Child Euthenasia proposal in Britain

[Spin Echo]

Sickle-cell anemia isn't that bad, and alcoholism has many causes. I'm autistic, and I have very little interest in inflicting my problems on children. Is that wrong?

No there's nothing wrong with that, but it's your personal choice. I may be wrong on this one, but I don't think you'd be happy if society wanted to forcibly give you a vasectomy "for the sake of the gene pool".

[Broomstick]

I've already read it. Are you saying that you support extending this euthanasia policy to include people who could lead productive lives, rather than the permanent-care semi-vegetables described in the opening post? You place no value at all on social utility? What exact system of ethics do you subscribe to? And don't just say "consequentialism" again; that is not a system of ethics because it doesn't explain how you value these consequences.

You're missing the point, it supports my position that people with serious genetic disabilities are reproducing. Hence my assertion about the "detereorating gene pool".

Hey, asshat -!

Since the post in question is MY post I'll answer you, toadslime.

#1 - spina bifida is NOT a genetic disease! There is no gene or genes that "pass on" SB, and you do not in inherit it. People with SB who do reproduce have children that are at no greater risk of SB than the normal population. SB is a developmental problem, a growth failure in the womb, that is, apparently dependent on environmental factors. The most significant risk factor is a lack of folic acid in the mother's diet (although that is not the only factor). Given that my mother in law was severely impoverished during her pregnancy with the baby that later became my husband that at least partially solves the "how did this happen" mystery.

#2 - marriage != reproduction Not that it's any of your business, asswipe, but my husband is unable to father children. He is "shooting blanks" as it were. This is a non-uncommon side effect in men with SB. Therefore, his existance as a human being does not and will not affect the gene pool

#3 - you can't always tell at birth what the adult person will be like - and SB is a good example of this. My husband is a highly intelligent human being who is able to walk unassisted. He's not the drooling idiot in a wheel chair with a head the size of a watermelon his parents were initially led to believe he would be. Due to the advance of medicine, were he born today instead of nearly 50 years ago he'd probably be even less disabled. (Nor is he a huge drain on the family resources. I mean, we're a one-income family and I can afford to fly airplanes as a hobby.)

Likewise, with extremely premature babies - some grow into normal adults, some do not. And we don't always know why.

Simply kicking a kid with "X" into the trash bin risks throwing out people who would grow up to be independent, contributing members of society. And, oh yes, very nice human beings. Unlike you, you redolent canker on the ass of slug.

[Broomstick]

Spina bifida is one of the most common severe birth defects, historically occurring in 1 live birth per 1000 in the United States. The rates of spina bifida are higher in Hispanics and whites of European descent than in Ashkenazi Jews, Asians, and African Americans. Rates are also higher among mothers with certain health problems, such as diabetes or seizure disorders (taking certain anticonvulsants), and significantly higher among couples in which at least one has spina bifida, and among couples who have already had a child with spina bifida.

That doesn't square with the research I've done on the subject.

Also, I have to ask when those stats were collected, as there also is a historical factor at work here. During the Irish Potato Famine/Great Hunger the Irish had by far the worst rate of SB in the world. Now, a couple parts of rural China lead the world. They mention various ethnic groups in that article, but don't mention that white Appalacia is a SB "hotspot" in the US.

Nor have I ever seen a cite for SB rates among children being higher if one parent has SB, although I've seen quite a few expressing surprise it isn't. The bit about couples who have already had a child with SB - you have to look at environment as well as genetics.

So... what do they base their statements on?

Now I know. I had it drilled into me as a kid that you should take folic acid during pregnancy to ensure against spina bifida. It appears the statement was over-simplified.

Quite. You need to take the folic acid before you're pregnant - after is usually too late. The damage is done very early on, before most women even know they're pregnant (barring test kits and the like)

[Broomstick]

I presume you have actual evidence that the Jews are intellectually superior to other races? I was unaware that the idea of racial intellectal superiority had caught on outside white supremacist groups.

Look at the list of Jewish nobel laureates. You don't find anything fishy?

I think that has more to do with the Jewish cultural trait of valuing literacy and learning than it does with genetics. When you're talking about a culture where, for thousands of years, every male was expected to learn to read and write, it was considered OK for a woman to do so as well, and the major right of passage centers around reading written text in a public setting why would it be puzzling that such a culture would generate highly learned individuals?

[Broomstick]

I see.... I think I'll take some time to reconsider my position here.

That's not something you see very often, now is it?

Hmm... this one, apparently, has some small potential to recognize and learn from mistakes... It will be interesting to see if he actually does or not.

[Surlethe]

I see.... I think I'll take some time to reconsider my position here.

That's not something you see very often, now is it?

Hmm... this one, apparently, has some small potential to recognize and learn from mistakes... It will be interesting to see if he actually does or not.

Indeed. It was a pleasantly bittersweet surprise: pleasantly sweet because Isana Kadeb was perfectly fitting into the stereotype of a troll who stakes out a position and defends it against all attacks, screaming flaming into the void; bitter because the concession deprived me of the next few days' entertainment

Seriously, though, it's good to see someone lose, recognize that fact, and take time to reconsider his position. It's an experience we've all gone through, and one can only become a better debater by doing so.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I'd hate to me-too, but I think it does bear some recognition here. This is one of the first times I've ever seen someone who first appeared to be an out-and-out troll actually stop and re-consider. Might be a bit of an historical occasion for SDNet if this continues.

[Darth Servo]

That doesn't square with the research I've done on the subject...

So... what do they base their statements on?

I provided a link. Try clicking on it and reading the whole article or emailing them with your questions.

[wilfulton]

As a shot out of the peanut gallery, if we isolate the gene for pretentiousness, should we euthanize its carrier?

More seriously, I've heard the argument many times that we spend too much resources on caring for "people who will never amount to any more than a drain on society." Go look at some Nazi propaganda regarding the terminally ill for some example.

But many people with terminal illnesses have advanced to become very brilliant minds, and leaders in bettering the human race. Some of these diseases have been genetic, some have been environmentally induced, others due to fate.

The idea that we should euthanize people because they will "always be a drain on society" is quite ludicrous. Sure, Stephen Hawking may be a "drain" on society (from the perspective that he has to use that wheelchair to get around, and definitely the Nazis would have said something to that effect), but guess what, without him, our knoweldge of the cosmos would not be anywhere near where it is now. People who are afflicted with terminal illnesses can still overcome them, to do that, ultimately, is up to them in most cases.

In the end, I'm reminded of what Galdalf the grey had to say:

Many that live deserve death, but many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then don't be so hasty to deal out death in judgement.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

And if they advocate it for the newborn... how soon until they start advocating it for adults who are diseased, injured, or just plain too old?

I mean you could say that adults could be killed, potentially, but today, we already euthanaize newborns. We have for quite some time in the medical establishment. We DO and have euthanized the severely injured, sick, etc or those who lose personhood.


Well, I think the relevant types of euthanasia in these types of cases and what you are alluding to would be involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. The difference is a bit important in modern bioethics. It is also important to look at the concept of personhood as discussed and defined in bioethics in relation to modern utilitarian bioethics (which is highly controversial, since Utilitarain theory is often counter-traditional ethics and seemingly non-commonsensical).

The primary motivation behind the above is a utilitarian argument. It deals with the application of scarce resources and elimination of unnecessary suffering--both of which are an inhernet part of modern Preference Utilitarianism.

The target of the ethanasia in this case is, I think, only those who are suffering or suffer from disabilities that would lead to significant suffering, especially if the newborns will have roughly short lives filled with suffering. According to Utilitarianism, it is wrong to allow someone to suffer when the probability is high that that individual will have a short, painful life with little capacity for a quality life. We already allow "killing" of infants when doctors and parents decide their child will generally have more suffering than happiness or when the child is unhelpable and will live lives with suffering. They just do it through passive euthanasia, but the consequences are little different according to Utilitarianism. Extending it to active euthanasia isn't really all that objectionable.

From much of the bioethics literature I have read on the topic, the heated issue is personhood. Most bioethicists, and especially those who stem from P.U. Bioethics circles, define personhood differently from the deontological ones. Fetuses, like early newborns, would fall into what bioethics calls non-voluntary (not involuntary) euthanasia. It is non-voluntary, instead of involunt, because fetuses, like newborns, cannot choose. They cannot consent. The literature is contested, though, so I have dificulty, but most seems to content that fetuses and early newborns are not moral persons in that they don't have the key rational attributes that make a moral self that we see in children or adults. The same can be said of some adults who lose the rational faculties, but not all sick or ill would be. Many would be persons according to the modern bioethics definition.

They don't see it as morally as bad to kill the fetus or the newborn as it is to kill the 12 year old or the adult because of the personhood issue. Killing someone who had moral personhood (a self concept, rational attributes, autonomy, preferences for the future (including life)) would be different from killing a newborn because the adult (whether sick or what not) has attained moral personhood via its characteristics. It would then fall into involuntary ethanasia, which requires the active thwarting of defined passive or active preferences for future actions, including, but not limited to, the desire for continued life. Thwarting their lives thwarts more preferences, and the idea behind P.U. is to maximize their welfare preferences.

It's a bit complex what they tend to argue, but I will try to summarize it.
Many of the bioethicists see fetuses, like the newborns, as replacable utilty recepticals. This means that, since they are not persons as per their definition, it can be ethical to kill them if it is to minimize suffering, since those types of beings fall into the classical hedonistic utilitarianism. They are not persons, so they lack the complex preferences, desires of person-hood consideration. It is ok to kill a severely disabiled infant, according to them, if and only if doing so will reduce the net suffering in a child who will likely have more suffering than happiness.

They also advocate it if the receptical dying will lead to another child, who otherwise wouldn't exist, and would likely have superior life-prospects (less suffering).

Resource allocation isn't the primary concern, but it should be considered. It is a waste of resources to shower funds and supplies on someone who:

A. Has no personhood
B. Won't live long
C. Will likely suffer greatly or have more suffering than happiess
D. Whose existence will cause significant burden to the family prior to expiring early (while suffering).

E. If the resources for said individual can be reallocated to create greater Utility.

A key tenet of utilitarian bioethics is that medical resources are scarce, and it is morally good to allocate the resources to those who can benefit from them most, as in, where they are needed most and will procure the most utility (minimization of suffering and increased life quality). If a terminally ill child is suffering tremendously, and will likely not survive long, but will be a big burden, it is better to kill him and redirect the resources to those who will survive but can be cured, helped, and will be able to live relatively happy, healthy lives.

The problem itself is that it is inherently a part of Utilitarianism to consider resource allocation issues in medicine; modern utilitarianism often conflicts significantly with current medical ethics, which are actually more deontological.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: some contend that you might lose valuable members of society in the future who amount to something. That is a type of argument from potentiality. Thats true, but that criticism of bioethics can also be levelled at pre-birth screening for diseases and severe disabilities and selective abortion. We already do that in many places, and medicine doesn't seem to have a terrible problem with it, ironically. You would likely still lose that individual's possible or "potential" contributions if they were to manifest had he not been prescreened, based on the estimation that their life would be less happy on balance, or that it produces less utility to bring a miserable, horribly deformed person into the world over bringing one with greater life prospects.

In either the euthanasia of the newborn or the prescreening of the same potential person, you are still losing access to someone who hypothetically could "cure a disease" or be of some tremendous value.