Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Should you keep somebody alive at all costs?
| User | Post |
hhallahh
Posts: 394/607 |
It's certainly the right of the parents to decide what happens.
But the question is, can the parents afford all this treatment? Or, since it's in the UK, should the government provide it solely because the parents will it to be provided? No. So unless the parents are willing to seek private medical treatment and pay for it 100% by themselves, then the State has a perfectly legitimate reason to deny treatment. I don't see why it's so taboo to say that some people should die if the cost the State a ton of money to keep alive.. it's not fair to taxpayers. |
Ran-chan
Posts: 4395/12781 |
I undertsand your opinion, Sofie. I guess I have this opinion just because it isn |
Sofie
Posts: 1043/1210 |
What if you had a seriously ill child? What if she was your daughter? Do you think you could pull the plug on her so easily?
These days, women get subjected to many tests before they give birth (especially when it's a first child, or the mother is 30 years and over), which excludes a lot of these cases. There are still things getting overlooked (I can't understand how they didn't see that 9 month old boy had 3 holes in his heartchambers), and it's just not fair to take the decision out of the parents' hands.
It's highly likely those children aren't conscious most of the time, so you can't bring the arguement of never ending pain.
If you ever have been in the hospital for a longer time and were in pain, you'd know doctors usually drug up patients, so they're more comfortable (and the nurses get less complaints <<; )
My sister was in the hospital for her first year and a half of life. She had her kidneys fail, her liver fail, her lungs go berserk, a bit of everything. She must've had quite a few near death experiences, basically. Most of it was due to severe allergies, but that wasn't discovered untill it was almost too late.
They started sending my mom to a counselor of sorts, to prepare her for the worst case scenario, and doctors have always, always warned my mother that my sister was likely to die before her 10th birthday.
She's 13 now, and driving everyone insane with her teenager antics and general bitchy attitude; her biggest problem is that she gets overstressed a lot.
If my mom had decided back then not to fight for her, she would never have known if there was a chance she'd pull through, which she did.
So no, I don't think doctors should ever have the right to decide on life or death matters. Technology and medical science advance so fast that, like Apple said, there's always a chance you can get cured tomorrow. |
Gavin
Posts: 255/799 |
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins
Suffering is a part of life that people have to endure to survive. Everyone suffers in some way, or at least I would imagine so. This is not a matter of the child being "allowed to die." If I'm in intense pain, as I have been in before, I don't want to DIE. I want the pain to stop, not my life.
Personally, I look at it as economics. If the parents are attached enough to their child that they are willing and capable to shovel out the dough to keep the kid alive, so be it. I don't think it's the doctor's choice. The doctor doesn't face the same direct emotional impact of losing that child that the parents will.
If I was in that situation I would also consider whether there was any hope that my baby would somehow grow out of this condition. If money runs out as well as hope for the baby's future autonomy, he/she's dead meat. It's just the way it goes.
Originally posted by Apple
How would you feel if you told the parents to let their baby go and the next month or so, new technolgy comes out that would of been able to cure their child?
to both posts: 
[edit:] after reviewing the below post, I add an additional "word" and can only say: I rest my case. |
Apple
Posts: 450/594 |
How would you feel if you told the parents to let their baby go and the next month or so, new technolgy comes out that would of been able to cure their child? |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 641/2189 |
Suffering is a part of life that people have to endure to survive. Everyone suffers in some way, or at least I would imagine so. This is not a matter of the child being "allowed to die." If I'm in intense pain, as I have been in before, I don't want to DIE. I want the pain to stop, not my life.
Personally, I look at it as economics. If the parents are attached enough to their child that they are willing and capable to shovel out the dough to keep the kid alive, so be it. I don't think it's the doctor's choice. The doctor doesn't face the same direct emotional impact of losing that child that the parents will.
If I was in that situation I would also consider whether there was any hope that my baby would somehow grow out of this condition. If money runs out as well as hope for the baby's future autonomy, he/she's dead meat. It's just the way it goes. |
gnkkwinrrul
Posts: 348/647 |
I think that she should be allowed to die...if the kid is really going through that much pain, it's just torture.  |
Tarale
Posts: 590/2720 |
Originally posted by Gavin
i very much disagree. Pain is not an attractive fate, but what possible fate can there be worse than death ?
Ongoing, neverending pain, with no hope. |
Gavin
Posts: 250/799 |
Originally posted by Ailure
Doctors and scienties have since long time ago being accused for "playing god". Honestly aren't they playing god in a sense if they keep someone alive which should be dead if it wasn't for the help from the doctors? 
it depends on the society and the creatures. If a gorilla mother senses that her offspring is in danger, it will place it out of reach and our of danger from a predatory attack. The natural course of action that would have followed if she had not intervened would have surely mean the death of the gorilla mother's offspring. Did she "play god" by interfering with the natural process?
no. it's natural to protect and sustain one's own. |
Ran-chan
Posts: 4377/12781 |
No...I don |
Ailure
Posts: 5519/11162 |
At the same time, if they add any new laws. God forbid I hope they won't be abused in a way. 
Wierd, with Animals there is no question. If they suffer people usually kill them becuse of morality reasons, but when humans suffer they have to suffer until their death becuse of morality reasons the law. 
Doctors and scienties have since long time ago being accused for "playing god". Honestly aren't they playing god in a sense if they keep someone alive which should be dead if it wasn't for the help from the doctors? |
Gavin
Posts: 249/799 |
Originally posted by Millennium Neko
I know that the parents care about their baby but...would you like to have a life like that?
Always being at the hospital with a machine that helps you breathing.
It doesn
Tarale
Posts: 589/2720 |
Okay, yes, it is the parent's LEGAL right... but the question is, should it be?
Should there be some kind of line, some point at which the suffering of the person is too great, and with no gain... after which the doctors are able to make a judgement not to rescuscitate?
Yes, I know that gives doctors the power to "play god" a little, but at the moment the parents get to play that a little too....if they're deciding whether that child lives or dies, that's exactly what they're doing....
I think there needs to maybe be some kind of middle ground... some kind of point where it's not fair to ask a human being to keep being subjected to the pain.... |
Ran-chan
Posts: 4375/12781 |
I know that the parents care about their baby but...would you like to have a life like that?
Always being at the hospital with a machine that helps you breathing.
It doesn |
Gavin
Posts: 247/799 |
Originally posted by Colin
It might be selfish of them, but it *is* their choice.
right-o. I don't think the courts should be able to have the power to condemn this child to death, it just shouldn't be their choice.
Originally posted by Millennium Neko
So the baby stops breathing every now and then whatever they do? That
Tarale
Posts: 587/2720 |
All the doctors want to do is.... the next time it happens, they don't revive her.
Which, I think, considering the situation, is a fair thing to do. Sure, it's going to be very sad for the parents, but it'll also end the child's suffering. And while it'll be hard initially, I'd like to think that eventually the parents will be happy that their child died peacefully rather than suffering needlessly....
I'd hate not to be able to have a say in what happens if I were in the same situation. |
Ran-chan
Posts: 4374/12781 |
So the baby stops breathing every now and then whatever they do? That |
Ailure
Posts: 5515/11162 |
I'm sort of for the "Keep them alive unless the person really REALLY wants to", but this person is so young and probably can't even speak. I'm not surprised if she was the only child thoose parents have.
Personally I wouldn't stand my kid suffering so much, I probably would pull the cord if she was "constantly dying". And I think this kid is just gonna die early, soon whatever the parents want that or not... :/
Hell, whatever i'm for "Clinical murder" or whatever you call it, but only for the extreme cases where it's impossible. :/ |
Apple
Posts: 448/594 |
When my uncle and his (ex)wife lost their child when it was only a few weeks old, it hit them hard. Everyone I have ever meet who has lost a child have never really been the same afterwards regradless of the age of the child. So I can totally reason with the parents in the story.
I understand the baby may never recover and may be ill her whole life and it'll probably be the best for the parents to pull the plug but on the otherside. Pulling the plug on your own child would make you feel like you killed your own child and/or failed as a parent.
So I'm going to go with yes. You should keep someone alive at all costs UNLESS the person states otherwise. |
Colin
Posts: 4681/11302 |
It might be selfish of them, but it *is* their choice. It's like if someone's on life support - eventually the plug has to be pulled, but maybe the family wants a little more time with the patient.
Like I said, the doctors have every right to tell the parents "Look, she's not going to get any better, and her body can't take this much longer." The parents also have the right to say "We want our baby to live and we're willing to do whatever it takes." And that's understandable; they might know that there's little, if any hope, but at the same time they don't want to lose him/her.
It's tough. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | | |
|
