Lizards have cerebral hemispheres. Some reptiles do have a reduced cerebral cortex, while others don’t.
That was my exact thought.
There may be many families where the mother ends up taking on most of the burden of caring for a profoundly disabled kid, but this is very far from a universal. I represented a child whose father had custody from infancy who was non-verbal, with severe cerebral palsy and cognitive delay–that Dad did keep up a professional practice but reduced his hours and was a devoted, primary caregiver. I’ve known quite a few other families where the father shared equally or more than equally.
I do not agree that the question of why anyone has and raises a child is unhelpful. It’s a good point, why is it OK to judge parents who choose and are able to care for a child who gives little or nothing in return? Is it because thos eof us with healthy kids are raising (potentially) useful citizens and the parents of profoundly impaired kids aren’t?
Most severely disabled people became that way because of something that happened to them after they were born, and truthfully, the most devastating things that can happen to a person and their family don’t show up until the teen years or even later. I’m talking about schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. 
I think it’s acceptable to let the mother choose to do something with a lifeless shell of a person if it benefits her own mental health. It’s not hurting the baby to exist. Can it even feel pain?
Kinda reminds me of those realistic baby dolls that some older women carry around. If it makes them happy, more power to.
It is. By definition.
There are babies/children who have brains and can feel, and are starving, or dying for lack of medical care. So yes, spending money and food and energy on a baby with no brain is a waste.
Well, you’re wrong. You do. Without a brain, you’re a shell. A vegetable. That’s not, like, up for debate. You need a brain to be human.
Are you SERIOUSLY saying having bipolar disorder is worse than not having a brain? Really?? :dubious:
Miss Elizabeth, what then do you suggest the parents do? let the child starve to death? because that’s really the only option unless you believe they should actually kill her somehow, as apparently she does not require full life support. And if they do not choose starvation, are they at fault for burdening themselves and society?
If the answer to the last question is yes, should spending money, food and energy on someone who is terminally ill and cannot recover also a waste?
Yes. And donate the organs to children if possible, as I said above. That would be the best thing, but I know it’s very hard.
Yes. I don’t hold it against them for their feeling, but they are wasting their time and money. I don’t think they are terrible people, but like Terri Schiavo’s parents, they are wrong.
I do hold it against them if they are using other people’s money, unless it is donated with the full understanding by the donors how hopeless this is. Using taxpayer money or insurance for this is wrong, and shouldn’t go on.
If they are using their own money or donations, then I respect their right to do as they please, but I think it’s a complete waste. Overall though, it’s just sad.
Yes. People who are terminally ill should be made comfortable as they die. That is all.
You certainly have the courage of your convictions, Miss Elizabeth.
I can’t see these issues as nearly so black and white. The idea that we withhold money (be it the insurance companies’ or taxpayers’), let alone food and energy from those who have suffered brain injury or are terminally ill is very troubling–what about someone who with treatment could live a few more years or months? what about someone who due to brain injury has the mental capacity of a 3 month old child and is likely not to live a normal life expectancy?
Also–I recognize this is a slippery slope point but still I think valid–who gets to decide when money for medical treatment, food and energy can be expended? Insurance companies? Will you have some sort of bright-line test, or will it be case-by-case?
I don’t know. Also, I am not a doctor, nor am I in any position to enforce my ideas. I’m posting my opinion on a messageboard.
I mean, show me the case of the person who is terminally ill, and I can tell you what I think. I assumed you meant someone in a persistent vegetative state, and I think people who have no brain function should be allowed to pass, and their organs donated if possible. If someone has terminal cancer but is expected to live 3 more years, then let them enjoy that time. When they are in their final days I think they should be given morphine and allowed to die. I think it’s wrong to hang onto the shell of a person because you cannot let go, which is what is happening with this baby/child/whatever. But I don’t think it makes someone a monster. i just think it’s not the right decision.
I don’t know. Are they in pain? Do they need help to survive (breathing machine, feeding tube, etc)? If they are existing peacefully without intervention, let them live. I’m not saying we should kill people, I just don’t think we should prolong the life of someone who cannot recover.
I am comfortable with doctors deciding on a case-by-case basis. If they say it’s hopeless, then I don’t think taxpayer or insurance money should be used.
It’s not a subject I think about a lot though, and as I said, I think it’s just tragic overall. Personally, my SO knows to not prolong my life artificially if there’s little or no hope. He feels the same, and I will respect that. Beyond that, I don’t worry about it much.
This is the appeal to emotion which clouds the facts. There are cases where older people wind up in similar situations as the infant. Grandmothers who have lived long lives dealing with the natural end of their lives. Younger adults who have conditions or tragic accidents which render them in possibly the same situation or something for all intents and purposes identical.
As a society, we don’t seem to afford human beings the same rights that we do as we do dogs and cats with regard to humane euthanasia for those who are suffering. That’s why what Jack Kevorkian does is so controversial.
But even as we wrestle with that, we don’t have as much of am problem pulling the plug on terminal patients whose brains are gone. In hospitals all over America the folks who handle organ donations are having delicate conversations with grieving people who with the input of medical professionals will be pulling life support or removing feeding tubes from grandparents, parents or sons and daughters. And while it may be tragic, it’s not very controversial.
(Well, unless your name was Terri Schiavo.)
But when we take the same condition and put it into a tiny, helpless newborn infant, the condition somehow changes? No, it doesn’t. And the only reason to change the way we deal with the condition is because of emotions.
So yes. If I had a child with this condition, I would do the same thing that I would do if my wife had this condition, or my parents, or I would hope would happen to me if someone had to make decisions for myself: Please remove my feeding tube and let me go.
To equate a brainless person to a reptile is ludicrous. A reptile still has its senses, it can still make decisions, it can still feel pain, panic, fear (perhaps not in the way we do, but still).
A brainless person would be equivalent of a colony of sponge, or a seaweed, without any of their contributions to the Eco-system.
So the question becomes, how valuable is this person to its decision makers, which are its parents. They are the one who might suffers emotionally from her death, they are the one who cherish and love her and benefit from it. You can’t deny that, from a humanistic point of view, her sole purpose of existence is for the benefits of her parents. They should have all say on whether it lives or not.
But on the other hand, if she is using taxpayers medical resources and money, then it shouldn’t only her parents decision anymore, it should be the taxpayer’s decision.
To sum, I see it as the following:
I will tolerate you plant, and out of basic human decency, I’m willing to be inconvenienced moderately for it, but it’s ONLY out of respect for your feelings for it.
But your plant is not a member of our society, and the resource that I provide, due to our collective social contract, should not extend to her.
You can’t make terminally ill people comfortable without spending at least money and energy on them (food may or may not enter the equation). Speaking as someone who has directly cared for someone terminally ill, it’s exhausting at the best of times. You can’t have it both ways. Someone has to be at the bedside. Just food for thought.
Just two words to tell where this is going- “useless eaters”.
I would feel for the other children in the family, though. It’s hard enough sharing parental attention with a “normal” sibling. Imagine how hard it is vying for love when you’re up against a “very special child”. Good parents would try to balance things out as best they can, but the needs of a “normal” sibling will always be overshadowed.
Parents may feel obligated to take on the lessons taught by their disabled children, but their other children didn’t sign up for the task. I try not to “should” situations like this, but it’s hard for me not to say that parents shouldn’t saddle their children with this kind of hardship. But what would be the alternative? Infant euthanasia? Some people would do this, but I have a feeling the vast majority wouldn’t. Hope is a powerful thing. People really bellieve in those Reader’s Digest, made-for-TV-movie inspirational stories.
Actually, I said above that if the child is anencephalic then discontinuing life support is a straightforward moral decision.
So let me try to be clear–if it is not a “simple” matter of stopping ventilatory support and the parent has to make the decision to let the child starve, while I tend to agree that it is a perfectly moral choice, I have trouble with the idea that they should be required to do so, or that the insurance company or public aid be relieved of paying benefits to which the child would otherwise be due if they refuse.
Because once that precedent is set, then we get to the next (and much more common) level–those who have brains which are damaged but are not “brain dead” or terminally ill people who have a chance of living longer with treatment.
I don’t think the slippery slope necessarily makes for bad argumentation. I can see someone arguing that it’s not fair that anencephalic babies are denied treatment, but XYZ babies, who have the same prognosis, are covered. So then the threshold is pushed to exclude more conditions, and we’re suddenly no longer talking about just clear-cut cases. I do think something like this would happen, and we’d be stupid to pretend that it wouldn’t.
But fear of the slippery slope shouldn’t be used to strong arm policy decisions. Just because we have capital punishment doesn’t mean we allow the state to kill any and everyone. Just because we regulate restaurants doesn’t mean inspectors can show up on our doorstep and demand to inspect your kitchen. And just because we’d allow insurers not to provide heroic measures for anencephalic infants doesn’t mean we’d allow them the same discretion in other matters. If laws are written explicitly enough and people stay diligent, then there’s always some protection against the slippery slope.
All true, but yet when we are talking about parents being forced to allow their child to starve, to the benefit of a health insurance company or the taxpayers, it behooves us to thin k very, very carefully before we insert the thin edge of the wedge.
Who said force? As long as it is paid for with private insurance, donations and/or cash, I don’t care what they do. I am allowed to say I wouldn’t do the same.
Yeah, like I said, given the topic of the OP I assumed he was talking about people who are brain dead, or in a vegetative state, not just people who are dying in general. In the case of someone dying of cancer (or whatever) obviously I think they should get what they need to enjoy the time they have left.
And, when I said they should be kept comfortable as they die, I mean that whatever time, energy, or food was necessary to accomplish that is fine; just that I think going to extreme lengths to keep the brain-dead shell of someone breathing is wrong.
And, again, I think this situation is tragic and I have deep sympathy for the parents. I cannot imagine their pain, and I understand how hard it is to let go. I do not think they are bad people. But I cannot say I think they are making the right decision. I don’t.