[ComradePoos]

(Original post by vickie89)
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.

I don't think you quite understand the condition this child has.

[lebron_23]

I would argue that the baby should be euthanised. I would say this solely on the premise of acting out of Christian Compassion (even though i am not christian myself) as it sounds like a wonderful thing. Also, Aristotle, and later Thomas Aquinas, said that humans posses two things: rational form (things that are concepts eg sight) and physical properties (eg the body). One could say that this baby is lacking, although not fully, the rational form of human life as he posses a very low quality of life. Therefore, a moral absolutist would also argue for this baby to be euthanised...
^^sorry about that.. Just sat my AS ethics exam and i have ethics demons running around in my head

[Amani Ismail]

Yes, I would.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[morecambebay]

There is some dangerous rhetoric being thrown around this thread. Who are all of you to decide what classes as human? Who are you to decide whether he deserves medicine? And FYI: Killing somebody is only euthanasia if it is done for their benefit. That child would get no benefit from being killed...so it would be murder.

[ComradePoos]

(Original post by morecambebay)
There is some dangerous rhetoric being thrown around this thread. Who are all of you to decide what classes as human? Who are you to decide whether he deserves medicine? And FYI: Killing somebody is only euthanasia if it is done for their benefit. That child would get no benefit from being killed...so it would be murder.

We know he is incapable of being able to experience any form of thought, pain, emotion, sensing. He is only capable of instinctive actions. It is no different than keeping a robot that is programmed to eat, move and sleep.

[stargirl63]

Wait, how is the kid eating, sleeping, blinking etc etc without a brain? I thought the brain was what controls all of that.

[ComradePoos]

(Original post by stargirl63)
Wait, how is the kid eating, sleeping, blinking etc etc without a brain? I thought the brain was what controls all of that.

Technically it isn't missing ALL of its brain, just most of it.

[morecambebay]

(Original post by ComradePoos)
We know he is incapable of being able to experience any form of thought, pain, emotion, sensing. He is only capable of instinctive actions. It is no different than keeping a robot that is programmed to eat, move and sleep.

The way that science is going, it is pritty likely that all humans are 'just robots'.

[DJkG.1]

(Original post by Pawsies)
I don't think anyone could say they'd kill him unless they actually went through what the family have been through. It's easy to judge from a computer screen.

Indeed, would any of these people actually administer the lethal dose of whatever would be used?

I'm happy this country still has the sense to keep euthanasia firmly within the bracket of murder.

[nmudz_009]

An I was just thinking, I wish I had a better brain :/

[Carecup]

Need a 3rd option for abortion.

[badcheesecrispy]

Disgusting that posters refer to the child as 'an abomination' and 'that thing'.

How would you like it if it was your child? I think you should think about that.

[Psyk]

(Original post by badcheesecrispy)
Disgusting that posters refer to the child as 'an abomination' and 'that thing'.

How would you like it if it was your child? I think you should think about that.

In my post I referred to it as "it". I know I wouldn't feel like it was an "it" if it was my child. But if it really feels no emotion, no thought, and is simply a machine that pumps blood around, is it really a person?

Of course this is under the assumption that what the OP said is true about it not being able to feel or think anything at all. I'm just taking the OPs word for it.

[Darkphilosopher]

Imo, if the child is unable to process any thoughts then it would be a waste to keep them alive.

[Millyshyn]

I think as long as his family want to look after him and pay for his medications, they should be allowed to. However, if I was in this situation and found out my baby would be born like this I'd want an abortion. In this case I'd be against the baby being euthanised - letting it be born and then euthanising it would be very damaging emotionally (to the family) and unnecessary since the child cannot feel pain, so it's quality of life must not be too bad. As long as it's not suffering it should be allowed to live.

[OU Student]

I'm not sure I could care for a child in that situation. So I answered no.

[RollerBall]

No, I don't see the point. There are some serious ethical dilemas for saving other kids who will recovery with extreme difficutlies (some of the prognosises for HIE are literally pointless) nevermind this sort of thing.

[Arekkusu]

I think he should well be kept alive. He still has instinct, right? What makes that different from your average pet chinchilla? We don't kill those off willy-nilly.

(Original post by philistine)
Actually, that is incorrect. David Cameron is well into his forties, and seems to be in the zenith of health.

Absolute gold!

[Scienceisgood]

I personally wouldn't. All she has there is basically a living doll.
If this kid will never hear, see, feel (physically or emotionally) or even be able to relate to any human, what is the point? He is basically a machine, the lights are on but there is no one home.

I know people refer to the "Sanctity of life" and all but, what about the right to a good life?
I mean, people born in slums have a better quality of life than this because at least they can find comfort. I can't think of anything worse than not being able to feel anything at all.

So, if I were his parents, I would immediately halt all medication given.

[Psyk]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
I think he should well be kept alive. He still has instinct, right? What makes that different from your average pet chinchilla? We don't kill those off willy-nilly.

I'm not sure of the details of the condition, but I don't think it really has "instinct". Just reflexes. I don't think it's really even comparable to any mammal in terms of cognitive functions.

(Original post by Scienceisgood)
I personally wouldn't. All she has there is basically a living doll.
If this kid will never hear, see, feel (physically or emotionally) or even be able to relate to any human, what is the point? He is basically a machine, the lights are on but there is no one home.

I must admit I find the whole situation really creepy. Them treating it like it's a normal child when really it is a sort of biological doll like you say. To me it seems like they just can't come to terms with the fact that the child is not really "alive". Almost like they're carrying a dead baby around and pretending it's alive. But in the end, it's none of my business, so it doesn't really matter what I think.

(Original post by Scienceisgood)
I know people refer to the "Sanctity of life" and all but, what about the right to a good life?
I mean, people born in slums have a better quality of life than this because at least they can find comfort. I can't think of anything worse than not being able to feel anything at all.

That doesn't really make sense. I think people should have a good quality of life because I think we should aim to minimise suffering. But if this child doesn't feel anything (emotionally speaking), then how can it suffer? Killing it would not reduce its suffering because it is not capable of suffering in the first place.