Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bad Kitty · 07-24-2003, 10:21 AM

Tronvillain,

Quote:

So do I, except for the opposite reason: I do not consider children with anencephaly or children in vegetative states to be people. Oh, we may grant them "rights", but it is not because they are people.

What if your brother is a 20 year-old man who has a motorcycle accident and due to brain damage exists in a persistent vegetative state. Is he no longer a person? Should he have rights? If your family put him in a 24-hour care facility, should his caretakers be allowed to abuse him because he is not really a person?

Here is what persistent vegetative state means:

Quote:

The term "persistent vegetative state" was introduced by Jennett and Plum in a 1972 article in the journal Lancet to describe the condition of patients with severe brain damage in whom coma has progressed to a state of "wakefulness without awareness". Patients in this vegetative state have no cerebral cortical function, meaning that they are unconscious and unaware, but exhibit sleep-wake cycles with either full or partial hypothalamic and brain stem autonomic functions. Along with maintaining autonomous functions, such as cardiovascular and renal functions, patients in a persistent vegetative state may be aroused by certain stimuli, opening their eyes if they are closed, changing their facial expressions, or even moving their limbs. Furthermore, they can grind their teeth, swallow, smile, shed tears, grunt, moan, or scream without any reason. Their heads and eyes can follow a moving object or move towards a loud sound . Yet, these responses have been observed in patients in whom careful study has shown no evidence of awareness.

Do you feel you should have the right to "euthanize" him because he is no longer a person?

Michelle

Amen-Moses · 07-24-2003, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
I can understand that you might think/feel that anencephalic infants aren't persons, as you said this is a matter of opinion.

But the fact is that whether or not you believe them to be "person" they are in fact persons in the view of the law, and as such have the same rights as all other persons. Is this correct?

They have the same rights as any other corpse.

Amen-Moses

Bad Kitty · 07-24-2003, 11:19 AM

Amen-Moses,

I'm unsure if you are being sarcastic, but the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act grants these children the same federal rights given to you and me.

The Act defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Michelle

Amen-Moses · 07-24-2003, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
Amen-Moses,

I'm unsure if you are being sarcastic, but the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act grants these children the same federal rights given to you and me.

You can grant it whatever you like but you won't find any medical staff in the world that will hook them up to the machines, they are usually disposed of pretty damn quick (in fact it is very rare that they would live more than a few minutes anyhow but those that do are usually disposed of and recorded as still births).

Amen-Moses

ps - going on about federal rights to me is pretty meaningless.

Bad Kitty · 07-24-2003, 11:49 AM

Quote:

ps - going on about federal rights to me is pretty meaningless

I haven't "gone on" about anything to you, Amen-Moses.

Given your stated lack of intrest is there a reason you chose to comment in the first place, as I was clearly discussing the application of rights?

Regards,

Michelle

Amen-Moses · 07-24-2003, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
I haven't "gone on" about anything to you, Amen-Moses.

Given your stated lack of intrest is there a reason you chose to comment in the first place, as I was clearly discussing the application of rights?

Regards,

Michelle

You are quoting federal rights, they only apply to less than 5% of the population.

The definition of death used by medical authorities is a lack of brain activity, if you don't have a brain you are clinically dead as a doornail!

Amen-Moses

Bad Kitty · 07-24-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

You are quoting federal rights, they only apply to less than 5% of the population.

I'm sorry, I just haven't had a chance to find a list of which states have enacted it into law. I know Louisiana and Michigan have, and that Florida and New Hampshire haven't. But I haven't had a chance to find out anything beyond that. If you know, please share.

Quote:

The definition of death used by medical authorities is a lack of brain activity, if you don't have a brain you are clinically dead as a doornail!

FYI: Anencephalic babies have no cerebrum or cerebellum but they do have a brain stem. The brain stem allows them to breathe and allows their hearts to beat. Anencephalic babies are thus not technically brain dead.

In 1992 the parents of an anencephalic baby named Baby Theresa wanted to donate her organs. But the courts�all the way to the Florida Supreme Court�would not declare her dead. She lived for ten days.

Thanks,

Michelle

Dr Rick · 07-24-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheBigZoo
But the fact is that whether or not you believe them to be "person" they are in fact persons in the view of the law, and as such have the same rights as all other persons. Is this correct?

For the most part, yes, except I don't believe the law entitles them to run for political office...

Quote:

So my personal thinking goes like this: what is the difference between an anencephalic baby (who has no consciousness and no potential consciousness) and a early fetus. (which has no consciousness but has potential consciousness)? Neither of these babies are "viable" at this point. And neither have a brain to speak of. But one does, for the short time it is alive, have rights. The other does not. One is considred a baby -- if not a person. The other is considered a "clump of cells.

The law was not directed towards anencephalics, as the congressional record does not show any significant discussion of them. It was borne of politics much more than ethics, science, or medicine. The bill was authored by Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and signed into law by George W Bush without anencephalics in mind:

Quote:

�This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive -- including an infant who survives an abortion procedure -- is considered a person under federal law...The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights.�-President Bush in a speech as he signed the act into law in 2001.

The act was just a politically motivated pro-life publicity stunt with no practical impact, written to address a problem that doesn't exist; the "murder" of babies that survive abortions. A few politicians got some photo-ops and press releases out of the thing, but no one's life has been saved by it; Can anyone identify or point-out a single "aborted baby" that has survived in the year since the bill was signed into law? Prior law already prohibited killing a delivered baby, and fortunately the act does not require any ridiculous and futile attempts to revive or resuscitate an aborted fetus.

The law is written in such a way that it includes anencephalics, but it's had no impact upon them, either. Just as it was before August of 2002, it is still the medical standard to provide only "comfort care" to anencephalics, and rules governing donors already in place prevented harvesting their organs for transplants then as they do today.

Quote:

Is the difference location -- in or out of the womb? I mean, I doubt it is the fact that the anencephalic baby has better looking finger and toes that gives it rights. It is the fact that it was "born alive".

The difference is the wording of the law; under the act, a person is only someone that has been born, and fetuses are excluded:

Quote:

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including born-alive infant

`(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

`(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, caesarean section, or induced abortion.

`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section.'

Quote:

Hypothetically, do you think that if medical science progressed enough that fetuses could be maintained outside the womb, making a fertilized egg suddenly "viable", that this fact would change at what point a fetus would be considered a human child and therefore have rights?

With the way the law is written, yes, but we're a long way from that, and as the law is written, it still wouldn't apply to fetuses. Neonatal medicine made some terrific strides in the 1970's and 80's, and for a while it appeared that there was a linear progression towards eventually "making the womb obsolete." But the field hit a wall; in 1989, the minimum viable gestational age was around 22 weeks; it still is right around there today.

tronvillain · 07-24-2003, 02:39 PM

TheBigZoo:

Quote:

What if your brother is a 20 year-old man who has a motorcycle accident and due to brain damage exists in a persistent vegetative state. Is he no longer a person? Should he have rights? If your family put him in a 24-hour care facility, should his caretakers be allowed to abuse him because he is not really a person?

Yes, he is no longer a person: the person he was is dead and all that is left is a shell that looks like him and may mindlessly move (the important part of persistent vegetative state is "no cerebral cortical function.") Should "he" have "rights"? Only as far as what happens to him bothers various other people. Personally I would just pull the plug on him, but if my family put him in a care facility his caretakers should not be allowed to abuse him because it would bother my family to have my brother's remains abused.

Amen-Moses · 07-24-2003, 04:11 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheBigZoo
I'm sorry, I just haven't had a chance to find a list of which states have enacted it into law. I know Louisiana and Michigan have, and that Florida and New Hampshire haven't. But I haven't had a chance to find out anything beyond that. If you know, please share.

Sorry I should have been clearer, I'm talking about the other 95% of humanity lucky enough to not be living in the US.

FYI: Anencephalic babies have no cerebrum or cerebellum but they do have a brain stem. The brain stem allows them to breathe and allows their hearts to beat. Anencephalic babies are thus not technically brain dead.

In 1992 the parents of an anencephalic baby named Baby Theresa wanted to donate her organs. But the courts�all the way to the Florida Supreme Court�would not declare her dead. She lived for ten days.

Then why do the courts allow the family to make the decision when someone is clinically brain dead? It seems like there are two conflicting ideals going on here when there should only be one.

A human with purely a brain stem is no different from a fish, maybe we should start charging fishermen for murder?

Amen-Moses

View Poll Results: when does a human being have access to the protection of the laws of our land?
after conception	9	12.86%
3 months after conception	7	10.00%
6 months after conception	15	21.43%
9 months after conception	3	4.29%
after birth	33	47.14%
18 years after birth	3	4.29%
Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2003, 11:19 AM	#183
Bad Kitty Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: The South. Posts: 2,122	Amen-Moses, I'm unsure if you are being sarcastic, but the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act grants these children the same federal rights given to you and me. The Act defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. Michelle

07-24-2003, 04:11 PM	#190
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheBigZoo I'm sorry, I just haven't had a chance to find a list of which states have enacted it into law. I know Louisiana and Michigan have, and that Florida and New Hampshire haven't. But I haven't had a chance to find out anything beyond that. If you know, please share. Sorry I should have been clearer, I'm talking about the other 95% of humanity lucky enough to not be living in the US. FYI: Anencephalic babies have no cerebrum or cerebellum but they do have a brain stem. The brain stem allows them to breathe and allows their hearts to beat. Anencephalic babies are thus not technically brain dead. In 1992 the parents of an anencephalic baby named Baby Theresa wanted to donate her organs. But the courts�all the way to the Florida Supreme Court�would not declare her dead. She lived for ten days. Then why do the courts allow the family to make the decision when someone is clinically brain dead? It seems like there are two conflicting ideals going on here when there should only be one. A human with purely a brain stem is no different from a fish, maybe we should start charging fishermen for murder? Amen-Moses

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.