may be potential based upon Greed & Death's, albeit disturbing, comments regarding transplants. There are far better ways of getting donor organs...education, for instance, is key.