2 ms·

I don’t really think that case needs to be made - you either agree with it axiomatically, or you don’t. My comment you just replied to nearly lays it out alread

by dsacco 9y ago

I don’t really think that case needs to be made - you either agree with it axiomatically, or you don’t. My comment you just replied to nearly lays it out already. A terminally ill patient cannot recover, but is functionally alive. A brain dead patient cannot recovery, and is not even functionally alive. I realize this comes across as harsh, but if you’re intubating a brain dead patient, you’re just circulating air through a warm corpse. One demonstrates obvious interiority, the other doesn’t exhibit anything except basic reactions that will permanently cease within minutes, if unaided. If you want to reduce it to ethics, based on the definition of braindeath, one case involves the legitimate moral quandary of whether or not (and when) to allow a thing to die. The other case has no such moral quandary, because the thing is already (definitionally) dead. Whether or not we like doing it, our medical system depends upon us making valuations about human life, even if only implicitly. If we allocate resources to keep a functionally dead object breathing the way a human being does, we’re taking away resources from a human being that is alive. It’s not rational if you accept the axiom that a braindead human is dead.

pmoriarty 9y ago
"The other case has no such moral quandary, because the thing is already (definitionally) dead. ... It’s not rational if you accept the axiom that a braindead human is dead." This article and this case are getting attention precisely because people are disagreeing on the definition of death. If everyone accepted the definition of death axiomatically, there would be no controversy and nothing to argue about. But people do disagree about it, so if you want to convince people you can't just appeal to axioms that there's disagreement about. You have to make a case.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  And people can disagree with the case you have made or are unconvinced by your arguments. Additionally, they can be selfish. What is your suggestion on how to reconcile that with any definition of death? Taken to the extreme, this would mean that cryonics would have to be both refunded by state and by insurance companies since it can technically put off actual death (information theoretic) somewhat forever, much cheaper than critical care. Though most families of people in PVS wouldn't want that.

by dsacco 9y ago

pmoriarty 9y ago

"The other case has no such moral quandary, because the thing is already (definitionally) dead. ... It’s not rational if you accept the axiom that a braindead human is dead." This article and this case are getting attention precisely because people are disagreeing on the definition of death. If everyone accepted the definition of death axiomatically, there would be no controversy and nothing to argue about. But people do disagree about it, so if you want to convince people you can't just appeal to axioms that there's disagreement about. You have to make a case.

AstralStorm 9y ago
And people can disagree with the case you have made or are unconvinced by your arguments. Additionally, they can be selfish. What is your suggestion on how to reconcile that with any definition of death? Taken to the extreme, this would mean that cryonics would have to be both refunded by state and by insurance companies since it can technically put off actual death (information theoretic) somewhat forever, much cheaper than critical care. Though most families of people in PVS wouldn't want that.