ForumGarden

I watched a TV show tonight about Great Ormond street children's Hospital.

The things they do these days are amazing.

A foetal heart defect seen during pregnancy, so the mother can deliver in the hospital (if she doesn't opt for termination) so that a fatal defect can be remedied soon after birth......with further operations planned later.

Heart and respiratory surgery carried out during the same operation, to extend the babies life so more major surgery can be done later in life when strong enough to cope.

A child spending the first six months of it's life in hospital on life support machines.



Please don't get me wrong here.......but.....

Could the investment in time, money and medical expertise, plus the emotional commitment of all concerned be better used ?

Just because we can support life, is always best to do so ?

Wouldn't it be better to allow nature to takes it course, or to intervene earlier to stop pregnancy of a child with a known medical condition reaching full term ?

That immediately gets into religious issues in addition to the logical issues.

Wandrin;1396138 wrote: That immediately gets into religious issues in addition to the logical issues.


Only if you allow it to.

I am of the opinion that knowingly allowing the birth of a baby with life threatening physical defects is cruel.

If the child was born and the defects then discovered, I would hope they would strive to do everything to maintain life.

Bruv;1396160 wrote: Only if you allow it to.

I am of the opinion that knowingly allowing the birth of a baby with life threatening physical defects is cruel.

If the child was born and the defects then discovered, I would hope they would strive to do everything to maintain life.


That would be my outlook also, but its not me in the situation.

The applied science of choosing whether and when to intervene for or against fetal and infant life falls, in some of the areas you mention, under the topic of Eugenics. That's not a field with which I'd like to be associated. Terminating the unfit elderly, on the other hand, seems indisputably ethical.

spot;1396211 wrote: The applied science of choosing whether and when to intervene for or against fetal and infant life falls, in some of the areas you mention, under the topic of Eugenics. That's not a field with which I'd like to be associated. Terminating the unfit elderly, on the other hand, seems indisputably ethical.


Neither would I want to be associated with eugenics in it's widest sense.

But is not intervening in an otherwise unviable pregnancy exactly that ?

Bruv;1396229 wrote: Neither would I want to be associated with eugenics in it's widest sense.

But is not intervening in an otherwise unviable pregnancy exactly that ?


Not if you do it on a consistent impartial basis, no.

spot: Terminating the unfit elderly, on the other hand, seems indisputably ethical.

What if the person does not wish to be terminated? Or do you mean DNR--Do Not Resuscitate?

AnneBoleyn;1396262 wrote: spot: Terminating the unfit elderly, on the other hand, seems indisputably ethical.

What if the person does not wish to be terminated? Or do you mean DNR--Do Not Resuscitate?


DNR - the alternative interpretation would be difficult to sustain, even for one as convincing as me.

Define elderly. I was recently referred to as "elderly". I'll never forget the first time I was addressed as mister. Let's see, when was that! Does that make me unfit?

spot;1396233 wrote: Not if you do it on a consistent impartial basis, no.


The program showed a pregnant young lady come into hospital with a baby already diagnosed with a heart defect that would die within hours if not spotted in the womb. Initial treatment was to keep the child alive, so that further operations could be performed later in life. The child would probably be in and out of hospital several times during their life, when just letting nature take it's course would be the right thing to do.

Terminating the unfit elderly, on the other hand, seems indisputably ethical.


If you refine that definition I might agree.

"Terminating" as in euthanasia ?

No No No !!!!

Bruv;1396271 wrote: If you refine that definition I might agree.

"Terminating" as in euthanasia ?

No No No !!!!


You're fighting some very bright and well-informed people, saying that.The British Medical Journal has called on doctors' organisations to stop opposing assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.

BBC News - 'Stop opposing assisted dying' - BMJ

spot;1396353 wrote: You're fighting some very bright and well-informed people, saying that.

The British Medical Journal has called on doctors' organisations to stop opposing assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.




Oh no I am not !!!!

There is a hell of a big difference between "to stop opposing assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults." and "Terminating the unfit elderly".....and it's not a subtle difference.

As Professor Joad would have said, it all depends on what you mean by unfit.

spot;1396368 wrote: As Professor Joad would have said, it all depends on what you mean by unfit.


Thank heavens I don't base my understanding of 'unfit' on some dead Brains Trust member

Bruv;1396373 wrote: Thank heavens I don't base my understanding of 'unfit' on some dead Brains Trust member


I doubt whether I have a thought in my head that's not influenced in some way or other by Professor Joad. Few men have expressed their reasoning more clearly or convincingly. I may some day give lessons based on his approach.

DNR forms are being changed to AND (Allow Natural Death)...in my opinion a positive change

spot;1396374 wrote: I doubt whether I have a thought in my head that's not influenced in some way or other by Professor Joad. Few men have expressed their reasoning more clearly or convincingly. I may some day give lessons based on his approach.


Hopefully his approach was more amenable than yours.

So what was the said gentleman's definition of 'unfit elderly' and 'terminally ill, mentally competent adults'?

The terminally ill mentally competent are the ones asking for a legal exit, while the unfit elderly might be temporarily unable to tie their own shoe laces..........do we exterminate them all ? According to Joad and Spot ?

I've no idea what the Professor thought about euthanasia or eugenics. What he gave me was the need to agree and define terms before discussing any topic.

spot;1396465 wrote: I've no idea what the Professor thought about euthanasia or eugenics. What he gave me was the need to agree and define terms before discussing any topic.


Another pedant then ?

Bruv;1396496 wrote: Another pedant then ?Honestly, people using the same word to mean something different is the biggest block to effective discussion that I've found online.

So.......lets hear what exactly you mean by your statement......spot;1396211 wrote: Terminating the unfit elderly, on the other hand, seems indisputably ethical.
We ....ok me....need to know what 'terminate' 'unfit' 'elderly' 'indisputably' and 'ethical' mean, for a starter.

I read it as topping the old uns legally morally and rightly.

'Topping' means killing, so there is no misunderstanding.

Bruv;1396500 wrote: So.......lets hear what exactly you mean by your statement......

We ....ok me....need to know what 'terminate' 'unfit' 'elderly' 'indisputably' and 'ethical' mean, for a starter.

I read it as topping the old uns legally morally and rightly.

'Topping' means killing, so there is no misunderstanding.


Demos has, I think, the current advisory body recommendation to government on "assisted dying legislation" and comes down to: The person concerned is aged 18 or over and has a diagnosis of terminal illness

The person is making a voluntary choice that is an expression of his or her own wishes and is not unduly influenced by others

The person has the mental capacity to make a voluntary and informed choice, and the person’s decision-making is not significantly impaired as a result of mental health problems such as depressionI disagree with quite a lot of that. I think a living will, made when a person has the mental capacity to make a voluntary and informed choice, should be acted on regardless of whether they remain in that condition. I think another authorised person should be allowed to administer the lethal material rather than just the person intent on dying in a controlled manner. I used "elderly" on the grounds that few, by comparison, would be in a position to volunteer for this below whatever age we designate as "elderly" - if we need a figure, I'd call that 50+.

So, that gives us a proposed vocabulary. 'terminate' means to bring life to a rapid controlled end, 'unfit' means more likely to die than not within the next year according to medical advice, 'elderly' is 50+, 'indisputably' means I've seen no argument against my position which I felt raised insuperable problems and 'ethical' means that it's the expressed unpressured desire of the person being discussed, either at the time or at an earlier time if the ability to choose has been lost.

So as an apostle of Joad and getting the basic of vocabulary right before starting, do you honestly believe the throw away comment "Terminating the unfit elderly, on the other hand, seems indisputably ethical." covers what you have just said above ?

I would say you are a proponent of assisted suicide, or mercy killing, and not "Terminating the unfit elderly" which is a totally different kettle of fish. *Joad note* Kettle of fish has nothing to do with kettles or fish.

I was perhaps overly flippant in my phrasing, for which I apologize.

spot;1396515 wrote: I was perhaps overly flippant in my phrasing, for which I apologize.
Hmmmmm. Ya think?

spot;1396515 wrote: I was perhaps overly flippant in my phrasing, for which I apologize.


I am sure Joad is spinning in his grave.......and not just because of the zee in apologise