6 ms·

After head trauma or a variety of other issues, some people enter a vegetative state, are deemed brain-dead by their doctors, and do not seem to be aware of the

After head trauma or a variety of other issues, some people enter a vegetative state, are deemed brain-dead by their doctors, and do not seem to be aware of themselves or anything. Are they no longer people? The machines keeping them alive are taking up resources, maybe it would be fine to disconnect them since there seems to longer by anybody home. The thing is, some of those people actually recover: https://www.macleans.ca/society/health/the-story-behind-a-vegetative-patients-shocking-recovery/ https://www.macleans.ca/society/health/the-story-behind-a-ve... . What about the mentally handicapped? How are we to assess the internal state of a non-verbal person to determine whether they are aware of anything? Making judgements about a person's quality of life and using those to justify killing them is inhumane.

tialaramex 4y ago
Yes, if a human is dead that's not a person. We could imagine this not being so. In fact it's a common idea in supernatural fiction, and of course it's a crucial idea in some religions - but in our universe when humans are dead they cease to be people. Is it possible to get it wrong? Sure. Over history we've got this wrong lots of times, and as you showed the most dramatic examples make news. I don't see how the fact that people are capable of error justifies a pretence that newborns are people.
- philsnow 4y ago
  Those diagnoses aren't wrong, the patients' bodies spontaneously healed themselves. You didn't address my other cases. > I don't see how the fact that people are capable of error justifies a pretense that newborns are people. Well, you're the one proposing this radical idea that newborns aren't people (and suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people"); you justify it. At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people? We can't check with you on a case-by-case basis.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    > Those diagnoses aren't wrong, the patients' bodies spontaneously healed themselves. Such patients weren't in fact dead. They were, it turns out, very much alive and still forming memories. Resurrection is not a thing. > suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people" Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't. As I think I already said, the nice thing about a newborn baby from an ethical point of view is that it's not biologically dependent on the mother for life support, so you can just find somebody to adopt it. Turns out there are in fact plenty of would-be adoptive parents. > At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people? This appears to be a gradual process. Parents will be able to tell you it really sneaks up on you. Fortunately it will almost never matter exactly when and so there's no reason to expend thought on drawing a line in the sand for something you're never going to need to care about.
    - philsnow 4y ago
      I didn't say they were dead, I said their doctors diagnosed them as brain-dead. This was actually a mistake on my part; "brain dead" and "vegetative state" are not the same thing. I should have said that they were diagnosed as in a vegetative state. A key point is that they are not aware of things happening and are not forming memories. > Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't. It wouldn't be, but what I'm driving at is that killing a newborn (or fetus) is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog. There is no calculus whereby one can say that some number of animals is "worth more" than some number of humans who may be deficient in some way (too young, unaware of their surroundings, apparently mentally handicapped, severely physically handicapped, whatever), or that killing the latter is "more okay" than killing the former.
      - tialaramex 4y ago
        > what I'm driving at is that killing [...] a fetus is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog. Notice how rather than offer any rationale for why you believe this, you just state it - as if astonished that most people don't agree. You've gone from supposed "curiosity" to just re-starting your beliefs and asserting that everybody else is wrong. Most people who get there do so via dogmatic belief, that is, an insistence that there is no rationale, they don't need one because there are just some things which are correct and everyone will "obviously" believe those things. This can run into a pretty nasty problem beyond just being obviously wrong, which is that it's contrary to Freedom of Conscience and thus if you have power to "enforce" it you've got a UDHR violation...

tialaramex 4y ago

Yes, if a human is dead that's not a person. We could imagine this not being so. In fact it's a common idea in supernatural fiction, and of course it's a crucial idea in some religions - but in our universe when humans are dead they cease to be people. Is it possible to get it wrong? Sure. Over history we've got this wrong lots of times, and as you showed the most dramatic examples make news. I don't see how the fact that people are capable of error justifies a pretence that newborns are people.

philsnow 4y ago
Those diagnoses aren't wrong, the patients' bodies spontaneously healed themselves. You didn't address my other cases. > I don't see how the fact that people are capable of error justifies a pretense that newborns are people. Well, you're the one proposing this radical idea that newborns aren't people (and suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people"); you justify it. At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people? We can't check with you on a case-by-case basis.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  > Those diagnoses aren't wrong, the patients' bodies spontaneously healed themselves. Such patients weren't in fact dead. They were, it turns out, very much alive and still forming memories. Resurrection is not a thing. > suggesting, I believe, that it's okay to kill them because they're "not people" Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't. As I think I already said, the nice thing about a newborn baby from an ethical point of view is that it's not biologically dependent on the mother for life support, so you can just find somebody to adopt it. Turns out there are in fact plenty of would-be adoptive parents. > At what age or stage of development do newborns turn from not-people to people? This appears to be a gradual process. Parents will be able to tell you it really sneaks up on you. Fortunately it will almost never matter exactly when and so there's no reason to expend thought on drawing a line in the sand for something you're never going to need to care about.
  - philsnow 4y ago
    I didn't say they were dead, I said their doctors diagnosed them as brain-dead. This was actually a mistake on my part; "brain dead" and "vegetative state" are not the same thing. I should have said that they were diagnosed as in a vegetative state. A key point is that they are not aware of things happening and are not forming memories. > Why on Earth would it be OK to kill newborns just because they aren't people? People's pet dogs aren't people either. Have you got it into your head that it's OK to just kill somebody's pet dog if you want to? It isn't. It wouldn't be, but what I'm driving at is that killing a newborn (or fetus) is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog. There is no calculus whereby one can say that some number of animals is "worth more" than some number of humans who may be deficient in some way (too young, unaware of their surroundings, apparently mentally handicapped, severely physically handicapped, whatever), or that killing the latter is "more okay" than killing the former.
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      > what I'm driving at is that killing [...] a fetus is categorically worse than killing anybody's dog. Notice how rather than offer any rationale for why you believe this, you just state it - as if astonished that most people don't agree. You've gone from supposed "curiosity" to just re-starting your beliefs and asserting that everybody else is wrong. Most people who get there do so via dogmatic belief, that is, an insistence that there is no rationale, they don't need one because there are just some things which are correct and everyone will "obviously" believe those things. This can run into a pretty nasty problem beyond just being obviously wrong, which is that it's contrary to Freedom of Conscience and thus if you have power to "enforce" it you've got a UDHR violation...