PDA

View Full Version : Europe's Example...



CliveStaples
April 21st, 2005, 12:19 PM
...isn't one to follow (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050421/D89JUB200.html):


"

Rejecting a bid by the parents, a British judge on Thursday upheld a court order allowing doctors to let a critically ill baby die if she stops breathing - a move doctors say is the only humane way to end the child's suffering. Eighteen-month-old Charlotte Wyatt can hardly see or hear and weighed about a pound when she was born prematurely. Her brain and other organs are so seriously damaged that she has "no feeling other than continuing pain," according to physicians.

Darren and Debbie Wyatt, who believe in preserving life at any cost, sought to overturn a court order granted in October.

But Justice Mark Hedley was not persuaded by the parents' pleas.

"I am quite clear that it would not be in Charlotte's best interests to die in the course of futile aggressive treatment," Hedley ruled Thursday at London's High Court.

"


Lovely.

Mr. Hyde
April 21st, 2005, 01:07 PM
Ya know, if they're gonna kill sickly infants and PVS people, they need a more humane way of doing it than suffocation and starvation as such is the advocation of dehuminization and leads to a moral decline of our nation as well as our rising generation.

Ibelsd
April 21st, 2005, 01:54 PM
I love how words get twisted. Doctors who choose not to treat a dying patient due to the inevitability of that patient's death are not "killing" that patient. A doctor who stabs a patient before he dies could be accused of "killing".

Let's look at this in another arena. You have a lovely house sitting on a hillside. You love that house. After heavy rains and a mudslide or two, the house is no longer stable. It will fall down the hillside. You go to a contractor and ask them to save your house. After conducting tests on the existing structure, the soil, the geography, etc. the contractor says he is sorry. The house cannot be saved. He advises you to let it collapse or to level it and start over somewhere else. Now, has the contractor destroyed your house? Of course, not. He is simply explaining to you the inevitability of what will occur and he is being honest by telling you his own limitations.

Letting a terminally ill patient die without benefit of aggressive treatment is not equivalent to killing that patient.

CliveStaples
April 21st, 2005, 02:16 PM
Of course, not. He is simply explaining to you the inevitability of what will occur and he is being honest by telling you his own limitations.

Okay, buy if your hypothetical is being applied to the situation at hand, then you'd have a judge telling you that you CAN'T try to stop your house from being destroyed.

Hampton
April 21st, 2005, 02:17 PM
I'm the best example of a perfect human. Ripped, sensitave, goodlooking and whats most important, black.

KevinBrowning
April 21st, 2005, 03:01 PM
Clive, you need to put in an opening argument, or this will need to go into Off Topic. Thanks.

Meng Bomin
April 21st, 2005, 03:09 PM
To add to Kevin's warning of Clive, Hampton, you really need to relate your posts to the topic at hand or you will recieve an official warning for spamming.

Does this post have any connection to the topic at hand?

I'm the best example of a perfect human. Ripped, sensitave, goodlooking and whats most important, black.
If so, please edit the post or create a new post to state the connection. If not, delete the post or make a comment that does apply.

chadn737
April 21st, 2005, 04:22 PM
Its things like this that makes me wonder why "slippery slope" is a fallacy. I can see a direct slide from things like Roe vs. Wade, all the debates over Euthenasia, Terry Schiavo, and now this.

It makes me wonder, how the hell did we get started on this road....the road where human life means nothing.

What makes me even madder is that they dont even have the guts to just end it. These people will fight like hell to have somebody die and then rather then give them a swift and honorable death they'd rather keep their already dirty hands as clean as possible and let them die a pathetic aweful death of starvation and suffocation.

Its rather funny.....in a sick sort of way.....they claim this child is in so much pain that they dont want to chance saving her just because that may extend her life. However, rather then end the pain swiftly they choose to let her die slowly......yah, these guys make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

Meng Bomin
April 21st, 2005, 04:30 PM
Its things like this that makes me wonder why "slippery slope" is a fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html



The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:



Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.


There's a reason for you. A supported slippery slope argument is not a fallacy.

I can see a direct slide from things like Roe vs. Wade, all the debates over Euthenasia, Terry Schiavo, and now this.

It makes me wonder, how the hell did we get started on this road....the road where human life means nothing.
It is known as modern medical technology. Euthanasia cases would be much fewer were it not for modern medical technology. Abortions would be much less safe for the woman if it weren't for modern medical technology. Terry Shiavo would have died fifteen years ago were it not for modern medical technology.

But as long as you have opened this vein, what makes human life intristically valuable?

Supaiku
April 21st, 2005, 05:24 PM
what makes human life intristically valuable?


Oh god, someone said it!

/me watches attentivly

But actually I think that it is somehow valuble, however much less valuble than people often give it credit for. I'm not entirely sure but I think it has something to do with the fact that we are all human and as tack as it sounds "all connected". While we arn't all connected our connections and the fact that we can relate are what give human life that extra special touch. When someone dies not only do they die, they lose their dreams, beliefs and memories and everything that makes them, but lots of other people who knew them all to different degree's lose something, lots of things. The fact that we can relate to all of them and their loss is what gives value.
Do you like to be happy? Do other people like to be happy? Lets let them be happy if we can help it and if they havn't done anything to jepordize their "right" as much as I don't really want to call it that.
Although I'm not sure of how much value that really is. But then again, I'm not really sure about ANY meaning either so...

The next question would probably what makes something certifiebly human? We know what makes someone a human but what makes them "human" in the fullest sense of the word. But we should let that go until the first question has had some fun.

Quack
April 21st, 2005, 11:51 PM
Oh man, you guys need to get some facts sorted out.
- Charlotte's brain is the same size as the day she was born
- Doctors have said she has "no feelings other than continuing pain"
- She probably won't ever be able walk, talk or eat.
- They are not currently witholding any treatment, she simply won't be resusitated if she loses consciousness.
- Experts have said her life would be "intolerable"
- Doctors say if she wasn't resusitated her death would only be slightly earlier than if she died naturally.

Zhavric
April 22nd, 2005, 06:56 AM
Its things like this that makes me wonder why people have trouble understanding "slippery slope" as a fallacy. I can see them attempting to create a direct slide from things like Roe vs. Wade, all the debates over Euthenasia, Terry Schiavo, and now this without presenting any evidence or support.

It makes me wonder, how the hell did we get started on this road....the road where logic, reason, science, and an individul's right to govern their own body means nothing.

What makes me even madder is that they dont even have the love for freedom that Americans are required to have. These people will fight like hell to have somebody stay alive and, rather then listening to their wishes, they'd rather keep their already dirty hands as clean as possible and let them "live" out a "life" of utter and total agony.

It's rather funny..... in a sick sort of way..... they claim this premature child is in so much pain that NOTHING they can do will save it. However, rather than listening to reason and the scientific-based knowledge of the doctors, it's CLEARLY better to trust in lamen and uneducated / unskilled / irrational musings as to wether the so-called "child" can live.

In the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln: "OMG WTF!!1!!1!!! BUTT OUT! It's NONE of your bees wax."

Zhavric
April 22nd, 2005, 06:58 AM
Oh man, you guys need to get some facts sorted out.
- Charlotte's brain is the same size as the day she was born
- Doctors have said she has "no feelings other than continuing pain"
- She probably won't ever be able walk, talk or eat.
- They are not currently witholding any treatment, she simply won't be resusitated if she loses consciousness.
- Experts have said her life would be "intolerable"
- Doctors say if she wasn't resusitated her death would only be slightly earlier than if she died naturally.

You're wasting your time, Quack. Chad and his posse aren't swayed by facts.

CliveStaples
April 22nd, 2005, 01:42 PM
- Experts have said her life would be "intolerable"

What?!!? So now we go by what "experts" think is a "tolerable" life? Lovely.


You're wasting your time, Quack. Chad and his posse aren't swayed by facts.

This isn't a matter of whether the baby should be allowed to die. This is a matter of whether the baby should be prevented from getting medical treatment AGAINST the wishes of the parents.

Don't the liberals here find it the LEAST bit disconcerting that the government can have your child killed WITHOUT your consent if a doctor says that the baby's life isn't worth living? What if the situation was reversed, and the government was PREVENTING you from letting your child die, because experts had claimed that her life WAS worth living? Naivete. To agree with such flagrant governmental intrusion merely because you agree with the conclusion.

Hampton
May 4th, 2005, 04:24 PM
Whatever. Noob.

CliveStaples
May 4th, 2005, 04:33 PM
Whatever. Noob.

Aww, Craig...what you gotta do that for, Craig?