Keeping people alive with machines?
-
This is a somewhat conteversial topic. What do you guys think about keeping people alive with machines? Is it Wrong ? Is it okay ? If its unethical ? Why is it unethical ?
CoolPunk wrote: If its unethical ? Why is it unethical ? Of course it's not. I can't understand why anyone would think it's unethical. question
-
CoolPunk wrote: What do you guys think about keeping people alive with machines? Is it Wrong ? Is it okay ? If its unethical ? Why is it unethical ? Fine. No. Yes. No. It isn't. :laugh: Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
Paul Riley wrote: Fine. No. Yes. No. It isn't. To the point. I like it. :-) Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
CoolPunk wrote: If its unethical ? Why is it unethical ? Of course it's not. I can't understand why anyone would think it's unethical. question
but how'd some one argue that it is unethical ?
-
CoolPunk wrote: If its unethical ? Why is it unethical ? Of course it's not. I can't understand why anyone would think it's unethical. question
Simon Walton wrote: I can't understand why anyone would think it's unethical. Not that I do think it's unethical but keeping someone alive using a machine when they would [should???] have died naturally could be one argument for it being unethical. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Paul Riley wrote: Fine. No. Yes. No. It isn't. To the point. I like it. :-) Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Brian Delahunty wrote: To the point. I like it. :-D I've been off here for a few days, I'm just getting back into the swing of things. I just don't see it as a big issue. We've been quick enough to kill people with technology for long enough, why not save a few in return? The whole "playing god" argument sickens me to the core of my being. If there is a god and (s)he is cruel enough to give us the knowledge and then expect us to watch people die instead of using it, he can go screw himself. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
Simon Walton wrote: I can't understand why anyone would think it's unethical. Not that I do think it's unethical but keeping someone alive using a machine when they would [should???] have died naturally could be one argument for it being unethical. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
ok, the three args why it would be wrong to keep ppl alive with machines are: - unethical - patients suffer - costs too much i understand why it costs too much and why patients suffer but why could be the arguments for it being that its UNETHICAL.
-
Simon Walton wrote: I can't understand why anyone would think it's unethical. Not that I do think it's unethical but keeping someone alive using a machine when they would [should???] have died naturally could be one argument for it being unethical. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
but, the guy could be on a machine for 2 days and probably get well. I do not know, but I guess that would be the idea that the doctors have, when they keep someone on a life-saver machine. If they thought that he would have no chance to come back, why would the doctors be spending so much time and effort for a lost cause? So, i believe it is the judgement call of the medical professional in charge, to decide whether the patient has a resonable chance to survive. If he is 100% certain that the patient will never come off the machine, then it would be unfair to other patients, who may need the machine and the doctor's time.
-
ok, the three args why it would be wrong to keep ppl alive with machines are: - unethical - patients suffer - costs too much i understand why it costs too much and why patients suffer but why could be the arguments for it being that its UNETHICAL.
CoolPunk wrote: Is it really important to keep dead people alive? Is it really important to keep people merely conscious, go against our values, and waste all that money just for the heck of it? It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical, the patients suffer greatly and the process costs too much. And what do we get out of this? Nothing. If someone can live without a machine after being on a machine for a month, then the machine is worth it, for the relatives and the person - probably a small child's parents or for a spouse or someone. In this case, the person is not "equivalent" to being dead; he can be alive. The judgement call belongs to the medical professional and no one (me or you or religious beliefs) have any say there. CoolPunk wrote: The patients also suffer in the process – physically and also emotionally. They worry what would happen to them. Too much pressure is put on them. Putting so much effort into keeping a suffering sole – who would rather die – merely conscious is pointless. Instead, we should use that effort on other patients who can recover instead of making the dead ones agonize in pain. Sometimes people do have to suffer for a good life later. If the doctor believed that this guy is not going to make it, why would he put him on a machine? The question being asked trivialises the situation. We have machines which can keep a person alive. The real question is - does this guy have a chance, if he is on a machine? Can YOU make a blanket decision on all individual cases? I cannot. The people involved have to make the decision, based on the facts at hand. CoolPunk wrote: It also costs a lot for such operations. There is too much cost for machines, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. When we are certain that the person will end up dying, why spend all this money to keep them alive for a little time? It’s pointless. Instead, that tax-payers money can be used for more useful causes – We can use that money on other patients, buying more beds, etc. We can also invest it in other areas if we still have money left over, such as education. It’s a huge waste of resources. How many 3rd world childs could be saved by the same cost as one "full service" machine? Why spend money on transplants? Why spend money on trying to bring people out of a coma? What kind of value system are we talking about, when everything is about money? CoolPunk wrote:
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: To the point. I like it. :-D I've been off here for a few days, I'm just getting back into the swing of things. I just don't see it as a big issue. We've been quick enough to kill people with technology for long enough, why not save a few in return? The whole "playing god" argument sickens me to the core of my being. If there is a god and (s)he is cruel enough to give us the knowledge and then expect us to watch people die instead of using it, he can go screw himself. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: To the point. I like it. :-D I've been off here for a few days, I'm just getting back into the swing of things. I just don't see it as a big issue. We've been quick enough to kill people with technology for long enough, why not save a few in return? The whole "playing god" argument sickens me to the core of my being. If there is a god and (s)he is cruel enough to give us the knowledge and then expect us to watch people die instead of using it, he can go screw himself. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
Paul Riley wrote: We've been quick enough to kill people with technology for long enough, why not save a few in return? Very good point Paul. I basically have the same point of view [I agree that we shoudl use technology to help us live longer] but when it comes down to talking about people actually being forced [Againt their wishes or the wishes of guardians etc] to use the technology to keep people alive or when the person is never going to recover then that's a messy area. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
but, the guy could be on a machine for 2 days and probably get well. I do not know, but I guess that would be the idea that the doctors have, when they keep someone on a life-saver machine. If they thought that he would have no chance to come back, why would the doctors be spending so much time and effort for a lost cause? So, i believe it is the judgement call of the medical professional in charge, to decide whether the patient has a resonable chance to survive. If he is 100% certain that the patient will never come off the machine, then it would be unfair to other patients, who may need the machine and the doctor's time.
Thomas George wrote: If they thought that he would have no chance to come back, why would the doctors be spending so much time and effort for a lost cause? I don't actually think it's unethical. I see nothing wrong with it.. I was just saying that that could be one point of view about it being unethical. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Paul Riley wrote: We've been quick enough to kill people with technology for long enough, why not save a few in return? Very good point Paul. I basically have the same point of view [I agree that we shoudl use technology to help us live longer] but when it comes down to talking about people actually being forced [Againt their wishes or the wishes of guardians etc] to use the technology to keep people alive or when the person is never going to recover then that's a messy area. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Brian Delahunty wrote: but when it comes down to talking about people actually being forced [Againt their wishes or the wishes of guardians etc] to us the technology to keep people alive or when the person is never going to recover then that's a messy area. Okay. I don't disagree with what you're saying but... 1. Screw the wishes of their guardians. The only person that is at issue here, IMHO, is the patient. 2. Who is to say they're never going to recover? A cure could be found tomorrow. People go into remission from the most terminal situations on very rare occasions. Is a doctor now supposed to be psychic? The only question in my mind is that of voluntary euthenasia. IMO, if someone chooses, while of sound mind, to appeal to a court and say "I don't want to be kept alive by machine" then that is their call. But they cannot say "I want this person to be allowed to kill me if my life becomes intolerable". I felt terrible for Dianne Pretty but I still think the courts were right. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
Thomas George wrote: If they thought that he would have no chance to come back, why would the doctors be spending so much time and effort for a lost cause? I don't actually think it's unethical. I see nothing wrong with it.. I was just saying that that could be one point of view about it being unethical. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
I understand your point. Like you, I see nothing unethical in these. I hate people trying to take issues - abortion - life saving machines - insert favouite cause ... and generalize the answer to it. Can one answer fit all situations? certainly, i do not think so. If you cannot generalize solutions even in software, how can these people expect to generalize things in something much more complicated, life?
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: but when it comes down to talking about people actually being forced [Againt their wishes or the wishes of guardians etc] to us the technology to keep people alive or when the person is never going to recover then that's a messy area. Okay. I don't disagree with what you're saying but... 1. Screw the wishes of their guardians. The only person that is at issue here, IMHO, is the patient. 2. Who is to say they're never going to recover? A cure could be found tomorrow. People go into remission from the most terminal situations on very rare occasions. Is a doctor now supposed to be psychic? The only question in my mind is that of voluntary euthenasia. IMO, if someone chooses, while of sound mind, to appeal to a court and say "I don't want to be kept alive by machine" then that is their call. But they cannot say "I want this person to be allowed to kill me if my life becomes intolerable". I felt terrible for Dianne Pretty but I still think the courts were right. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
Paul Riley wrote: 1. Screw the wishes of their guardians. The only person that is at issue here, IMHO, is the patient. 2. Who is to say they're never going to recover? A cure could be found tomorrow. People go into remission from the most terminal situations on very rare occasions. Is a doctor now supposed to be psychic? Exactly. The doctor has to keep the patient alive, if he has a choice.
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: but when it comes down to talking about people actually being forced [Againt their wishes or the wishes of guardians etc] to us the technology to keep people alive or when the person is never going to recover then that's a messy area. Okay. I don't disagree with what you're saying but... 1. Screw the wishes of their guardians. The only person that is at issue here, IMHO, is the patient. 2. Who is to say they're never going to recover? A cure could be found tomorrow. People go into remission from the most terminal situations on very rare occasions. Is a doctor now supposed to be psychic? The only question in my mind is that of voluntary euthenasia. IMO, if someone chooses, while of sound mind, to appeal to a court and say "I don't want to be kept alive by machine" then that is their call. But they cannot say "I want this person to be allowed to kill me if my life becomes intolerable". I felt terrible for Dianne Pretty but I still think the courts were right. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
Paul Riley wrote: Who is to say they're never going to recover? A cure could be found tomorrow. People go into remission from the most terminal situations on very rare occasions. Is a doctor now supposed to be psychic? Very true. That NYC police office that came out of a coma after 14 years for example. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
What do you think about keeping persons alive with antibiotics? What do you think about keeping persons alive with vitamins? What do you think about keeping persons alive with hormones? And why do machines would be different? lazy isn't my middle name.. its my first.. people just keep calling me Mel cause that's what they put on my drivers license. - Mel Feik
-
This is a somewhat conteversial topic. What do you guys think about keeping people alive with machines? Is it Wrong ? Is it okay ? If its unethical ? Why is it unethical ?
It depends on what you mean by "machines". If you mean a pacemaker, then fine. What I think you're talking about keeping someone's heart beating and using a respirator to keep someone "alive", but in a state of perpetual unconsciousness from which they won't return. From their experience of the world, they may as well be dead, because they experience the same. (Note: I don't believe in an afterlife.) I don't think anyone would argue it is "unethical", but at the same time, you can ask, "what's the point of keeping them 'technically alive', but experientially dead?" If a machine (e.g. a pacemaker) allows someone to stay alive and experience life, too, then the answer is obvious: it is NOT unethical to use machines. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
BTW...thanks for the name correction --------------------------------------------- The greenest grass is NOT on the other side of the fence, its the grass you take care of. Have you watered your lawn lately?
Mel Feik wrote: BTW...thanks for the name correction Hours of hard labor... :) Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.