Keeping people alive with machines?
-
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.