Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

If this was your child would you keep him alive?

Announcements Posted on
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
  • View Poll Results: Would you?
    Yes
    26
    18.06%
    No
    118
    81.94%

    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    nope. what is the point in this really? I imagine it costs a lot to look after "him" when there are children starving in africa that the money would be much better spent on. I'll no doubt get negs for this but this isn't a child, it just looks like one.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    think about sanctity of life...pooor kid will never get to feel anything.,.....if the parents decide to keep him alive i can only hope for the best for him as i reckon his quality of life is to put it bluntly-****
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't know, these questions cut to the core of what is ethical. Is it ethical to kill the baby, knowing that it will not survive long and will just exist? Is the mother horrendously selfish for keeping the baby alive? There are many ways you can look at it, but if I were the parent, no, I would not let it continue with its suffering as the only person who is benefiting from its existence is me, which I believe is selfish.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think it would be cruel to prolong the life of the child indefinitely through more and more invasive surgeries- to me, that would just be cruel. I mean, even now, they are giving him what twelve, thirteen medicines? But they just seem to be preventing seizures, rather that painkilling drugs. :/

    I wonder how much their medical insurance costs- they're american, right? They must be paying for the child out of their own pocket.

    Anyhow- I don't think the parents are cruel, I think it's what I would do, but I certainly wouldn't condone keeping the child alive against nature- Have you heard about "baby-k?" (Same syndrome)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 21stcenturyphantom)
    I don't know, these questions cut to the core of what is ethical. Is it ethical to kill the baby, knowing that it will not survive long and will just exist? Is the mother horrendously selfish for keeping the baby alive? There are many ways you can look at it, but if I were the parent, no, I would not let it continue with its suffering as the only person who is benefiting from its existence is me, which I believe is selfish.
    The baby isn't suffering - it can't think, it cannot feel pain. If it were me I would want to be euthenised, but who am I to decide from behind a computer screen? If anything, it is the family that is suffering!! Poor kid anyway!!
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm a parent which makes it really hard for me to answer the question.I'd hope the fact that my child had no brain was picked up during routine scans in my pregnancy and that way ( as awful as it sounds) I could have an abortion.However if it wasnt detected and my child was born without a proper brain then I would cherish him or her until nature took it course.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annie72)
    However if it wasnt detected and my child was born without a proper brain then I would cherish him or her until nature took it course.
    Don't you think that that is selfish? You are only keeping it alive for your own fulfillment, the baby has no quality of life of its own.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Life is life. No matter what the quality of it is, it's my duty to try and preserve it.

    And who knows, scientists have grown human hearts from stem cells, and I'm betting they're getting pretty clsoe to human brains too...
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 21stcenturyphantom)
    Don't you think that that is selfish? You are only keeping it alive for your own fulfillment, the baby has no quality of life of its own.
    I know it is selfish but I couldnt kill a baby that I had just given birth to.There's every chance that he/she would be stillborn or not make it for long after the birth anyway.

    There are no winners in either scenario.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by notforthe141)
    Baby was born without a brain. Literally does not have a brain, just a brain stem. Can't think, has no emotions, can't feel pain, none of that.



    misc
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No. Waste of time and resources.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Thinking rationally, if it cannot think or feel any kind of emotion then it's only alive in the sense that a plant is alive. There's no reason to keep it "alive", but also there's no particular reason to kill it. People are saying it's cruel to keep it alive, but if it cannot feel, then it's not cruel. It's not cruel to keep it alive or to kill it.

    However, if I was in the parents' situation, I would not be thinking rationally. I would probably think of it as a person, so I'm sure my opinion would be very different if I was actually emotionally involved. My previous comment probably seems really cold and possibly offensive, but if it truly has no emotions than it's not really a person.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    how has it managed to survive without a brain????
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jackso)
    That's not living. I wouldn't, no.
    Of course it is living. It's similar to an lower order animal.

    EDIT: My mistake, I'm tired. I confused the brain stem with the reptilian brain. Therefore, disregard my post.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xuchia117x)
    how has it managed to survive without a brain????
    Just think, maybe people who've been beheaded in the past but still had the brainstem could technically have been still alive.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Gosh, I'm not sure. Being a childless young adult right now I'm minded towards destroying him. But if I was in the mother's situation I'm not sure, I'd probably keep him alive. This whole thing basically questions the concept of what constitutes a "human".
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Thinking rationally, if it cannot think or feel any kind of emotion then it's only alive in the sense that a plant is alive. There's no reason to keep it "alive", but also there's no particular reason to kill it. People are saying it's cruel to keep it alive, but if it cannot feel, then it's not cruel. It's not cruel to keep it alive or to kill it.

    However, if I was in the parents' situation, I would not be thinking rationally. I would probably think of it as a person, so I'm sure my opinion would be very different if I was actually emotionally involved. My previous comment probably seems really cold and possibly offensive, but if it truly has no emotions than it's not really a person.
    It can 'feel' - what are you on about? The brain stem was the 'first' brain - the neo-cortex is a relatively new addition. If you hit the baby, it's going to feel pain.

    EDIT: My mistake, I'm tired. I confused the brain stem with the reptilian brain. Therefore, disregard my post.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The video is disgraceful by the way - that abomination is anything but a 'miracle' that "defies science", and the family is crazily deluded if they think that thing is anything but a tragic accident. The amount of medicine being wasted on keeping it alive is disturbing too.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I assume something like that would've been picked up on the scans before she had the baby. In that case, yes, I most likely would've aborted the baby in that situation. However, I think it's completely different that she actually gave birth to the baby and he lived. The mother and the whole family will have developed a bond with the baby, and in that situation, I would want to keep the baby.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    i wouldnt euthanise him as i dont think i could physically do that. He's not in pain and could still have a great life for however long he would be with me, so i would definately make sure he lived a good life and was included in everything.

    with his condition i dont think he would live far into childhood before his body naturally gave out on him, so i think i would impose the DNR order if the worst did happen and he became hospitalised as it would naturally be his time to go then and it would be for the best, for both him and me and while it would be awful at the time at least he would have had a good life and i would know that i had done the best i could for him in the time that we had.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 19, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.