Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old Yesterday, 08:03 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Way I see it:
I didn't really suffer, because I'm just my continuity and that's been erased. Knowledge of that erasure is itself a trauma, but in this case it's one I consent to, so OK.
HOWEVER
A temporary but fully sentient person was made to feel torturous pain and anguish, and then erased from existence. For my and the doctors' convenience. And I don't consider that ethical. It wouldn't be ethical if we created a temporary clone of me, with my memories, to suffer my pain with some sort of pain-transfer machine, and then we destroyed it, would it? Why is it ethical if the "clone" is in the same body?
Because said clone consented to the procedure. The clone still has the same continuity, and thus the same past as you. So the clone is just as much the one who consented as you are.

(I know you made a subsequent post about this, but it was unclear to me whether you agreed with this or not.)

That is, of course, presuming their is consent. I admit I had considered only consent and obvious non-consent, not situations where checking for consent is not an available option. That gets a lot messier. The normal idea is that you can act if you have reason to believe they would consent. That's why, say, grabbing someone forcefully to save them from falling and killing themselves is generally considered a moral act, when grabbing someone forcefully in other circumstances is not. You presume that, if there was time to ask, they would choose for you to save them. And, if you're wrong, they can always just choose to go back and fall intentionally.

That is where the problem lies, as there is apparently a group of people who find such procedures so unethical that they would not undergo them, but have no real way to undo the choice after the fact. However, I would expect most medical professionals to choose to perform the procedure anyways if necessary to preserve life, presuming that most people would rather be alive, even if that means doing something they find unethical.

It probably also helps that this is almost always a fallback. Even if they need the patient conscious, they will still try and numb out the pain. Doctors do have an ethical responsibility to attempt to minimize pain as much as possible. It's the same intent issue as before. The idea that the other entity is not me does not make it okay to deliberately cause it pain.

They must act as if the memory erasure might not work.
  #52  
Old Yesterday, 08:16 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,979
Knocking people out and raping them is bad, M'kay?

I can't believe that's not self evident.
  #53  
Old Yesterday, 08:51 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I think most of the spoilered part in #44 is on point. I don't agree that scenario 1 is free of moral quandary for the doctor, obviously, since I think there's still a sentient being suffering - but there's a case to be made that because there's continuity up to the memory wipe, the patient who consents has continuity with the patient that suffers so even if the patient that suffers is erased, they consented to their own erasure, so that's OK.
What is your opinion on the doctor's culpability if, in his/her professional opinion, the procedure is medically necessary? If the procedure is medically necessary and the patient makes informed consent, I can't assign any moral culpability to the doctor except possibly a less painful alternative. But if there were such an alternative this calls into question whether the procedure is medically necessary.

~Max
  #54  
Old Today, 02:57 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Because said clone consented to the procedure. The clone still has the same continuity, and thus the same past as you. So the clone is just as much the one who consented as you are.

(I know you made a subsequent post about this, but it was unclear to me whether you agreed with this or not.)
I'm uncertain - see below.
Quote:

That is, of course, presuming their is consent.
The main issue for me isn't the prior consent, it's what happens if they subsequently withdraw consent (even if non-verbally) once the procedure starts i.e. once they start choking/crying/pleading, does the doctor proceed anyway based on the assumption they won't remember? Are they strapped down? I don't know, but that would strongly influence my take. A sentient being is suffering, is it OK just because they are disposable?
  #55  
Old Today, 02:58 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 25,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
What is your opinion on the doctor's culpability if, in his/her professional opinion, the procedure is medically necessary? If the procedure is medically necessary and the patient makes informed consent, I can't assign any moral culpability to the doctor except possibly a less painful alternative. But if there were such an alternative this calls into question whether the procedure is medically necessary.

~Max
We have alternatives to Versed that do involve unconsciousness and/or painlessness for the patient.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017