Despite the debate has been steadily going towards a direction of generalizing matters, I think it's time to get some other sources than the original link and Stetson-Harrison method, just to correct some of the factually erraneous statements made in this thread (those made by myself included):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_WyattCurrent status
Charlotte is alert and can see and hear. Although she still needs constant oxygen, Charlotte is now well enough to be discharged from hospital.
Charlotte Wyatt BlogspotApparently, Charlotte is as of now neither deaf or blind, nor unable of movement.
Teaches one to make assumptions. Oh well.
However, regardless of this particular case I'm still of the opinion that in some cases, preserving life is not worthwile. The trouble is knowing which case has hope of living satisfying life and which case doesn't.
It is a difficult thing, and I don't think there is single right answer - it's too case-dependant. I definitly wouldn't place every disabled child onto "not-to-resuscitate"-list, no way. Besides, if I were a doctor, I would not be too keen to convict a newborn to life-long unlife. After all, whatever brain damage a prematurely born child might have, ther's no way of declaring the situation to be final, since the brains keep developing even after normal nine months of pregnancy. So, a prematurely born baby keeps developing his or her nerve systems - including new brain cells - that just might cover a large part of what was lost. And it should also be taken into account that the brain can assign tasks from disabled areas to undamaged ones, especially child's brain. They just have to learn things again, and child's brain cells can make new connections much more easily than adult's. It might even be possible for a prematurely born child to develope a whole new visual brain cortex to replace the irreparably damaged one. Or to create new connections between an undamaged area of brain and the ears, to effectively create new area dedicated to analyzing hearing. I'm not a neurologist, but it wouldn't feel too impossible to me.
However, regardless of the particular case described here, let's think of a general situation where a child is borne disabled, physically ill and incapable of any normal mental development - that would mean that the child has no viable interface to world due to severely disabled sensory functions and no voluntary body movements.
If the condition can be proven to be this bad, I don't see any reason to prolong vital functions. Furthermore, if the child can feel pain, that's even more of a reason to not prolong the suffering.
It's the "prove" part that causes most difficulty. How to be sure? In cases like this, where a prematurely born child has seemingly brain damage, I would wait and see what happens when he or she is kept alive until at least a month or two after calculated time of birth. If the brain damage remains as extensive as it was in the beginning, then I just might resign, since after that it would be unlikely for tha brain functions to get anywhere near the level required for actually living, aside from vital organ functions.
Unlike your opinion(s), mine encompasses the true virtues of the species, while yours hunts down matters that aren't yours to meddle in.
1. Define "true virtue of the species". What good would it do to keep alive a person who has no hope of ever feeling anything but pain, like described in the latter example rather than the actual case of Charlotte Wyatt?
2. When a person can't affect his or her life, not even to express his or her opinion about things, everything is meddling. And in case where the only sensation was constant pain, I would actually view prolonging the life of pain with medical technology more of a meddling than not doing so.
Someone always makes decisions for people who cannot do it themselves. Furthermore, it is disputable if a person with only sensation ever being suffering even has such a thing as developed personality, or ability to abstract thinking.
If the situation can be reliably confirmed of having no hope of getting any better, then I think it's simply a decision between pain and no pain - and if the "no pain" option involves death - or stopping vital function support - so be it.
The emo poem sort of solidifies my argument. Preconceived notions of the negative, projected onto someone else is the definition of a psychotic god-image problem.
I wouldn't be too keen to define that particular
Metallica song as an emo poem, but suit yourself.
As to what comes to projecting preconceived notions onto a situation where a person has known nothing but pain from his or her birth, there are multiple argumenst that make it highly unprobable for him or her to have anything good to live for.
Mental development demands interface to the world (and particularly social interaction). Sensory deprivation in itself is a very effective form of torture. It is practically impossible for a child with no sensations other than pain to develop any kind of picture of the world around him, not to mention having any kind of remotely normal mental development. He or she would stay forever on fetal level of conscience, if not lower.
And that opinion is not preconceived negative notion, its based on scientific data as to what is required for mental development of a child.
