Human is?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good point, Byron, and I agree with you. The preservation of life as such, without any emphasis on the quality of that life, is a very important factor. However, I'd go further - the preservation of life if that life would cease without active medical intervention is the issue here. If life would continue without drastic medical intervention, I don't think that "quality of life" issues apply, since that life is self-sustaining.
 
Preacherman,

I think you are expressing your own philosophy quite well, it's just that it is impossible to objectify your belief system in a fashion that would be acceptable to everyone else.
And that's the problem with the entire subject. To take a case in point - a baby might be born with only a brainstem that allows it to maintain basic life functions, but not "think". From a Christian perspective (and Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc) this child is still "human" and has a right to life.

Someone else might disagree and argue that humanity begins and ends with self-awareness, or empathy, or at a certain intellectual capacity, etc. They might argue that the family or society (if they are paying the tab) has a right to "pull the plug".

Neither opinion can be defended in a truly objective fashion since they are based on the purely subjective opinion of the observer.

My own opinion is that humanity is defined by empathy. If a creature is capable of empathetic reaction to the pain of another, then it is a "human". Many criminals don't have that empathy and (if convicted of a crime), I think we have every right to remove their freedom or even their life.
I freely admit that I can not defend my opinion with facts or data or what have you. It's just my opinion, filtered through my own understanding and prejudices.

And that's why subects like abortion, capital punishment, war, etc, will always inflame public opinion - because there will never be a quantifiable definition (or even a universal "value") on human life.

Keith
 
Oleg:
My question, to the medical profession and to the amature ethicists here, at which point would you pull the plug on someone who can't ever be independent or even self-aware.
Click to expand...

I took some medical related courses,spent some time in an OR. Similar question was asked , my reply was not well rec'd, though partly based on my feelings, and what I actually heard from patients and family of DNR. Euthansia was also involved as far as ethics.

--
If your are currently drawing a breath or have drawn a breath, someday you won't. In between one funcions as one big organism, with all the characteritics. [movement,responsiveness,growth,reproduction,respiration,digestion,absorbtion,circulation,assimilation and excretion].

This organism which we call a human being has built in features, designed to protect itself from harm. Disease, enviroment, .....flight or fight...the organism will do anything to protect itself. The Brain is the last to die [see Circle of Willis] it will let everything else die to keep itself funtioning.

I went onto to mention the advancement of DNA and how we -with IBMs super computer- will very likely be able to "tweak" a gene(s) that predisposes one to cancer, althiemer's disease, cardiovasular, and endocrine defieincies. We boil down to proteins anyway.

Continuing- I was pro euthansia. I was raised as Protestant, I have Catholics, Jewish, (insert any other religions here) Athesists and Agnostic friends.

I shared real life experinces. I have seen the patient opened up from stem to stern "yep she is ate up with cancer, she is gonna die-soon" sewn up, given pain meds and the familes rememberance were her doped up, to weak to do anything, hundereds of stitches, and added financial burden to already emotional ones.

I believe this person whom I was told was very active and outgoing, full of life should NOT have had that happen to her. Let the family remember the person full of life. Let her be euthanized, and what if anything could have been used to further science or maybe bone, eye organ donation be allowed--This was her wishes, the family wanted, the law says no. I was there in the room 3 weeks later when she drew here last breath in a cold room with strangers.

I also believe in Organ donors and transplants. I've seen both sides of this. The quietist quiet I have ever-or will ever hear is when everything in an OR stops and the patient is dead. I have been there when the brain died in a young mom, I was there when her 4 year old daughter was told. Dad then explained that mommy wanted to help people...we did the harvest of organs the next night. I really think that little girl is better off remembering her mom alive and well and then giving to others versus being a vegetable suported by machines. I do know for a fact (because we did these two transplants) a little boy is very happy his mom rec'd a kidney, another man rec'd a heart, I know his family is sad for the other's family's loss--and guilty/happy for their recipt of a heart.

--
I have a lot of respect for the Medical persons on all levels. I do not agree with the politics, government meddling, and impositions of insurance companies. I have seen patients sent home early because beds were needed so more surgeries needed to be done...not always those of dire need, but breast implants and other cosmetic surgeries. I feel some surgeries are dictated by insurance companies...we won't do this prevenative measure, but, if you get this bad we will "allow'20K and send you home to die.

No, we discuss human rights here. I'm by definition a "human". If I am in a accident and I'm going to be a vegetable , I have on paper to pull the plug. Take my organs and the rest of me goes to science. Family opposes and well I have that right. As far as my maker, I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

I couldn't get the strength one night to get up . That 4 year old died in my arms waiting for a heart transplant that never came. The surgeon was in conference with the parents. Another family decided Not to pull the plug. A match? I don't know, from what I learned probably, but I can't go there. the surgeon came in and I guess it showed. I was reading "The Old Man and the Boy" when he died. I handed the little boy and the book to the surgeon. I got up to change out of scrubs. " You and I need to discuss this " he said. "No, the family needs you more than I ". "Yes, your right Steve, come by tommorrow, and thank you".

I just threw my clothes into my backpack, left wearing scrubs, the security guard walked me to the lot, he knew something was up...I walked in silence...I drove around for awhile...that one hurt...kids do that...if only a plug had been pulled...maybe...
 
I have given the issue some thought before, but still cant come up with a suitable definition of when human life begins. I also try not to get into conversations with that topic as one of us will walk away frustrated and flustered, at the very least.

However, my dog may just be a dog, but she is capable of things some people I know arent capable of, and some that I didnt think was possible for even humans. (if i told you some of the things she has done you would think I was absolutely nuts.) She shows tons of emotions, and shows worry and love and all kinds of stuff. I even saw her not eat until everyone was home that was supposed to be home. I love my puppy more than life itself. She is the most innocent, loving creature on the face of the earth, and loves everyone. I could go on and on about my dog, but I wont. I am getting all teary just thinking about this thread and my dog getting hurt.

I just cant imagine why someone would hurt my dog intentionally. I know that they would end up dead if they did, as I love my puppy like someone loves their first born.
 
"human" to me, is defined as 'the ability to make conscious decisions'.

theres a book i've been reading off and on the last couple years, "the moral animal", and the author's position is that human behavior is entirely instinctual. its used as "evidence" that we have evolved, comparing human 'instincts' to that of animals.
 
Human motivation

My theory? Everything you do is for selfish reasons. Everything done to make you feel good or avoid feeling bad. Give a homeless man $5? Makes you feel good about yourself etc., even when you think it's for someone else well ,that makes you feel good.
BT
 
The ego of someone willing to euthanize another person must be huge.

I am a physician (surgeon). I will do my damnedest to save your life. If I can't save your life, I will let you die as comfortably and compassionately as I can.

I will not, however, euthanize you.

To passively let someone die is much different from actively causing death.

I do not decide when people live or die. I am simply a conduit through which that deicison is passed.
 
To passively let someone die is much different from actively causing death.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

For myself though...I've got a big a big enough ego to make that choice for myself. If it really goes down the tubes. I've got an anterior neurofibroma at C8. In the last ten years all it's done to me is make my little fingers twitch a bit and become numb at times. God willing, that's all it will ever do. But, in the final extreme, I have little interest in living as a quadraplegic.
 
only1asterisk....

Yes, many doctors have large egos. But what is the point of asking that question?

Byron, I would have no problem with you euthanizing yourself if you so choose. However, asking another person to do it for you is another matter, dont you think?

It is a slippery slope we start going down when we euthanasia becomes permissable. It ultimately could become a government tool with which to control medical costs. It is cheaper to euthanize a 95 yo who is no longer a productive element of society than it is to pay his medicare bills.

Be careful with this idea... it could become very dangerous.
 
Those who think the "retarted" or those with low IQ's are less than human have a few brain cells missing themselves.

Those individuals had no choice how they were born or were victims of accidents or disease.

When the family of these individuals put them in an institution because they don't have the stomach or backbone to care for them, the individuals can revert to violent behaviour.

While most cannot communucate properly, they do feel and can reason to an extent.

How would anyone like to be abandoned in one of these rat holes?

No it's not the children of a lesser God who should be eliminated,
its those who feel they should.
 
MicroBalrog...

First, realize that my opinions are nothing more than that; they are just my opinions, based on my own morality, which I really am not trying to force on anyone. However, as a medical provider, my morality has to be at least considered because I am asked to do things that change peoples lives forever, and I won't be compelled to do something I find morally objectionable.

Second, realize that on a frequent basis in my line of work, life and death decisions have to be made.

My goal is to reach a decision on what to do with someone that is in their best interest, and also does not conflict with the will of nature, the patient's God, and my God.

To answer your question, let me provide an example...

Imagine this situation:

A 40 yo mother of three is involved in a motor vehicle accident, and critically injured. She is placed on life support by EMTs at the scene. When she arrives at the hospital, she has multiple injuries. Treatment is begun, and she is initially stabilized. However, over the following days, her condition deteriorates, she develops pneumonia, then kidney failure, then multiple organ failure, and soon it becomes apparrent that she will not survive despite everything we do. It becomes clear that it is the will of God and nature for this lady to die, and anything else we do is in conflict with that.

Once the line is crossed where there is no chance for survival, then further medical care is futile, and will actually only prolong this lady's misery, and that of her family.

We have two theoretical courses of action.

1. We could euthanize her (understand we couldnt really because it is illegal, this is for philosophical discussion only). By that I mean we could actively clamp off her breathing tube, or give a lot of potassium, or shoot her, or cut off her head, or whatever.

2. Alternatively, we could simply withdraw support (done of course after agreement is reached with the family). We could place her on room air, turn off medications that artificially support the heart, etc, and provide comfort care only.


Now if I take option 1, and euthanize her, then I take on the role of God and nature. No man should be asked to do that, and no man is equipped to make that decision. No man should be compelled to actively kill another in this situation.

If I simply remove artificial support, then it is up to God and nature to decide whether she lives or dies. Yes, she will surely die, but it will not be actively done with my hand.

If euthanasia becomes permissible, eventually, the line between euthanasia and murder will become obscure.
 
OK, Lone_Gunman, here's a situation for you:

Imagine I was carried into your hospital with multiple gunshot wounds.

You assess, with your knowledge of the medical science, that I will soon die, regardless of your efforts. But what if you're wrong? Many people have been ruled doomed to die by the doctors and lived.

Example: A soldier was hauled into an Israeli hospital with a single gunshot wound. To the heart. According to any law of biology he was doomed, and medical efforts would only prolong his suffering.

The doctors struggled for his life for several months.


He is the only case of a person that lived after taking a bullet to the heart AFAIK. He has recenty come back to diving. True story.
 
He is the only case of a person that lived after taking a bullet to the heart AFAIK.
Click to expand...

MicroBalrog,
It is actually not that rare. General Montgomery of Great Britain was shot through the heart in World War I and survived, stayed in the British Army and rose to fame (some would say infamy) in WWII.

I've seen a patient live after being stabbed in the heart. A complete penetration...in the front and out the back of the heart.

Lone Gunman is not talking about someone who has suffered trauma, no matter how severe, to one organ. His example was one of complications from the original injuries...multiple organ failure. The organs are not working...they are actually dead or dying and the only thing preserving a semblance of life is artificial (and massive) support.
 
MicroBalrog,

We operate on "hopeless" acute trauma patients quite frequently. Even people who are shot in the heart can occassionally be saved, if they live long enough to make it to the hospital.

So even if you came in with multiple GSW's, you are pretty much going to have every available resource put on you, until you die.

Situations like that though don't usually require much moral decision making in the acute situation. Acutely, you can expect everything possible to be done. It is after your initial stabilization that the situation gets murky.
 
I am a physician (surgeon). I will do my damnedest to save your life. If I can't save your life, I will let you die as comfortably and compassionately as I can.

I will not, however, euthanize you.

To passively let someone die is much different from actively causing death.

I do not decide when people live or die. I am simply a conduit through which that deicison is passed.
Click to expand...

Does the person owning the body and the intellect within get to make that decision? If I am a terminal cancer patient in agony, do I have the right to decide when my life should end, and how? If I don't have that right, why not? (And more importantly, who does?)
 
MicroBalrog, I totally agree with you. Don't euthanize me either please.

-------------

Marko Kloos, yes, the patient involved can certainly make a decision to end their own life, but he should not feel that he has the right to involve me in that.

My lack of participation in helping in commit suicide does not preclude him from doing it privately.
 
Lone Gunman, would you agree that not helping a person being attacked to defend themselves is being an accomplice to the attack?

If someone I love was ill, no matter how hopelessly, I want the doctors to do all they can to save their lives.
 
I dont think it would make you an accomplice to the crime, but failing to render aid is not honorable.

I understand you would want everything done for your loved one, and so would I. However, at some point, everyone dies. The question is, when that point is reached, do you want to try to artificially prolong life (and misery), when there is no chance for recovery?

I am not talking about euthanizing someone as an alternative, simply removing medical treatment that is not going to be curative, and only prolonging the inevitable.

Understand also, we are talking about a truly hopeless situation where the concensus medical opinion is there is no chance of recovery, without a direct miracle.

And yes, medical opinions are sometimes wrong. And yes, miracles do happen.

I don't have the answers, and I dont think I even want the answers.
 
Wow, close to home here:

Lone_Gunman, I really really understand the distinction you made. Almost exactly 2 yrs ago my mom was on a ventilator w/multiple system failures, no pupil reflex, etc, but heart still working. The ICU people started working on my Dad to "Sign the Papers." I read said papers and insisted on crossing out "withdraw support" while leaving "withhold additional support". That's what they did, she lasted another day. Am so glad we didn't participate in hastening anyone's death, let alone my mother's.
 
Oops!

Just realized I've been contributing to thread drift here, from "Human is?" toward "When is/isn't it ok to kill a human?" See my post above, re bad music. What I think I meant in my first post is that only humans have the capacity to willfully behave wrongly, knowing they're doing wrong, getting a charge out of it. Call it sin, whatever. I remember reading somewhere that Ted Bundy used to systematically drill himself to extinguish what remained of his conscience.:eek: I also remember how happy, loving and purrful my cat is while doing quite horrible things to rats. (That's why I call him Felix Dzerzhinsky, he's never yet had an enemy of the people fail to spill his guts under interrogation!:D )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top