Justus For All

My only question I would have is what happens if these treatments affect her other bodily functions (breathing, heart rate, circulatory system), which I assume are functioning properly. The story doesn’t indicate she needs a medical device to assist her in breathing, for example.

But, yes, it really isn’t that easy to come right out and say the treatments shouldn’t be administered for any reason.

At frist i thought this case was cut and dry, who would want to make a kid small on purpose? But after reading serveral things, it began to make sense.

To the naysayers, you are not the one who will have to life the poor girl every day of your life multiple times, though health, sickness, injury, old age.

Imagine lifing 145 pounds or more when you are 65. I doubt it is easy.

I’m with you.

Our science and technology have outgrown our moral capacities. And, not only that - our moral capacites do not appear to be growing at all.

Dave, we have been here before. BD’s comment on “moral capacity” is open to quibble, but is a very good part of a wider truth.

What happens if we start adding in a little “humanity” to the equation. I mean “humanity” in terms of “doing the right thing for another person”.

Fifty years ago, this child would probably not have survived.

The question now is -

Should we use palliative care to keep this child alive? How “right” is it to keep a person alive under these circumstances? What “quality of life” is that person likely to have?

OR

Should we use palliative care to ease this child’s path toward death? How “right” is it to allow a person to die under these circumstances? What quality of life might that person otherwise have had?

For myself, If I needed palliative care to keep me alive in circumstances where I am unaware of being alive; if I would die without direct intervention; then it would be far better to allow me to die. The very great difficulty (the moral judgement) is judging the level of the patient’s awareness.

Just to quickly add -

I believe that in many of the instances we hear of these days - remember (the brain dead lady) kept alive at the wishes of one part of her family? - there is a very strong element of selfishness in wanting to keep alive a person who to all other intents and purposes is dead.

It springs, I suspect, from an inability to cope with death; an inability to effectively grieve the loss of a loved one; and a denial of death as a part - a natural part - of the process of living.

I don’t believe that science and technology have outgrown our ability to be moral. Certainly they present new choices, and sometimes those choices are difficult, but not advancing our knowledge and abilities is a moral choice as well, and would result in us not being able prevent death and suffering.

Clearly, the child in this instance is not like Terrir Shiavo. Her brain is alive, and functioning. While it is not at anywhere like a normal child her age, and not going to become ‘more,’ she isn’t in danger of becoming less either. Certainly I think any action to ‘ease’ her death (i.e. kill her) would be absolutely horrible.

I also don’t hold with the idea that we should do what is ‘natural.’ Natural is certainly not a synonym for moral or beneficial. Fighting against nature is what we do as a species, and with good effect. Smallpox is ‘natural’ the smallpox vacine is not, and I know for sure which I prefer.