[Wobble73]

Pffft!, how can trailer trash like this get a court ruling in their favour!!! What is wrong the court system these days!!!

[Herra Tohtori]

Tragedy.

What more, I think the parents were in fact thinking more of themselves than their child when they wanted to keep her alive in these conditions.

After all, people who are sad after they lost a loved one are not sad for the dead; they are sad for themselves because they have to live on without their loved one. It's not like the dead suffer any more, it's the living missing the dead that causes death to be seen as a bad thing in many cases. But it's not... it's neutral, and natural part of life.

If I ever end up getting a child this badly disabled that he or she will never ever have normal life without constant agony, I would also - for the child's sake - not force him or her go through it. Everyone dies anyway, and this poor kid will probably pass away before her parents, without ever experiencing anything but pain, more pain, and then death (whatever it involves). It truly would've been better not ot have three years (and counting) of pain, without much anything else. The parents will still have to deal with the pain of losing their daughter some day - I think that much is obvious. But since they couldn't face the truth and wanted to spare themselves from losing their child, they pressed the matter, doomed their child to constant pain, probably caused the destruction of the family and so forth.

At least if they simply had lost the baby, they would've had each other to get support from. Now, after three years, they have split up and at least the father is not doing so well, don't know about the mother though. In the end, fear of loss caused much more harm than the loss in itself.

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

The parents were afraid of losing their child, despite the obvious fact that death would've been better solution than living in pain. That led to them getting angry, and eventually they split up. This all resulted in suffering of the child, mother and father. Way to go...

[Fineus]

What plagues me is.. is a life such as this really a life?

I know the immediate answer is "yes", everyone has a right to a shot at life and so on... but given the girls condition she must be going through an unspeakable amount of suffering that doesn't look like it's going to get any more pleasent for her as time goes by. Were I stuck in a form of conciousness that was aware of itself but was locked in her condition, I'm fairly sure I'd rather have an end and release to that suffering rather than endure it.. and what else can she really do but endure it? She's not going anywhere.. she can't see or hear or respond to stimulus...

...which brings me back to my original question. Is she really alive? Is that a life any of you would wish on someone? She has nothing to look forward to, perhaps the kind thing is indeed to - for want of better (or kinder) words - put her out of her misery.

[Herra Tohtori]

It is life, yes, but not human life (as in including social interaction as well as vital functions.)

[Colonol Dekker]

This is descending into a state of definitions/opinions on things which is gonna skew off, But i'll fuel it anyway.........


Life such as this poor souls, can be called an existence, fleeting as it may have been, would you call it a "Life" in the sense taken above in that she would be able to cycle in the summer, go swimming. Simple things like walk the dog and apologise for it doing mess in a eighbours garden. Stupid things we take for granted she may not even have the option.........

[Fineus]

I'd like to try and avoid the whole "definitions" part if we can help it.. it'll get nowhere.

But rather address the question - and there's no "good" way to put this - is it right to keep the girl alive? Is it of benefit to her or those responsible for her? Would it be cruel to keep her alive, given whatever pain she may feel?

[Ford Prefect]

Great. Now, here I am by myself, talking to myself. That's Chaos Theory.

That's existentialism at its finest.

On topic: I don't see the reason in keeping such a person alive. We tend to be trapped by the tempting idea that "human life" has an irremovable essence, but nothing has an irremovable essence. Everything that gives us cause to view the human experience as sacred has been taken from her.

[BlackDove]

Her pain doesn't enter the equation.

A lot of people are in all sorts of pain. A lot of them live.

Fact is, unless she tells you she wants out, it's not your call to pull the plug. If she can't tell you, too bad. Default is to preserve life, and nothing anyone says or observes matters, at all. Second hand empathy and observation is mastrubation.

People need to learn that their opinions mean absolutely nothing in more cases than they care to admit. This being one of them.

[delta_7890]

Her pain doesn't enter the equation.

A lot of people are in all sorts of pain. A lot of them live.

Fact is, unless she tells you she wants out, it's not your call to pull the plug. If she can't tell you, too bad. Default is to preserve life, and nothing anyone says or observes matters, at all. Second hand empathy and observation is mastrubation.

People need to learn that their opinions mean absolutely nothing in more cases than they care to admit. This being one of them.

I don't see the point in letting the poor kid suffer.  If she can't talk, can't see, can't hear, can't experience the JOY of living, then why bother keeping her alive?  Why prolong that suffering?  In my mind, that's just cruelty, especially given this situation where she feels constant pain.

As horrible as this may sound, the fact is that her existance is a burden in many ways, and apparently, a benfit to no one, especially herself.  To keep her alive is extremely costly, there is no hope of any sort of repair or recovery, and it looks like the parents don't even want her.  We're not talking about hopping on over and taking out a perfectly healthy kid, but giving this girl gentle way out of a perpetual, painful, and ultimately meaningless existence.

[Turambar]

yeah, with parents like that, she's probably better off with a painless morphine overdose.

its ok, there's really no such thing as original sin, they just made that up to scare ppl.

[castor]

Lifelong suffering and pain as for birthright...
This kind of decisions should be left to professionals. Unlike the parents, they have at least a chance of knowing what they are doing.

[BlackDove]

Her pain doesn't enter the equation.

A lot of people are in all sorts of pain. A lot of them live.

Fact is, unless she tells you she wants out, it's not your call to pull the plug. If she can't tell you, too bad. Default is to preserve life, and nothing anyone says or observes matters, at all. Second hand empathy and observation is mastrubation.

People need to learn that their opinions mean absolutely nothing in more cases than they care to admit. This being one of them.

I don't see the point in letting the poor kid suffer.  If she can't talk, can't see, can't hear, can't experience the JOY of living, then why bother keeping her alive?  Why prolong that suffering?  In my mind, that's just cruelty, especially given this situation where she feels constant pain.

As horrible as this may sound, the fact is that her existance is a burden in many ways, and apparently, a benfit to no one, especially herself.  To keep her alive is extremely costly, there is no hope of any sort of repair or recovery, and it looks like the parents don't even want her.  We're not talking about hopping on over and taking out a perfectly healthy kid, but giving this girl gentle way out of a perpetual, painful, and ultimately meaningless existence.

It's so good we have all of you people to define what the JOY of living is, especially when you get to do so for others, and even more so in a situation that doesn't even concern you subjectively one bit.

Just because her existence is meaningless to you, that doesn't necessarily mean she feels the same way.

I'll re-state.

Your opinion on life, and any judgment you may be willing to pass over another human being's life without their direct consent does not matter.

[Herra Tohtori]

Your opinion on life, and any judgment you may be willing to pass over another human being's life without their direct consent does not matter.

And whose opinion matters then? Your opinion that the default is to keep everyone alive?

The trouble is, that this girl herself most likely has no way of communicating with outside world. It's even possible that she doesn't have anything to communicate, that her existence consists solely of pain. She has no conscious body movement, her sight and hearing are impared. Thus I doubt that she has ever learned to, for example, understand speech and develop the skill of abstract thinking.

Obviously, we can't just ask her whether or not she has something to live for. Personally I doubt it. Her parents were of different opinion and wanted to keep her alive, and so she was kept alive.

But like you say, neither their or mine or anyone else's opinion is the only right one. The right opinion would be what she wants, but as shown, it's impossible to know what she would want, if she has somehow managed to develope any kind of sentient awareness and abstract thought.

So it is up to other people to decide what's best for her. Normally it's up to parents to decide that, but in cases where parents' decisions cause suffering to child/ren, it is normal to intervene and prevent further suffering. Granted, this is a difficult issue, and I really really hope that I'm never going to be in a position to make decision like this, but I think that I would've agreed with the doctors in their analysis that it would be rather pointless to maintain the bodily functions of the baby, since there never was much promise of tolerable human life for her.


It is, of course, easy to see in retrospect that the decision to keep the girl alive has done no good but instead just prolonged her suffering and contributed to parents' separation. And that is the greatest problem of consequential ethics in general. Deontological ethics gives much better basis to make decisions like this. Would you appreciate being kept alive and never being able to live? To be unable to do anything but suffer until death comes?

I for one wouldn't really value it if I had been kept alive just because my mum and dad couldn't face the truth that I would never be able to live despite being alive. Not that I had ever known about it, as I suspect the poor girl is unaware of anything but pain.

Darkness - imprisoning me
All that I see
Absolute horror
I cannot live
I cannot die
Trapped in myself
Body my holding cell...

[Getter Robo G]

To sum up what had been posted before:

"There IS a time to play God, and a time NOT to. Knowing the difference is the acknowledgement of wisdom..." - Me.

[Fineus]

Your opinion on life, and any judgment you may be willing to pass over another human being's life without their direct consent does not matter.

Lets make a few assumptions and see if what you're saying holds water.

A new disease is found, it renders people vegtables with no power to communicate with others. They can't speak, hear or show any sort of reaction to stimuli. They're also in agonizing pain and while the disease is not life threatening (it is possible that they will live) - they will do so in suffering for as long as they are alive. It becomes a common yet untreatable disease. One of your relatives becomes ill with it.

You are faced with a simple choice: Leave them be to live in agony for the rest of their life - possibly for years. Or choose to have them killed in a painless way. Only you can make that choice - nobody else will interfere with your decision.

You would choose to leave them be, knowing that they are in pain and that short of their eventual death they will see no mercy from this disease.

Could you live with that? In effect you're wishing that pain upon them by choosing not to offer up a release from it. What if it was you in agony, wishing that the pain would end but finding nobody would help you because they feel it's not their place?

Still feel the same?

[Flipside]

Firstly, did the parents save to fight the child because they wanted it to live, or they simply didn't want it on their conscience that they chose to let her go? While I agree the stress must have been terrible for them, there are other parents with similar children who manage.

Were the doctors wrong to suggest they let her go? No. A Doctors responisiblity is to his patient, and when you are dealing with a pregnant couple, all parties are patients, and the Doctors had to take everyone into account. The chances are she will not live long, as tragic as that may be, 3 years is testament to her strength,  but say she lived just as long again, and miraculously made it to 6, would she actually be 'alive'? Can she communicate? Can she make things or learn things? It appears that nobody is really sure. And I find myself asking the question 'What is it to be 'alive?'. Some describe it as a gift from God, others as a simple chemical process. The simple fact that her heart is beating and her lungs are working are clinical proof that she is alive medically, albeit assisted, however, my own personal feeling is that if I was stuck in a wheelchair unable to communicate my thoughts or feelings in any way, I'd rather end it than be trapped inside the prison of my own mind.

That money being used to keep someone at perpetual deaths door may have been better spent pulling other people back from it. That's not cruelty, that's Triage.

[BlackDove]

Your opinion on life, and any judgment you may be willing to pass over another human being's life without their direct consent does not matter.

And whose opinion matters then? Your opinion that the default is to keep everyone alive?

Yes.

Unlike your opinion(s), mine encompasses the true virtues of the species, while yours hunts down matters that aren't yours to meddle in.

It is a good argument that parents should be the ones to decide for their child, and yes, I'll agree with that to the point where bad parenting (as in, people unfit to remain parents) becomes obvious and therefore the opinions of the parents are invalidated as well.

So it is up to other people to decide what's best for her.

The answer is flat out no.

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.

[Kazan]

bringing this child into the world was a crime - both a crime against her (subjecting her to a life of torture) and a crime against society (making them finance her life of torture)

[Flipside]

Unfortunately, medical science is reaching the 'can do a thing'/'must do a thing' conundrum. It's a problem that is going to occur more often as science advances.

[vyper]

Unlike your opinion(s), mine encompasses the true virtues of the species, while yours hunts down matters that aren't yours to meddle in.

BD, dude... just listen to yourself for a second.