Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sonerohi]

http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/

That is a link to the story of the baby Faith Hope. She was born with anencaphaly, a condition that causes the brain to not develop. The brain stem still exists, allowing the child to breathe, it's heart to beat, it's stomach to process food. But it has no higher capacities. It will never see, feel, hear, think, smell, or taste. It cannot experience anything. It feels no pain. These are the facts of the condition.

What is up to interpretation, is whether it is alive. I believe that to many, being alive is the ability simply to enjoy being alive. To smell a rose and think it beatiful is life. To see an ocean and hear the waves is life.

Under this definition, the baby is not alive. Many who support the childs existence liken the condition to downs syndrome, or autism. They claim that those children are not fully-functioning human beings. They claim that this child is the same as the children suffering from downs syndrome and autism, and that just because the disability is much worse, does not null the claim of life.

I'm interested in opinions but mine, because I know my opinion. I think that:
A. Children with downs syndrome and autism are humans. They may be impaired, but they can still function, they can experience things, they have a human mind that makes them curious, makes them love and feel.
B. Due to the lack of any ability to do anything of self-will, this is not a living baby.

In my eyes, this is nothing more than a corpse that still requires food and air. It was never alive to begin with, it cannot die. It will not be able to suddenly just grow a brain, and any resources spent on it will have no avail. I'm not saying that the resources should not be spent, because as long as the parents cover all costs on their own, it's their decision. If the mother were on welfare, I would feel the need for the baby to be euthanised. It would be like a woman on welfare spending the money of taxpayers not on bettering herself, to make sure she can support herself in the future, but instead taking the money, buying food with it, and smashing it into the wall. If it was on her own money, whatever.

Again though, I'd like your opinions. However, it must be kept in mind: Arguing on the internet is stupid. You will not be able to change someones mind over the internet. Internet arguements are never going to have any effect on the real world.

Just state your opinions, and, if you absolutely must take issue with someone, take it up in private messages, or keep it merely to inquiries. This is an issue of morals, and noone can say that someone elses beliefs are "right" or "wrong" because it is subjective.

[inaluct]

This is a lower form of life. Like a pet sea slug. Only stupider, and less wet.

[¿]

No higher functions. Merely functions. Are viruses alive? I don't remember if they ever decided.

I'd say the kid is alive, if not much more than a sea sponge or a plant is. And even then, those can respond to stimuli.

[LegoLord]

Looking at this from a purely scientific standpoint:  Amoebas don't feel much, but they are certainly alive.  Same with every other functioning creature.  Clearly, this has human genes, and could potentially produce human offspring.  Therefore, it is a live human.  The real question is whether it would be moral to euthanize it, which is always an issue that requires much debate (I mean real debates with rules and refs, not internet type debates).

That's my view of it.

[inaluct]

It's human. Just not sapient. Or sentient.

It's not human in the same way we are, though. It's only human in it's genes. It's INFERIOR ANENCEPHALIC genes.

[i are not good with compu]

Interesting.  After a little reading about the disease I see good reason to argue that such children should simply be aborted (the same thing is frequently done with downs syndrome children, which is a bit more morally ambiguous).  But in this case, keeping them alive, aside from tying up medical resources, isn't really torturous - they lack the capacity to ever form an opinion on their state of being.  So yeah, let the mothers with the resources do what they will.

One thing, I think using the words "human" and "inhuman/not human"  complicate things because it is misleading.  A better way to speak about the issues at hand is to speak of what constitutes and does not constitute a person.  This is a human.  But is it/can it ever be a person?  Given the nature of the disease I think this is one case in the human condition where it can be said that no, this is not and will not in the foreseeable future be a person. 

[inaluct]

This is relevant.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

That wiki article is quite good.  Cases such as this are the things that force all people involved to evaluate their stance on life and death.  We will all come to different conclusions based on our own self-defined moral code hierarchy.

I, like many people I would imagine, find myself struggling to give a singularly global opinion on the subject.  Some of the things that come to mind are:

1.  If Anencaphaic babies arent alive, are coma patients?
2.  Can euthanasia be a legal answer?
3.  Can a medical practioner who swore an oath to "cause no harm" morally end a life, or refuse to treat a certain medical condition?
4.  From the Wiki, the dissenting judge said the case should be based on the disease.  Is it ok for "justice" or "legality" to be based on a disease/handicap/etc, especially when having done so would end the existence of the baby?
5.  What if, thanks to future modern medical advances, a brain (or whatever) can be grown via DNA manipulation and stem cells (or some other heretofor undiscovered way) for the child?
6.  Where does one draw the line for who gets euthanised because its a hopeless case and who doesnt?

I have a problem answering any of these questions absolutely.  I believe that i would have to personally go case to case for determining my moral decision making.

So, in this case, I think my answer is this:  Give life a chance and wait and see what the future holds.  I just saw a report where modern science is allowing the paralyzed to "twitter" via thought, so, who knows.

Great topic, terribly sad, morally gut-wrenching.

edit:  I just had a thought.  How would I respond if I was the parent?  If that were the determining factor, I would have to revoke my above opinion and request more time to think about it.

[Wiles]

While I don't know the reliability of this article, it does give an interesting alternate view.

What may be the most devastating error regarding anencephaly is the notion that sufferers cannot possibly have consciousness because the parts of the brain in which thinking occurs are absent.  In reality, medical science has shown that a process known as neuroplasticity can "rewire" brain cells to change their function and compensate for the loss of other cells.

The Italian National Bioethics Committee has admitted that this effect could actually allow a degree of consciousness to develop in anencephalic babies, whose brain stem is intact.  Although the brain stem normally acts to maintain the functioning of the body's organs, its cells could theoretically change function to compensate for the missing upper brain.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060502.html

[Yanlin]

Here's my 2 cents.

That baby is alive by definition only if it can make more of itself and metabolize matter. It seems capable of the latter. Maybe it is also possible for her to become pregnant and have a baby.

BUT, that would be amoral. You can't let something like that live. It will be a horrible life for both the parents and her. Not to mention she'd make a horrible mother.

So yes. Euthanize that baby. It is a lower form of life. Less than any household pet. Keeping it alive is a waste of resources. You can always make another. Eventually one wont have this disease.

Did I mention I support abortion up until the first few days after the baby is born? Because then, it can be properly diagnosed for diseases. Then you can make the proper call whether to give that child a horrible life while spending countless resources keeping it alive and suffering, or euthanize it and spare you and the child the agony of life.

[Ampersand]

While I don't know the reliability of this article, it does give an interesting alternate view.

What may be the most devastating error regarding anencephaly is the notion that sufferers cannot possibly have consciousness because the parts of the brain in which thinking occurs are absent.  In reality, medical science has shown that a process known as neuroplasticity can "rewire" brain cells to change their function and compensate for the loss of other cells.

The Italian National Bioethics Committee has admitted that this effect could actually allow a degree of consciousness to develop in anencephalic babies, whose brain stem is intact.  Although the brain stem normally acts to maintain the functioning of the body's organs, its cells could theoretically change function to compensate for the missing upper brain.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060502.html

Everything I know about biology and psychology indicates that while, yes, the brain of babies are plastic enough for brain cells to change their function, this is only possible of there is matter available to change. In this case, it seems that the cerebral cortex, and all sensory lobes are completely absent, leaving only the inner functional brain alive. That is, the brain stem, and the animal brain. The point is that if the function of these parts is changed to be dedicated to thought, the automatic nervous system would cease functioning as a consequence.

That is completely ignoring the fact that the brain doesn't really work as described in the article. It could, theoretically, happen but theoretically is an important word. It is demonstrable that brain cells can change function, so yes, the brain cells in the brain stem can change. In practice, consciousness would not occur simply because it requires a vastly more complex system with millions more cells interacting than are available in the brain stem.

And also, I question the impartiality of the website you provided.

[Yanlin]

While I don't know the reliability of this article, it does give an interesting alternate view.

What may be the most devastating error regarding anencephaly is the notion that sufferers cannot possibly have consciousness because the parts of the brain in which thinking occurs are absent.  In reality, medical science has shown that a process known as neuroplasticity can "rewire" brain cells to change their function and compensate for the loss of other cells.

The Italian National Bioethics Committee has admitted that this effect could actually allow a degree of consciousness to develop in anencephalic babies, whose brain stem is intact.  Although the brain stem normally acts to maintain the functioning of the body's organs, its cells could theoretically change function to compensate for the missing upper brain.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060502.html

Everything I know about biology and psychology indicates that while, yes, the brain of babies are plastic enough for brain cells to change their function, this is only possible of there is matter available to change. In this case, it seems that the cerebral cortex, and all sensory lobes are completely absent, leaving only the inner functional brain alive. That is, the brain stem, and the animal brain. The point is that if the function of these parts is changed to be dedicated to thought, the automatic nervous system would cease functioning as a consequence.

That is completely ignoring the fact that the brain doesn't really work as described in the article. It could, theoretically, happen but theoretically is an important word. It is demonstrable that brain cells can change function, so yes, the brain cells in the brain stem can change. In practice, consciousness would not occur simply because it requires a vastly more complex system with millions more cells interacting than are available in the brain stem.

And also, I question the impartiality of the website you provided.

Thanks for wording it better than I could.

[Wiles]

And also, I question the impartiality of the website you provided.

After looking at the website this morning it appears to be a Christian Pro-Life site (without going right out and saying it is pro-life). So yeah, I'll have to agree with you there.

Everything I know about biology and psychology indicates that while,

but then I don't know you, so I don't know how much of a reliable source you are, either.
(not trying to be offensive - I just don't know what you base your knowledge off of.)

[sneakey pete]

Am i the only one who doesn't find babies (in general) cute?

[Tormy]

Am i the only one who doesn't find babies (in general) cute?

Nop, you are not alone.