How is this for an ethical dilemma?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-01 07:24am

You're a doctor, and you have a mother that is pregnant and going to give birth. Here's the scenario: there's some sort of complication, and I'm not very knowledgable about pregnancy issues so please bear with me. The mother says that she wants the doctor to save the baby even if it is at the expense of her own life, while the father and husband says to the doctor to save his wife before his unborn baby.

Which do you choose? Who do you empathise most with, the mother who's going through the pain of labour but would otherwise be happy to give her life for her child, the father who of course is helpless either way, or the doctor who would have to perform the operation anyway?

To throw a second scenario into the mix, as I would guess most would say the mother is more important than the baby: you and your partner find out late in the pregnancy that there may be a complication, specifically the child itself will be born either disfigured or with some kind of terminal condition. Do you abort, or go through with the pregnancy? If you were a doctor, what would you advise? If you were the husband/father, what would you do? If you were the wife/mother, what would you do?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2004-12-01 07:51am

You're a doctor, and you have a mother that is pregnant and going to give birth. Here's the scenario: there's some sort of complication, and I'm not very knowledgable about pregnancy issues so please bear with me. The mother says that she wants the doctor to save the baby even if it is at the expense of her own life, while the father and husband says to the doctor to save his wife before his unborn baby.

Save the baby. It is the mother's choice whether she goes through a medical operation or not. If she wants the operation, she gets the operation. It's her life, and she can do what she likes with it.
Only the patient can decide whether or not to receive medical treatment (not fully recognised legally, but is in most cases).
If it was the other way around in opinions, save the mother. It's her choice, either way.

you and your partner find out late in the pregnancy that there may be a complication, specifically the child itself will be born either disfigured or with some kind of terminal condition. Do you abort, or go through with the pregnancy? If you were a doctor, what would you advise?

That they think it through having been given all the facts, and wiegh out the possibilities, and let me know what they decide.

If you were the husband/father, what would you do? If you were the wife/mother, what would you do?

I'm sticking them together as the "parent".
If it's a terminal and painful condition, and it's early on in the pregnancy, terminate, probably.
If it's "just" disfigurement, or a condition like Downs, keep the baby. Disfigurement can be fixed, and Downs kids lead reltively happy lives.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2004-12-01 09:11am

1. Save the baby. It really should be the patient's choice.

2. As before, it really depends on the problem. If it's a painful and terminal condition, and it's early in the pregnancy, I'd have to abort. But if it was just a disfigurement, I'd let it be born.

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2004-12-01 09:15am

What kind of terminal problem? Diabetes is terminal, but millions of people (including me) manage a good lifestyle.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-01 09:28am

Pcm979 wrote:What kind of terminal problem? Diabetes is terminal, but millions of people (including me) manage a good lifestyle.

By 'terminal' I meant something that would likely kill the baby, or prevent it from living that long. I wasn't considering diabetes.

The inspiration for scenario two came from a case that happened down here some months ago. A couple faced this decision and chose to have their baby. From what I recall, it died not too soon after the birth. The point is, do you abort the baby or carry it to term, if you have it on good authority that the baby will either die soon after it comes out or will live a life in pain?

Pcm979 · Post by **Pcm979** » 2004-12-01 09:31am

If it's going to live an extremely short life in a lot of pain, abort it. I thought this was supposed to be a dilemma?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-01 09:41am

Pcm979 wrote:If it's going to live an extremely short life in a lot of pain, abort it. I thought this was supposed to be a dilemma?

It is. You're supposed to explain the reasoning that leads to your decision.

For example, perhaps the couple shouldn't abort, as a) it's their choice and b) the baby isn't guaranteed to die, they've simply been told that it's likely it may die now or at a later date. Doctors don't know everything to a 100% degree of certainty, and the baby's condition may in fact improve. Sometimes Doctors get it wrong. Sometimes they miscalculate. It happens to the best, sometimes. Medical technology might keep the baby alive, new treatments might become available down the road, and the baby - who everyone was expecting to die - survives and grows up relatively healthy.

On the other hand, nothing is certain. Is it better to take a gamble, and have to face both the pain of childbirth and the pain of watching your baby die? Is it better to simply make one pained decision, that to abort?

The dilemma is: do you abort your child because there will be complications, both in the birth and in the process afterwards? Do you take on the extra costs that such complications bring about? Do you choose to abort, and rationalise "well we can always try again later"?

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2004-12-01 04:46pm

Ultimately, it's going to depend upon who's life you consider more worth saving.

My personal opinion would be the woman's life holds more value than a life that has barely begun(and possibly won't be for long anyhow). However, her indication of willingness to sacrifice her life for her unborn child is a personal choice, one find extremely difficult to contest from a moral standpoint.

Another factor would be the husband's feelings, and that would make me feel like utter shit. How the hell would I feel if someone else decided if my wife lives or dies?

Ultimately, I'd save the woman rather than the child. Complications involving the child's disfigurement and potentially terminal condition makes the decision slightly easier.

To ease the woman's distress, I'd lie if possible and tell her the child could not have been saved under any circumstances.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-12-01 06:12pm

You're a doctor, and you have a mother that is pregnant and going to give birth. Here's the scenario: there's some sort of complication, and I'm not very knowledgable about pregnancy issues so please bear with me. The mother says that she wants the doctor to save the baby even if it is at the expense of her own life, while the father and husband says to the doctor to save his wife before his unborn baby.

Which do you choose? Who do you empathise most with, the mother who's going through the pain of labour but would otherwise be happy to give her life for her child, the father who of course is helpless either way, or the doctor who would have to perform the operation anyway?

To throw a second scenario into the mix, as I would guess most would say the mother is more important than the baby: you and your partner find out late in the pregnancy that there may be a complication, specifically the child itself will be born either disfigured or with some kind of terminal condition. Do you abort, or go through with the pregnancy? If you were a doctor, what would you advise? If you were the husband/father, what would you do? If you were the wife/mother, what would you do?

One important issue here is autonomy. In general, a doctor should fulfill the wishes of his patient when such a request will not go against a greater good, impose significant damages upon the family or society, or violate other moral scruples.

IF the mother is in a rational state, the doctor should do what she asks, if and only if that decison is itself rational. Killing yourself to allow an uborn child, in my opinion, doesn't seem very reasonable. THere can always be another child, and the child in this case is already in chance of having a detrimental life.

If the mother dies, depending on whether she has a job, she will be of an economic burden if she dies. Perhaps the father relies on two incomes? With a child, it might be even harder on the family and the husband.

In the operation, the doctors should use any ordinary measure to keep the patient/baby allive. If he has to do something that is extraordinary that will kill the patient, he shouldn't do it. Instead, there should be a limitd paternalism.

I don't think it will do much good to have a disabled (potentially) baby in a one parent household with no mother, if it can be avoided. It would put a big burden on the family and the husband. This, in addition to the cost of losing a wife/mother for an unborn child I do not think is worth it.

Guy N. Cognito · Post by **Guy N. Cognito** » 2004-12-01 08:09pm

I would have to say that people have be allowed to make a decision regarding their life even if it causes other people issues. If that wasn't the case, I couldn never actually say I support suicide of patients in pain. If she wants to risk it, it's her call, even if it causes troubles for the husband. It's not the brightest move in my eyes, but hey, it's her choice.

If a child has a life threatening illness which will cause this child a short painful life, I vote abort even if there is a small chance the child might grow older. I hate to see things suffer needlessly. I would tell them to abort and try again, and if I was the father I would ask the same question, if it was possible.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-12-04 01:15am

Scenario 1:

Save the baby. The mother's right to bodily integrity gives her the right to refuse medical treatment to save her life.

Scenario 2:

Have the baby. My little sister wasn't supposed to live a week. We're celebrating her 23rd birthday this month, where she'll be premiering a book of poetry she wrote.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-12-04 05:29am

Stofsk wrote:Which do you choose? Who do you empathise most with, the mother who's going through the pain of labour but would otherwise be happy to give her life for her child, the father who of course is helpless either way, or the doctor who would have to perform the operation anyway?

Easy, the mother. She can always have another one, so this is not exactly a one-for-one situation. A fully sentient, sapient grown healthy woman vs a baby that is one step up from those embryos.

As for the mother's wishes. I'd argue that subjective, short-term emotions and primitive "maternal instincts" are jamming her rational judgment, and thus even if she looks awake, I question her competence to decide on this matter.

So we go to that medical concept called "implied consent", which presumes that while a patient had not consented, if she was actually mentally competent and able to make rational judgment, she would have given consent, so consent can be presumed. Since I am figuring that saving herself first is more logical, I'd proceed and save her.

There are two possible exceptions.
1) The mother can show proof (something written) that she had already thought about this possibility before she knew about this complication and had already decided then that she will have the baby no matter what. In that case, I can hardly say her judgment is incompetent (just that I don't exactly agree with her calculation method), so I will take patient's choice and save the baby UNLESS (see the stuff below)
2) For some reason, this will be the last baby she could ever have. In that case, the utilitarian scenario becomes more equal, again allowing a chance for Patient's Choice to enter the equation, again UNLESS...

To throw a second scenario into the mix, as I would guess most would say the mother is more important than the baby: you and your partner find out late in the pregnancy that there may be a complication, specifically the child itself will be born either disfigured or with some kind of terminal condition. Do you abort, or go through with the pregnancy? If you were a doctor, what would you advise? If you were the husband/father, what would you do? If you were the wife/mother, what would you do?

That pretty much tips my hand towards ditching the baby, even for scenarios 1 and 2 above. I consider it cruel to pump out a sentience that will almost certainly suffer for the rest of its life. A mother that insists on doing so is quite selfish, for she's putting her own feelings and desires above those of both her spouse and the defective kid that's about to be pumped out in the world.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2004-12-04 10:11am

1. Save the baby. The mother's not setting herself up to die, she's merely saying that if there must be a choice, then she values the life of her baby above her own. Is this scenario any different from a mother and a newborn baby being in a burning house (or some other life and death situation) and the mother saving the baby, but at the expense of her own life? I say it isn't.

Easy, the mother. She can always have another one, so this is not exactly a one-for-one situation. A fully sentient, sapient grown healthy woman vs a baby that is one step up from those embryos.

We don't live in the middle ages anymore. Most babies survive until adulthood these days, so we can pretty safely assume that the baby will grow into a fully sentient, sapient healthy man or woman. And once the baby does that, it will be able to make more people, so yes it is exactly a on-for-one situation.

As for the mother's wishes. I'd argue that subjective, short-term emotions and primitive "maternal instincts" are jamming her rational judgment, and thus even if she looks awake, I question her competence to decide on this matter.

Rational can mean both selfish and unselfish. Chosing to save herself is rational (in one sense), but then again, so is chosing to save the baby (in another). Personally, I'd choose to save the baby. I do not doubt that the mother would say exactly the same thing if a similar choice was laid down to her at any time.

So we go to that medical concept called "implied consent", which presumes that while a patient had not consented, if she was actually mentally competent and able to make rational judgment, she would have given consent, so consent can be presumed. Since I am figuring that saving herself first is more logical, I'd proceed and save her.

Actually, the desire for the next generation to survive is, in the long run, more logical than the desire for the self to survive, especially if the self survives at the expense of the next generation. If the entire species went by your "logic" of looking for their own interests before that of their children, we would not be a very successful species.

And if you were a doctor and you could save either me or the baby, and you saved me, I'd sue the pants off of you when I woke up.

There are two possible exceptions.
1) The mother can show proof (something written) that she had already thought about this possibility before she knew about this complication and had already decided then that she will have the baby no matter what. In that case, I can hardly say her judgment is incompetent (just that I don't exactly agree with her calculation method), so I will take patient's choice and save the baby UNLESS (see the stuff below)

Just because there's nothing written, doesn't mean that she hadn't thought about this possibility before the complication. I've never been pregnant, but I've already thought about the possibility and I've decided that I'd like my baby to be saved before myself. Perhaps it's my primitive short term maternal instincts getting the better of me, but that's what I've thought ever since I first considered the possibiliy, so it's a consistent primitive short term emotional decision.

2. Here it would pain me, but I'd choose whatever option was the least risky for myself. Depending on how late in the pregnancy it was, I'd worry that with a very late-term abortion, the risks of complications arising from the abortion might actually be greater than the risks of carrying the child to term. If the baby was going to die soon after birth, I'd want to maximise my chances of having a baby that would survive. It would be a painful decision, though, and while I'm saying that this would be my decision now, that does not mean I'd make the same decision if I was faced with this possibility in real life.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-12-04 11:57am

Lusankya wrote:1. Save the baby. The mother's not setting herself up to die, she's merely saying that if there must be a choice, then she values the life of her baby above her own.

And my move is to put the prioritization in such a way so the mother comes on top. Don't worry, if there's a way to save you both with a reasonable shot of success, I'd shoot for it.

Is this scenario any different from a mother and a newborn baby being in a burning house (or some other life and death situation) and the mother saving the baby, but at the expense of her own life? I say it isn't.

Well, a born baby is generally considered to be in a slightly different category than one that cannot be safely taken out of a womb (wierd, I know, but human moralities often cross on "lines").

We don't live in the middle ages anymore. Most babies survive until adulthood these days, so we can pretty safely assume that the baby will grow into a fully sentient, sapient healthy man or woman. And once the baby does that, it will be able to make more people, so yes it is exactly a on-for-one situation.

Not precisely. If we presume the mother dies for her baby, she loses her chance to create more babies. That means a bunch of potential lives lost, and the offspring that may come with them. In the meantime, if she gives up this one, she might be able to create 3 or 4 new babies, each of which with their offspring, and we give up only one offshoot chance.

As an aside, I figure I'm "pro-choice" when it comes to the abortion issue. And when you are such, you are basically saying, IMO, that the mother's value is greater than an unborn embryo. In other words, that actual sentience is more important than Potential Sentience (even though as you said, with modern tech, the probability of said "Potential Sentience" actually making it to sentience is quite high). If you feel that a mother's value is equal or lower than the embryo, you can't be pro-choice, even to save the mother's life at times (those Baby or Mother scenarios, even if the Mother says she wants to save her own ass). And certainly not because the undesired baby would "merely" inconvenience her. Therefore, I believe the natural, consistent consequence of a pro-choice attitude may be inevitably to favor saving the Mother in this scenario.

Unless there's a flaw in my logic here somewhere. If that's so, I want to use this chance to find it.

Personally, I'd choose to save the baby. I do not doubt that the mother would say exactly the same thing if a similar choice was laid down to her at any time.

Yes, but is it the rational choice? Maybe it is the one more mothers would try for than the other, but that has little to do with how rational it is.

Actually, the desire for the next generation to survive is, in the long run, more logical than the desire for the self to survive, especially if the self survives at the expense of the next generation. If the entire species went by your "logic" of looking for their own interests before that of their children, we would not be a very successful species.

I'm presuming that she would still have a next chance to produce the next generation (which is also pretty damn likely in modern society). See below on how my thoughts might change if there are signs that it is a one-on-one.

And if you were a doctor and you could save either me or the baby, and you saved me, I'd sue the pants off of you when I woke up.

Well, that possibility might alter what I'd do, but the above was what, as of 1829 local time on Sat Dec 4, I would have chosen had there been no legal repercussions (that is, I don't have to do something I disagree with to cover my ass, and can actually go by purely what I compute is ethical).

Just because there's nothing written, doesn't mean that she hadn't thought about this possibility before the complication. I've never been pregnant, but I've already thought about the possibility and I've decided that I'd like my baby to be saved before myself. Perhaps it's my primitive short term maternal instincts getting the better of me, but that's what I've thought ever since I first considered the possibiliy, so it's a consistent primitive short term emotional decision.

Well, the written point I actually regretted a bit in phrasing, but SLAM doesn't have an edit function, so I decided to wait. The important part here is convincing me that it was preconceived when your thoughts are truly clear (and something written would be a convincing evidence of such, though your evidence doesn't have to be written), and reassuring me it really wasn't a decision you made because you can feel the baby kicking you inside and you just can't bear to kill him in a emotional sense, regardless of how your more rational mind is computing.

There is a natural aversion in human beings to kill other human beings, and we are often cultured to not hurt other human beings, especially at the "moment of truth". Such aversions are logically useful specieswide, but they tend to be illogical obstacles to survival in specific situations (your aversion to killing and hurting may be a real downside to your odds of survival when some killer is charging at you). This feeling is infinitely reinforced when handling family members, especially your own baby.

2. Here it would pain me, but I'd choose whatever option was the least risky for myself. Depending on how late in the pregnancy it was, I'd worry that with a very late-term abortion, the risks of complications arising from the abortion might actually be greater than the risks of carrying the child to term.

There's a valid consideration there, but if it is really so late, wouldn't it be possible to try to transfer the baby to one of those life support tanks and thus avoid the Baby or Mother dilemma?

If the baby was going to die soon after birth, I'd want to maximise my chances of having a baby that would survive. It would be a painful decision, though, and while I'm saying that this would be my decision now, that does not mean I'd make the same decision if I was faced with this possibility in real life.

Here's the reason why I'm not just letting the mother make the call. The decision that you make now is far more likely to be rational, or at least the product of long and calm thought about your normal values (both your rational and irrational ones - one cannot discount the irrational factors that go into decisions). The decision you'd make in this unfortunate event "on the spot" is unlikely to be as well thought out, yet that decision is what you would have me execute, rather than your well-thought out decision.

BTW, when I was thinking about that dilemma, the hypothetical "center case" I used with a scenario similar to Down's Syndrome, diabetes, or a defect of this kind of magnitude that would severely degrade the child's chance of a successful life. Honestly, even without those complications, I as a parent (if I ever choose to be one) would be quite likely to abort in such a case. I think it is quite cruel to run such a serious risk of letting a "defective" product into the world. It is hard on the family to support such children (economically and emotionally), and the child will generally have a short and less-than-pleasant life.

Of course, paternal instincts might interfere at that critical moment of truth.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2004-12-04 12:05pm

You can't claim mental incompetency for a woman who wants her child to live. I can't begin to explain what I find wrong with that attitude.

As an aside, I figure I'm "pro-choice" when it comes to the abortion issue. And when you are such, you are basically saying, IMO, that the mother's value is greater than an unborn embryo.

Bullshit. Pro-choice is basically saying "it is the womans' right to choose whether or not she has children and no one can tell her what to do with her body."
Your position removes that right to choose. It is not pro-choice.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2004-12-04 12:40pm

Yes, but is it the rational choice? Maybe it is the one more mothers would try for than the other, but that has little to do with how rational it is.

You show me how it's rational to want your baby to die.

Not precisely. If we presume the mother dies for her baby, she loses her chance to create more babies. That means a bunch of potential lives lost, and the offspring that may come with them. In the meantime, if she gives up this one, she might be able to create 3 or 4 new babies, each of which with their offspring, and we give up only one offshoot chance.

she could also not be able to create 3 or 4 new babies. You said that you won't sacrifice a someone for an unborn baby, and now you're suggesting sacrificing that baby for 3 or 4 (or possibly less, we don't know) babies that aren't even conceived yet.

(your aversion to killing and hurting may be a real downside to your odds of survival when some killer is charging at you).

There's a difference between a killer charging at you and a baby that you can't give birth to safely. The killer has the intent to kill you, wheras the baby has no control over the situation. It anyone's to blame, it would be God, if you believed in Him.

Here's the reason why I'm not just letting the mother make the call. The decision that you make now is far more likely to be rational, or at least the product of long and calm thought about your normal values (both your rational and irrational ones - one cannot discount the irrational factors that go into decisions). The decision you'd make in this unfortunate event "on the spot" is unlikely to be as well thought out, yet that decision is what you would have me execute, rather than your well-thought out decision.

I said that I might change my decision if I was in that situation because it's one thing to be discussing it when it's just hypothetical, but another entirely to be in the situation yourself. I can say whatever I like now, but I won't know exactly what it's like to be in that situation before I am in it myself. Quite frankly, with this kind of situation, you don't and can't know all the details until you've been in the situation yourself. As it is, it would be a tough decision, so while the addition of emotion might change my decision, it would not influence my opinion unduly.

And I thought that the baby or mother dilemma and the critically terminal baby dilemma were two separate dilemmas, or am I wrong on that?

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-12-04 08:49pm

InnerBrat wrote:Bullshit. Pro-choice is basically saying "it is the womans' right to choose whether or not she has children and no one can tell her what to do with her body."
Your position removes that right to choose. It is not pro-choice.

I already explained what I felt to be the relationship. Yes, this is the original pro-choice, but in doing so, the side-effect is that you've just elevated the mother above the embryo. It is an unpleasant consequence, but there it is IMO.

The pro-choice right generally assumes one is in a competent frame of mind, like medical treatment consents. My argument is that in Stofsk's scenario, a woman may not be thinking well enough for it to be called "competent".

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-12-04 09:11pm

Lusankya wrote:You show me how it's rational to want your baby to die.

By retaining hope for the future. It is kind of like those people who don't know the meaning of "tactical retreat" and banzai into a hopeless situation. Hard as it is, only by retreat in this case can the mother have hope for the future.

It is not wanting your baby to die. Rather, you want to have the chance to actually have a baby you can actually see growing up.

she could also not be able to create 3 or 4 new babies.

I'm assuming she could when I gave that answer. I had a different answer for when I have reason to believe it'd be a one-one, remember?

You said that you won't sacrifice a someone for an unborn baby, and now you're suggesting sacrificing that baby for 3 or 4 (or possibly less, we don't know) babies that aren't even conceived yet.

Over the entire course of the life of a fundamentally healthy young women (if the woman's like 2 years from menopause, review my answer for "one chance only" situations), if she so wishes, she could have many kids, and they'd all have a high probability of growing up. One could argue each of her eggs is a potential sentience (of half of one, requiring a man's sperm to fuse with it - but I figure THAT to be in plentiful supply). If she dies, all those potential sentiences go with it.

There's a difference between a killer charging at you and a baby that you can't give birth to safely. The killer has the intent to kill you, wheras the baby has no control over the situation. It anyone's to blame, it would be God, if you believed in Him.

Different, yes (I knew someone would point out this all too obvious fact), but also similar in that Aversion to Kill, even if we presume it is the most logical and rational option left to you. The point is that even when it may the rational option, and the one you'd pick sitting at a discussion board, this aversion may force you into an irrational choice at the true moment of truth - a choice that you may regret (if you are still alive, that is, to face the consequences of your choice).

I said that I might change my decision if I was in that situation because it's one thing to be discussing it when it's just hypothetical, but another entirely to be in the situation yourself.

Precisely. A lot more irrationality goes into that decision.

I can say whatever I like now, but I won't know exactly what it's like to be in that situation before I am in it myself.

Granted, especially for your precise emotions.

Quite frankly, with this kind of situation, you don't and can't know all the details until you've been in the situation yourself.

True, however, the generalities of such contingencies are relatively well known, and could be planned for in theory. A well-thought out plan that's made with assumptions that are about 95% relevant may well be superior and closer to what you will want in the long run than a hastily thought out, emotionally charged decision that's theoretically made with 100% relevant information, but degraded by the short-term emotions charging through you at the time.

These scenarios are never easy, and no matter what I choose, someone would feel guilty. All one can do is try to ensure the future is as bright as possible.

As it is, it would be a tough decision, so while the addition of emotion might change my decision, it would not influence my opinion unduly.

Unfortunately, it will be your decision (if the doctor goes with your wish), not your opinion, that you will have to live or die with.

And I thought that the baby or mother dilemma and the critically terminal baby dilemma were two separate dilemmas, or am I wrong on that?

In Stofsk's scenario, they are kind of linked. First you make a decision based on a (as far as you knew) healthy baby. Then you make it again, with the extra the baby's going to come out defective.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2004-12-04 11:11pm

By retaining hope for the future. It is kind of like those people who don't know the meaning of "tactical retreat" and banzai into a hopeless situation. Hard as it is, only by retreat in this case can the mother have hope for the future.

It is not wanting your baby to die. Rather, you want to have the chance to actually have a baby you can actually see growing up.

You're assuming that the woman's primary objective is to have a baby that she can see grow up, wheras that could be secondary to her baby's survival.

Over the entire course of the life of a fundamentally healthy young women (if the woman's like 2 years from menopause, review my answer for "one chance only" situations), if she so wishes, she could have many kids, and they'd all have a high probability of growing up. One could argue each of her eggs is a potential sentience (of half of one, requiring a man's sperm to fuse with it - but I figure THAT to be in plentiful supply). If she dies, all those potential sentiences go with it.

You're sounding like that episode of Enterprise where they refused to help the other civilsisation based on the fact that there was another species on the planet that might become sapient. It's bullshit. You make your decision based on the lives that are there in the present, not on the lives that potentially could come in the future.

Different, yes (I knew someone would point out this all too obvious fact), but also similar in that Aversion to Kill, even if we presume it is the most logical and rational option left to you. The point is that even when it may the rational option, and the one you'd pick sitting at a discussion board, this aversion may force you into an irrational choice at the true moment of truth - a choice that you may regret (if you are still alive, that is, to face the consequences of your choice).

It's not an aversion to kill the baby, it's a desire for the baby to survive. They're different things. Aversion to kill does not necessarily mean you have any attatchment to the other person, it simply means that you have no desire for them to die. Desire for the other person to survive is a much more positive sentiment, where you're willing to take action to save them.

True, however, the generalities of such contingencies are relatively well known, and could be planned for in theory. A well-thought out plan that's made with assumptions that are about 95% relevant may well be superior and closer to what you will want in the long run than a hastily thought out, emotionally charged decision that's theoretically made with 100% relevant information, but degraded by the short-term emotions charging through you at the time.

I disagree. For one thing, decisions about the next generation can hardly be called short term, and for another, my decision made with 95% of the information may not be 100% set in stone, and the decision to abort would be a hard one made with many reservations. A moral dilemma is a hard choice, but eventually you have to make the decision that you believe will allow you to sleep better at night, so emotions are entirely relevant. The more I think about it, the more I think that the pain of regret would outweigh the pain of losing a baby in its first few weeks of life (yes, I know I'm going back on what I said before, but I am entitled to change my opinion after further consideration), so not aborting would produce a more favourable outcome.

These scenarios are never easy, and no matter what I choose, someone would feel guilty. All one can do is try to ensure the future is as bright as possible.

What you're doing is judging the rationality of other people's decisions based on the assupmtion that you know what's right. I have no problem with your decision, per se; I understand it competely, however I resent your assumption that any decision a woman makes regarding the life of her unborn child is irrational and should thus be ignored.

Unfortunately, it will be your decision (if the doctor goes with your wish), not your opinion, that you will have to live or die with.

Presicely. It's the woman's decision, and she has every right to make it. If someone comes into a hospital and says "I'm a Jehovah's Witness, whatever happens, don't give me a blood transfusion," then the doctors must abide by their wishes, even if there are complications that mean they must give that person a blood transfusion in order for them to survive. The doctor can't judge the rationality of their decision based on what they would do, all they can do is accept the decision that has been made.

In Stofsk's scenario, they are kind of linked. First you make a decision based on a (as far as you knew) healthy baby. Then you make it again, with the extra the baby's going to come out defective.

I disagree. The first one is based on labour complications, while the second is based on a birth defect.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-12-05 12:52am

Lusankya wrote:You're assuming that the woman's primary objective is to have a baby that she can see grow up, wheras that could be secondary to her baby's survival.

Could be. And I'd even allow a differing morality view. I just don't want to execute one that you made in such haste.

You're sounding like that episode of Enterprise where they refused to help the other civilsisation based on the fact that there was another species on the planet that might become sapient.

Don't know that one. Tell me a bit more about that episode so I can get back to you on how I might decide on this scenario.

It's bullshit. You make your decision based on the lives that are there in the present, not on the lives that potentially could come in the future.

So I can also say, on that logic, that your embryo is merely "potential", while the woman is "there in the present".

It's not an aversion to kill the baby, it's a desire for the baby to survive. They're different things. Aversion to kill does not necessarily mean you have any attatchment to the other person, it simply means that you have no desire for them to die. Desire for the other person to survive is a much more positive sentiment, where you're willing to take action to save them.

But it is the same in the sense that this little instinct, while generally favorable speciewide, may not be favorable in this particular instance. Yet it is this thing that you will have to overcome.

I disagree. For one thing, decisions about the next generation can hardly be called short term,

The emotions that you will be feeling in Stofsk's Scenario will be short term. The decision is a long term one, which is all the more reason why decisions should be made free of short-term emotional interference.

and for another, my decision made with 95% of the information may not be 100% set in stone, and the decision to abort would be a hard one made with many reservations.

Honestly, sudden emotional factors at the Moment of Truth aside, I find it hard to see what "rational" factors would be there to seriously affect your choice.

A moral dilemma is a hard choice, but eventually you have to make the decision that you believe will allow you to sleep better at night, so emotions are entirely relevant.

Sure emotions are a factor in morality and ethics. Just not your "Short-term" ones.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the pain of regret would outweigh the pain of losing a baby in its first few weeks of life (yes, I know I'm going back on what I said before, but I am entitled to change my opinion after further consideration), so not aborting would produce a more favourable outcome.

Yes, you are perfectly entitled to change your opinion as your overall thing goes. I just don't want that sudden, natural aversion to get in the way. If you make a decision based on your long-term moralities, emotions and beliefs, IMO you are far more likely to be able to sleep well than following that decision based on those sudden impulses that come at Moments of Truth.

What you're doing is judging the rationality of other people's decisions based on the assupmtion that you know what's right.

In a Utilitarian sense, at least, I believe that the equation can be relatively easily solved.

I have no problem with your decision, per se; I understand it competely, however I resent your assumption that any decision a woman makes regarding the life of her unborn child is irrational and should thus be ignored.

Must it be irrational? Sure, there's a chance it'd be a real decision. Is there a good reason to doubt it is? Yes.

Presicely. It's the woman's decision, and she has every right to make it. If someone comes into a hospital and says "I'm a Jehovah's Witness, whatever happens, don't give me a blood transfusion," then the doctors must abide by their wishes, even if there are complications that mean they must give that person a blood transfusion in order for them to survive. The doctor can't judge the rationality of their decision based on what they would do, all they can do is accept the decision that has been made.

As I said, if it is clear that the woman thought about this beforehand (like in this example), I'd smile and go along with it.

Unless there's a baby inside. In which case I'd rescue her, no matter what. My reasoning is that if this irrational factor known as Religion is not jamming her thoughts, all other factors (Maternal Instinct, desire for a child, evolution ... blah) would support saving both.

If she really wants to "atone", she can slit her wrists on the day after the baby comes out if that's what it takes for her. If she wants a pro-choice abortion (I've got a feeling JVs won't allow that, but I don't know the JVs well enough to be sure), well sheesh, I didn't know that - all she was screaming is no Blood Transfusions. Most abortions involve the Mother surviving and the Embryo dying, not both of them Dying.

As an atheist, I expect her to be bitterly disappointed as her last thought would be to realize that her Kingdom of God isn't getting any closer, that all she's seeing is gray fading to black...

I disagree. The first one is based on labour complications, while the second is based on a birth defect.

It sounded like to me like the second scenario is an "addition". In any case, my basic position would not change. Even without a complication on the mother's part, babies with major defects should be aborted. To me, it is a kind of mercy for everyone involved. Sure, there will always be those that do reasonably well, but it is still a far inferior life than a healthy person, and a lot simply don't make it to anywhere close to a half-decent life. Add the extra strain on the family that's often involved, and the answer is quite clear.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-05 04:51am

Kaz, the two scenarios are separate dilemmas which I threw in together to be generally confusing.

Also, the second scenario: the baby is not guaranteed to come out damaged, it's just a likely chance of it happening. So, the baby MAY die, or it MAY NOT. There's really no way to be sure. I've heard stories of some people were born into the world and not expected to live past a year, and are now enjoying their 21st b'days. Then again, I've also heard stories of the opposite. It's kind of supposed to be a gamble, though of course a tragic one.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-12-05 04:54am

Stofsk wrote:Kaz, the two scenarios are separate dilemmas which I threw in together to be generally confusing.

Also, the second scenario: the baby is not guaranteed to come out damaged, it's just a likely chance of it happening. So, the baby MAY die, or it MAY NOT. There's really no way to be sure. I've heard stories of some people were born into the world and not expected to live past a year, and are now enjoying their 21st b'days. Then again, I've also heard stories of the opposite. It's kind of supposed to be a gamble, though of course a tragic one.

OK, give me an approximate probability so I can recompute this. Everyone knows that a 1% chance is acted on differently than 99%.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-12-05 05:08am

Just guess.

Or better yet, point out at which percentage you would change your mind.

What if it's a 10%? 25%? 50%? 90%?

I was speaking in general terms so... I don't know how to answer your request. Sorry.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-12-05 05:53am

OK, then, I guess it'd be a function of the severity of the malfunction vs the probability. Taking the example of Down's Syndrome (degraded intelligence, relatively low chance of living a reasonably normal life, life probably short in any case, hard to "maintain"), it'd be something like 20-30%.

Something like diabetes (almost certianly shortened life, but at least it has some real chance of being relatively normal), I might let it go up to say 50%.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2004-12-05 06:40am

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:Could be. And I'd even allow a differing morality view. I just don't want to execute one that you made in such haste.

How do you judge in an immediate timeframe whether or not the decision was made in haste? I'm inclined to believe that anyone who goes into a pregnancy without considering that there may be risks is either a fool or severely underinformed. As such, they would likely have had that in the back of their minds for quite a while before the complications occured.

Don't know that one. Tell me a bit more about that episode so I can get back to you on how I might decide on this scenario.

Basically the Enterprise comes along to this planet that has theorised warp drive, but hasn't managed to get a working warp engine yet, and they have some kind of genetic deficiency that they can't solve yet. They also have another, semi-sapient species native to their that is protected and is used for menial labour. Anyway, the Enterprise crew is all gung-ho to used their advanced technology to save this species, until T'Pol says "yes, but what if this other species becomes sapient after this one dies off? Do you want to deny them the opportunity that they'll get to attain sapience in several millenia?" So they decide to bugger off and leave that species to rot on the off chance that they might destroy the other species chances of attaining sentience. That was the episode in which I turned off the telly in disgust and decided that I was never going to watch the show again. Bah.

So I can also say, on that logic, that your embryo is merely "potential", while the woman is "there in the present".

The OP states that the mother is in labour, and unless the baby is coming out extremely early (not stated in the OP, so we can assume not), the baby isn't an embryo, it's a foetus, and one quite capable of surviving outside of the womb at that. That's not a potential life. That's a real, existing life that is on the line. If the mother dies, then it is a defninite life.

But it is the same in the sense that this little instinct, while generally favorable speciewide, may not be favorable in this particular instance. Yet it is this thing that you will have to overcome.

So I have to overcome my instinct to keep my baby alive.... or something like that.... That's just sick. Perhaps I'm not understanding you properly. Could you perhaps say it more clearly?

It's not as though the baby's life is forfeit either way. I take one path and I die and the baby lives. I take another and I live but the baby survives... Just because I'm not jumping in front of some baddie waving a stick around doesn't mean that it's not an active choice to save the next generation.

Honestly, sudden emotional factors at the Moment of Truth aside, I find it hard to see what "rational" factors would be there to seriously affect your choice.

The fact that it's my genes on the line, rather than some hypothetical genes. I have a lot less invested in hypothetical genes than I do in my own. Also, my prior decision would probably be something along the lines of "If the strength of my feelings is x or more, then I will keep the baby, and if it is less than x, then I will abort."

Sure emotions are a factor in morality and ethics. Just not your "Short-term" ones.

My emotions would include a consideration of how I'd feel should I survive and the baby not survive - especially with the knowledge that I could have done something to save the baby.

What you're doing is judging the rationality of other people's decisions based on the assupmtion that you know what's right.
In a Utilitarian sense, at least, I believe that the equation can be relatively easily solved.

You could have just said "yes, I do know what's right." It would have been less typing and I'd still think you were full of as much bullshit.

Must it be irrational? Sure, there's a chance it'd be a real decision. Is there a good reason to doubt it is? Yes.

It's not your place to doubt her decision. And you're not the arbiter of rationality. You seem to think that the possiblity of a woman being rational when considering her children is quite unlikely, if not nigh on impossible. You say you're pro-choice, but choice not only covers a woman being able to choose whether or not her baby dies, it also allows her to choose whether or not the baby lives. That is regardless of how the baby's survival affects the woman's health.

Unless there's a baby inside. In which case I'd rescue her, no matter what. My reasoning is that if this irrational factor known as Religion is not jamming her thoughts, all other factors (Maternal Instinct, desire for a child, evolution ... blah) would support saving both.

Once again you're making decisions for people, assuming that you, in your god-like omniscience know better than they do about their own desires. It's still the woman's body. My actual example was a person (not necessarily a woman) who refused to save their own life through a blood transfusion. I was wondering if you were going to be consistent in your disregard for patients' bodily integrity.

If she really wants to "atone", she can slit her wrists on the day after the baby comes out if that's what it takes for her

You know, suicide is generally not considered to be a good way to atone. Killing being a sin and all. Not to mention tha fact that self-harm is due to satan's influence, supposedly. (likety link)

If she wants a pro-choice abortion (I've got a feeling JVs won't allow that, but I don't know the JVs well enough to be sure), well sheesh, I didn't know that - all she was screaming is no Blood Transfusions. Most abortions involve the Mother surviving and the Embryo dying, not both of them Dying.

What the hell is this about? I never mentioned a JW in context with an abortion. I was simply trying to see if you were consistent in your lack of belief in the integrity of ones own body.

As an atheist, I expect her to be bitterly disappointed as her last thought would be to realize that her Kingdom of God isn't getting any closer, that all she's seeing is gray fading to black...

Actually, that's what she's expect... she may be disappointed later when she wasn't awakened againg, but then again, it might just be disappointment that she wasn't one of the chosen few to be resurrected after armageddon.

It sounded like to me like the second scenario is an "addition". In any case, my basic position would not change. Even without a complication on the mother's part, babies with major defects should be aborted. To me, it is a kind of mercy for everyone involved. Sure, there will always be those that do reasonably well, but it is still a far inferior life than a healthy person, and a lot simply don't make it to anywhere close to a half-decent life. Add the extra strain on the family that's often involved, and the answer is quite clear.

Disablilty does not necessarily mean the child will have a far inferior life. Certainly the child will likely face difficulties that "normal" children would not have to face, but that does not mean the child will be any less happy. And in the end, the happiness of ones life is a far better indicator of quality of life than how well one can ride a bike, for example.

OK, then, I guess it'd be a function of the severity of the malfunction vs the probability. Taking the example of Down's Syndrome (degraded intelligence, relatively low chance of living a reasonably normal life, life probably short in any case, hard to "maintain"), it'd be something like 20-30%.

You don't "maintain" children. You care for them. And "not normal" doesn't mean "poor quality". I mean, it would be with you as a father, obviously, but with caring parents who love the child for who he/she is, regardless of any disability, a child with Down's could lead a very happy life.

Something like diabetes (almost certianly shortened life, but at least it has some real chance of being relatively normal), I might let it go up to say 50%.

You'd abort a baby because there was a 50% chance that it would develop diabetes?????????

Egads! I'd say something about that, but ... (it's just so disgusting) .....egads. Diabetes may be terminal, but it's certainly treatable. And the child will not be affected by the diabetes too much, especially since they'd be geared towards dealing with it from a very young age.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How is this for an ethical dilemma?

How is this for an ethical dilemma?

Re: How is this for an ethical dilemma?

Some preliminaries.