Geoffrey Clark

[Lucio]

Compulsory abortion is flat out wrong, there should never be any live/die check boxes for any human being, but all the same, the ethical issues raised regarding aborting potentially disabled children are an intellectual curiousity.

In general terms, I wouldn't harshly judge parents who, after having tests on their child, decided not to carry through with the pregnancy, but the risks are as science becomes more and more evolved, you head towards something akin to the scenario described in Gattica, where those with the genetic birthright are allowed to succeed, but those with "average" DNA, are placed in a position that we currently place those with disabilities.

It comes back to an age old arguement in child development, the concept of Nature vs Nurture, how much of someone's quality of life is determined by their DNA, and how much is determined by their upbringing. All the studies that I read into a decade ago, were indeterminate in seperating the two, apart from the narrowest of studies (e.g. linking causality between conditions and certain genetic markers)

[Kumagoro]

Before I had a child I thought that if I found out during my wife's pregnancy that the child would have down syndrome I would have decided quite easily that it would be best for my wife to have an abortion.

Since having a child I think I would have a lot greater difficulty deciding over doing it. Although I think I would still decide on having an abortion.

Speculating on what you would do and what you would actually do in that situation I think is very different.


I do think parents should always have the right to decide, however if they know that the child will definitely have a seriously debilitating disease then they shouldn't get state help as it was their choice. Not that I am saying such a system would be workable in reality.

[Splash]

The state 'forces decisions' all the time - robbery, fraud, rape, murder - all illegal with a penalty of jail time - the temporary (and rarely permanent) forfeiture of your right to freedom.

So again, same question, does the simple fact of being a parent provide justification for any decision, and if not, why not?

Not sure I'm following you here - you're suggesting that the state forces you to rob, commit fraud, rape and murder? What you seem to be describing is the *consequence* of decisions an individual may make. Situations that are relatively clearly defined as illegal. Abortion is not illegal, at least in this country.

[Galant]

Splash, I think I may have misunderstood. I had thought you meant the state should not be able to deny people abortions. I see now that you were re-emphasising that it should be the parents' choice.

Returning to that point then - the same questions, since they're central and haven't been answered:

Is being a parent sufficient to justify any decision? If not, why not?

[kalniel]

Is being a parent was sufficient to justify any decision? If not, why not?

See recent court ruling to allow cancer treatment for a child against their parent's wishes.

[TheAnimus]

Cruel to be kind?

It's not that at all, its basically just eugenics.

Sadly it has become such a dirty word, due to people forcing it, for example
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/12/i...-harming-women
And a really interesting story I can't find online (was in the economist a few years back) about radios been offered. Get yourself steralised, get a free radio. India is suffering from massive population growth, this creates not only environmental issues, but poverty too. Sadly they haven't addressed this in a very good manner.

What I'm trying to get at is often population control is needed. We in the UK do this via education, free sexual health services etc. We have only a small percentage of people who abuse the system by having lots of children at the expense of others.

Personally, given the human population I think its either a sign of ignorance or chronic arrogance to have more than 2 children. This is if you will because of my environmental opinions as to it being dangerous. I guess what I'm saying is the concept of eugenics isn't inherently bad, its just some peoples ideas of the execution of it.

So we get on to the case of someone like Mr Clark. There is something in what he says, lots of people choose to abort a feotus that is likely to develop downs syndrome, ultimately it's normally only those who get their morality from a book which is so incorrect and useless its main proponents think the sun revolves around the earth. As you can see I strongly disagree with forcing someone to produce a child which is going to be sick, when it can be stopped before it becomes a child.

But why should someone ever have their view forced on someone else? In the case of the UK it could be argued that the health service has to pick up the tab. Now I'm also of the view that fatties should be offered diet help and advice, which if they ignore they have to pay for their treatment, there is a lot of sense in this when you consider the cost of specialist beds, ambluances and scanning equipment. Why not extend that to a feutus?

The difference in those examples is obvious, one is a person who chooses badly, and creates their own problems, their own demise. The other is the potential to be a person which has made no such bad choices. That is why I would be loath to ever suggest anyone forces the view on to someone else. But I can understand the rational.

People hate thinking about these choices. But at the end of the day nothing is free, something comes at the expense of something else, the only way to get something 'free' is to make it more efficent (in the economics sense). NICE try and do this with health care, and in all honesty they don't do to much of a bad job. But everyone will always hate them for it, because they will deny someone life, because of the cost. But that cost is life that can be given to someone else who'll get more of it.

Nothing is simple, everyone is aware of stories where the health system can't afford to offer some care or other, whilst the guys idea is simply morally reprehensible, you can see why someone might go there?

[shaithis]

Cruel to be kind?
Do you think then that my disabled child which falls into one of those categories should've been gotten rid of?

Or my disabled brother?

I didn't say I agreed with him, I said he has a point. There is a difference.

I expect it from some here, but that sickens me.

Maybe Bluebell was right to walk away from this site if it breeds ******s like you.

Or blinkered, short-fused people like yourself?



Now, emotions aside...tell me why the public should pay millions for one disabled person to be kept in care? Because that does happen over the lifetime of some people.
Of course, when your as close to it as yourself, there's a good chance your way too blinkered (or ashamed) to be able to see it in the light it deserves. Taking extreme examples where patients are needing 24 hour around-the-clock specialist care for their entire life......with no way to give anything back to society.....why should we be paying millions to essentially just keep that one person alive? All that money for someone to essentially be kept in a room, with virtually zero quality of life. In some cases with them not even comprehending what is going on around them. Of course one option is to say "Give them a choice with the prevision that they don't get anything via NHS".....but circumstances change and that would never work.


As others have said, the world is already over-populated. The world is in financial crisis. The worlds climate is changing for a reason. I think you need to realise that tough decisions will have to be made sooner or later regardless of how unsavoury you (or I) personally find them.

[sammyc]

Now, emotions aside...tell me why the public should pay millions for one disabled person to be kept in care? Because that does happen over the lifetime of some people.

That could apply as much to someone who becomes disabled very early on in their life through accident, illness. What about a condition that could not be detected before birth for another example. Or a premature delivery with resulting health problems. The cost will be the same, do we argue to euthanase in that case? taking into account you are currently prevented from even assisting the suicide of a terminally ill person who has expressed the wish to die.

I would suggest in this instance that although Blitzen may not be in the best position to be objective, equally he will have a perspective lacking to anyone not in his position, and as such his opinion is arguably more informed than others. In the same way that someone ruling that you cannot assist a suicide is judging from way outside the situation and all it entails for those involved.

One of the current biggest drains on resources is, and will increasingly, be, from the elderly population; do we nip round all the high-dependency nursing homes now & do a mass sweep?

As others have said, where do you draw the life/death line without getting onto a seriously slippery slope. Voluntary abortion is one issue & not without its ethical grey areas, but compulsory? Nope. Any more than I'd agree with compulsory organ donation, operations, treatment, Pathways to Death or whatever its called, or any medical choice - the keyword being choice, and must remain so imo.

[Galant]

Eugenics is in fact inherently bad. The reason being that it has to do with the 'improvement' of the human being - rather than the well-being of humans. As such the underlying concept is that the worth of a human being is found in what the ability or even 'purity' of individuals rather than the individuals themselves. Whatever approach is taken it will always result in a criteria that says person 'x' is more valuable than person 'y'. Eventually, person 'y' becomes disposable. Such thinking is utterly distant from the notion that all human beings have equal worth no matter what physical or mental disabilities they may or may not be born with. This is an important distinction because it is the foundation upon which a massive portion of our democratic society is built and from it also stems the concept of human rights. When taken away you begin to lose much of those things and end up with situations like the caste system in India or other examples, where some humans are worth less and can be treated worse and are given fewer and poorer rights. (I'm speaking now not about Eugenics but rather the understanding about the worth of a human individual - something which eugenics affects and changes).

Due to this it is important that we understand and are very clear and careful about our understanding of the human being and human worth. Eugenics seeks to create the 'perfect' individual (and/or society through individuals), health-care seeks to help each individual (and society) live and enjoy their valuable life as much possible.

If we are not careful about that then we begin upon a road which has lead to much of the worst atrocities in human history by the fact of the very nature of that road. It is inevitable and eugenics is thus inherently flawed and wrong. It denies intrinsic human worth.

Shaithis - you asked why people should pay for one disabled person to be kept in care. The answer is because human life is valuable and in society it is worth recognising and encouraging recognition of the value. That very concept helps society to flourish. There is nothing on earth more valuable than human life.

However, if someone disagrees then perhaps the next question that should be asked is why should society pay to keep anyone in care?

This leads to one last point - your very question is a false dilemma. That is, there are more than two options. If society doesn't want to pay then it doesn't have to. If society doesn't want to pay, neither do they have to end that life. There are other options.

Personally I'd ask, why should society by TV's, yachts, exotic cars, and over priced food while others starve? We don't seem to be asking that though. We could ask, why not, as a society, spend less money on those things, and put our time and efforts and resources in living for one another and helping one another and relieve suffering?