Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists

[t-dub]

So, I understand this is a heavy topic but, it is of philosophical interest at the very least and I submit it to provoke intellectual discussion. I am becoming increasingly disturbed with the "scientific dictatorship" that Amerika is becoming. As our brand of fascism gains more footing in this country, I see the "masks" coming off the eugenicists. Since I am disabled, and a HEAVY user of the healthcare system, this topic concerns me a great deal. The SHORT article I am referring to is here:

http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/9901

From the article: "If killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.

Questions:

Who gets to be the "gardener"? Who decides which "weeds" to pull? Am I a weed at this point?

According to Dr. Ezekiel J Emanuel, author of "The Complete Lives System", and Rahm Emanuel's brother, the government should be the "gardener" His paper on the allocation of scarce healthcare resources should scare the shit out of everyone here over the age of 40. http://econopundit.com/ezekiel_emmauel.pdf

How do we balance the "right to exist" with the economic realities of the world?

We see shortages not only of organs but of $ and medications as well. The Chinese "State Capitalism" model has effectively dealt with these realities in their typical fashion. The mobile execution vans with the transplant surgeons (organ harvesters) inside are all you need to know to "understand" what they are doing over there. Nat Geo did a special called "The Body Trade" hosted by Lisa Ling which shows the Chinese Organ Tourism trade in its full, horrific, light. Need a kidney? $60,000. A liver? $100,000 (prices subject to change) includes airfare, hotel, and burn phone. Interesting to note that the IMF and the UN consider Chinese "State Capitalism" to be the model for the world's future. From the original article:

"In view of well-publicised organ shortages, transplant surgeons are eager to increase the number of available organs. DCD is an important avenue. However, a nagging suspicion that these patients might not be dead is still a substantial stumbling block because the medical profession insists that donors must always be dead. But Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller have an solution:

[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.""

At what point does society write me off and move on? Does the "social contract" I was forced to enter into in this country mean anything going forward into the future?

 

[treecityrnd]

Dubs, they wrote us off a long time ago. Now we are just used for political gain when and where ever necessary.

I don't believe that Romney (go Michigan!) would hesitate to grab a spare kidney or two if the price was right. Especially if he didn't know the source. It's when organs go black market that it will get really scary. Those prices quoted above are market value

Bottom 99% and proud of it!

 

[t-dub]

Just spotted this line again:

"This radical conclusion may shock some readers, but the authors are not murderers. They want to bring greater precision to what we mean by killing. "

Hmmmmm . . . seems like a lot of government institutions are getting really good at this lately. The military industrial complex isn't "murdering" anyone in Pakistan either . . . they were "suspected" terrorists after all . . .

So with the NDAA nullifying Posse Comitatus, your right to a trial by a jury of your peers, codifying, IN LAW, the legal FACT that the USA is a battleground, authorizing unlimited detention, without charge, trial ever . . . hmmm. I'm starting to get "concerned".

 

[Ymir]

As the population of the planet continues to multiply, there will be an increasing need to regulate things that we currently take for granted.

 

[Nycdeisel]

i think you meant NDAA up there tdub^
Interesting thread started though, im interested in seeing what others think about this

 

[Abysmal Vapor]

Nature has it is own ways of regulating population.. anyway.. About the cost of life.. around where i live.. Some(mostly gypsies) sell their babies for 1000 $ and it has become quite common for poor people to trade their organs for a . There are cases of people maiming their children so they can get more $ from the government without even having a job..(that is even better cuz they get bonus for lonely non working parent.. )..
There was a journalistic pursue on a family that had maimed their childen on purpose and are praising themselves among other how much $ they got for that..
They even did a list..
For example :
Child one .. One leg one eye - 100 $
Child two .. Cripled with both legs.. 150 $
Child three ... Deaf and mentally maimed..
It goes up to 15 in some records.. in the current case they had only 6 but the mother said they've sold a few to wealthy childless couples from Greece..

 

[Magic9]

While I do not agree with bioethicists (I see their point, but call bullshit), I do think people should also have a right to die. I do believe Oregon is the only state with a provision for that. It is crazy to deny a terminally ill patient with a sound mind that choice.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a hero.

 

[WatTyler]

Some US states have of course already decided that it's not morally wrong to take the life of those who commit serious crimes. This is still 'weeding' of humanity, but ostensibly on the grounds of their social actions for which they are accountable, rather than genetics for which they are not. I'm not so sure, in the case of some of the most heinous crimes at least- they can reflect a depravity that isn't just the product of a persons environment and rational choices.

 

[t-dub]

i think you meant NDAA up there tdub^
Interesting thread started though, im interested in seeing what others think about this

Thanks, typo fixed. So, in a world of limited resources, how do we decide who gets what? Do we want the free market doing it? The government? A combination of both? Who gets to decide? The family? The patient? The doctors?

I find it difficult to think that as soon as I can't advocate for myself in a hospital situation that I might be at the mercy of the "ethicist" and the system they help to create.

In the "Complete Lives System" I believe they refer to "Distributive Justice" when making these types of decisions.

 

[technique]

The context of "brain damage" is a little ambiguous as it can also be applied to people who have the ability to move and communicate in some fashion.

In actual fact the article is referring to a condition possibly defined better as "brain dead"(for us non medics) where by a patient has not the ability to survive without aid or the ability to recognize his/her own existence. The brain in such a patient is dead and has ceased all function but we can keep the body from decaying by artificially breathing for it and providing it sustenance.

I would like to make it clear at this point i have so far failed to offer an opinion and am currently just providing information.

With regards for who gets to determine what is a weed - they are talking about a brain that has stopped functioning.

Is it morally right to refer to a person in such a state as a weed? - i would think not as you still hold the ability to seriously offend family and friends it would be the same as disrespecting a person perfectly aware of what your saying.

Did the medical community mean "weed" offensively? - No, personally i see it as a metaphor that was used to illustrate a point and not intended with any disrespect. Perhaps there were better choices for a comparison but using a word which caused offence when you didn't mean to is no crime in my book and one i am sure we are all guilty of.

Brain death it should be noted is as of yet completely irreversible.

Morality - If you have the funds to sustain multiple "brain dead" patients by all means that is a choice you make, however, should your choice to do so in any which way compromise the health or treatment of people with "living brains" this decision would by its very nature be immoral. Using up thousands of the NHS budget to sustain people who can not come back could possibly be argued to be against morality.

I would like to point out i am yet to offer my opinion (im not counting how i feel on the was weed meant offensively issue) but here it is -

I think if i was in a brain dead state i would like someone to be kind enough to pull the plug.

As you can see i like to talk alot lol, i mean no disrespect to anyone but i believe if looked at objectively the situation is clear and the doctors are right. I do however feel that it needs to be handled with far more gentle a touch then weed metaphors, but i see no good reason to sustain such a patient. If you feel there is something i am missing please feel free to point it out as i may well be wrong and if so will be happy to admit it.

 

[Longbones]

at weed being offensive.

But seriouslyI agree with technique. I think that there is a line that needs to NOT be crossed in this case: patients with even partial functionality, despite disability or drain on resources, should not be 'harvested' to save "better" people. How do you place value on a human life?

Those with the ability to make a complete, informed decision, who simply do not want to live anymore (because of shitty quality of life, not suicidal impulseslet's be clear here), should be given the right to end their own life. Doctors who comply with these wishes are doing a good thing.

In the case of brain dead...I'm hesitant to allow government regulation of this, and would be more comfortable if the family were in charge of the decision. However, families are sentimental and rarely make logical choices. I'm a scientist and I see no reason at all why someone who is NO LONGER a person in our sense of the word would need to go on living. It doesn't make sense.

Add in the life-saving power of organ transplants, and the only moral decision is to pull the plug on the fully brain-dead.

 

[Ymir]

I'd sign a contract that lists the body parts that I'm willing to "donate", along with, the agreed upon dollar value of the organs; so when I die my organs can be harvested and the cash goes to my estate.

 

[t-dub]

Well, I think it is illegal in the USA to charge $ for organs but I am pretty sure in China the $ goes to the state. So, besides organ donation, what are we looking at for "rationing" of healthcare services in an environment of increasingly limited resources? Am I a weed now since my organs are Un-donate-able? What about my sister who is now housebound with MS? When does the public decide to cut her off?

Edit: Again I posit these notions for intellectual discussion only. My hope is open discussion with no agendas or personal judgements.

 

[Ymir]

It's difficult to use examples of how things are done in China as a reference to how similar things would be done in other countries, because we live in a different poitical system than China.
That being said, China is testing the concept of paying families for donated organs of deceased family members, who have given permission.

 

[t-dub]

Yes, and the examples are just to encourage discussion of the intellectual principals involved. I realize that economic/political systems have grappled with these issues before and I offer at this point no judgements on their solutions, so what I am looking for here is philosophy moving forward on these issues and personal feelings and concerns. I think the visceral feelings as well as anecdotal comments of people surviving under these systems of "distributive justice" are important.

 

[technique]

Well, I think it is illegal in the USA to charge $ for organs but I am pretty sure in China the $ goes to the state. So, besides organ donation, what are we looking at for "rationing" of healthcare services in an environment of increasingly limited resources? Am I a weed now since my organs are Un-donate-able? What about my sister who is now housebound with MS? When does the public decide to cut her off?

Edit: Again I posit these notions for intellectual discussion only. My hope is open discussion with no agendas or personal judgements.

The article refers to patients who can not survive without a respirator and whos heart has stopped beating on its own. Im having a little difficulty in understanding how you feel either you or your sister meet this criteria!.... do you think your dead? if so hook me up some of that smoke buddy

 

[t-dub]

The article said that their hearts may start beating again also . . . anyways I am philosophizing about the rationing of medical care and the possible criteria to be used. This article is just one example of this very complex area. Society writes off the disabled in degrees, very subtle in some ways. So no, I obviously don't think we are dead, its the journey getting there that concerns me, and some of the "help" I may have along the way.

 

[technique]

Ahhh, i see. Well in that case i cant offer any comment on the varying degrees in which society writes off the disabled as i am not sure i am privy to such information but to answer your earlier questions.

Are you or your sister a weed? - no, as stated the article has nothing to do with either of you and im assuming that is the "weed" reference we are referring to

In terms of when does society decide to cut her off what do you mean? In a financial sense or are we talking about medically? the reason i ask is i dont understand the statement why would society cut her off?

Edit: i almost forgot, with regards to "their hearts may start beating again" firstly this is highly disputed in medicine as we have no proof for it or any case of it. Even if their heart did decide to beat their brain remains irreversibly dead and they can never be a person again.

 

[Magic9]

The US government (and its people) allows people to profit of off the death of American citizens, young and old. I would say that they are already "weeding" people out and rationing medical care. Not in the interest of preserving any other resources other than money. The fact that this can go on, and that people just accept it, blows my mind. To me, it is far worse than bioethicists theorizing. How do you justify money being made from the deaths of American men, women, and children? Especially in a "christian" nation?

 

[t-dub]

I would also like to point out that insurance companies are just as much in the "rationing" dept as the feds. My latest biologic is over $6,000 a dose. Of course I was originally denied the drug. It took a 4 hour phone call, and slamming into the nameless, faceless bureaucracy that was making this decision for me. There was no name they would give me, no message I could leave, no way at all to advocate in my behalf. Thankfully they changed their decision, but every time I call the specialty pharmacy now its like "Oh hey, how you doing?" Apparently my call was recorded and used for "training" purposes.

 

[Ymir]

I would also like to point out that insurance companies are just as much in the "rationing" dept as the feds. My latest biologic is over $6,000 a dose. Of course I was originally denied the drug. It took a 4 hour phone call, and slamming into the nameless, faceless bureaucracy that was making this decision for me. There was no name they would give me, no message I could leave, no way at all to advocate in my behalf. Thankfully they changed their decision, but every time I call the specialty pharmacy now its like "Oh hey, how you doing?" Apparently my call was recorded and used for "training" purposes.

Think of those who are not strong enough to stand up for themselves, in the event that some insurance company says "no".
Healthcare is a challenge in every market, but the reality of having to fight for the right to live, with an insurance company is fucked because it's cheaper for them if you die.

 

[Magic9]

I would also like to point out that insurance companies are just as much in the "rationing" dept as the feds. My latest biologic is over $6,000 a dose. Of course I was originally denied the drug. It took a 4 hour phone call, and slamming into the nameless, faceless bureaucracy that was making this decision for me. There was no name they would give me, no message I could leave, no way at all to advocate in my behalf. Thankfully they changed their decision, but every time I call the specialty pharmacy now its like "Oh hey, how you doing?" Apparently my call was recorded and used for "training" purposes.

Think of those who are not strong enough to stand up for themselves, in the event that some insurance company says "no".
Healthcare is a challenge in every market, but the reality of having to fight for the right to live, with an insurance company is fucked because it's cheaper for them if you die.

Exactly. The insurance companies that profit, the govt. that allows it, and the people they tricked into believing bullshit, all have blood on their hands. More everyday.

Completely disregarding the financial impact, which I believe would have been extremely beneficial in the long run, and only considering only the moral aspect, it is an atrocity.

No matter your view on the death penalty, at least it can be argued that the person was convicted and had been responsible for the actions that led to their demise. The same cannot be said for somebody stricken ill (especially children).

Now in a so-called "christian" nation, terminal patients of sound mind cannot choose to end their suffering in a dignified manner (except Ore.). I believe that option is denied by lawmakers, due to their religious beliefs, ie. "God has not called them home yet".

Yet someone who wants treatment, depending on their coverage, how much money they have/pay, etc., can be denied (most are initially), and then die. How does that mesh with their beliefs? Would Jesus deny someone healthcare?

 

[t-dub]

Yes, exactly Ymir. And as we move forward in a world of increasing need versus decreasing resources, I see the bio-ethicist, or their mindset, helping to form the rule-set we will have to deal with in the future. Any comments from our European friends across the pond? How about our Canadian friends up North?

 

[t-dub]

Yet someone who wants treatment, depending on their coverage, how much money they have/pay, etc., can be denied (most are initially), and then die. How does that mesh with their beliefs? Would Jesus deny someone healthcare?

The difference in attitude arrives with the $$$. I think some people look beyond personal moral and ethical considerations when they start crunching "the numbers". However, I see the bio-ethicist as a highly specialized, a-moral, person that won't have a problem doing this.

 

[Mathair Naduir]

We just had this conversation in my philosophy class.

For as long as I can remember, humans have put dying/unhealthy animals to "sleep", or euthanized them to put them out of their misery. Yet dying senior citizens living the last months of their lives in clinics and hospitals, that actually ask to have their "plug pulled", are denied their request.

Why do we let human beings suffer through pain/aging/health conditions, but not animals?
-Especially if we are all going to die anyway.

I'm not talking about granting a depressed, suicidal teenager the right to end their life. But I do think their comes a point in one's life where they should ultimately be able to choose if they want to continue their life.

EDIT: I see above mentioning how money is one of the main culprit's for keeping dying people alive. I do agree with that. We are all being scammed. However, my above opinion is solely from a philosophical point of view, not an external.