It's nothing more than that. Saving the life of a new born human
Only cruel and irrational persons would kill a lucky child.
Last edited:
News Boy is world"s first to survive being born with heart outside his body
- Thread starter Luke Skywalker
- Start date
It's nothing more than that. Saving the life of a new born human
Only cruel and irrational persons would kill a lucky child.
Codz
NEA Scout Wrencher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,594
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Preferred Pronouns
- He/Him
I'd say that saving lives is far more important than rationality in any situation.
NovaSilisko
The Siliskoiest of Siliskos
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 577
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
If it was something that would result in the child being incapable to live a normal life - severe mental debilitation, born extermely deformed, etc. then I'd question whether it would be worth saving them - would life be more painful than death?
In this case, though, they've given a young boy a chance at a healthy life. And there should be no objection to that.
In this case, though, they've given a young boy a chance at a healthy life. And there should be no objection to that.
Suzy
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 390
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
- Location
- Melbourne
- Website
- suzymchale.com
It's nothing more than that. Saving the life of a new born human
Only cruel and irrational persons would kill a lucky child.
It's pragmatism, not cruelty - it could be argued that it's more cruel to put him through all that surgery.
---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:51 PM ----------
Seeing as he could possibly require a heart transplant in the future, he could hardly be called "healthy" !
To watch humans die although surgery can help is not pragmatism. It's nihilism, misanthropic and irrational.
The boy seems well and lucky. So the direction this thread is heading to is pointless. Especially because it is so easy to assume what doctors have to do to others as long as it does not concern me or my family.
Last edited:
Eccentrus
Geekernaut
we now have the capability and enough science to do that, the wrong way would be to deny the boy any chance just because nature didn't give him. What would be over the top is trying to save for example an acranial foetus, those would be just blobs of muscles and tissues with no purpose, but a baby, even with this kind of a defect, would be perfectly healthy at birth because of the adequacy from the mother's side, if we can intervene it accurately and effectively there, then there's a very good chance that the child would grow up normally, even though they will need a higher cost of maintenance, in the end it will be worth it if we can tackle just one more severe condition considered unsolveable in the past, this is called progress
btw Suzy, with your line of reasoning, considering that a lot of autistic children are born with severe defects as well, i.e. rectal problems which needs surgery, wouldn't we deny those children the chances as well? Even though I am, for every reason there is, in support to reduce the chances of mentally incapable children to be born, the only way that I'm ok with is only to choose carefully the embryos to be developed. To deny the chances to survive for those who are already developed is first, against the law in every nation and the UN declaration of Human Rights, and secondly would be very immoral and against the ethics and the expectation from society to doctors, and everytime we doctors do the oath there's the line of "trying to preserve life as long as it is feasible"
btw Suzy, with your line of reasoning, considering that a lot of autistic children are born with severe defects as well, i.e. rectal problems which needs surgery, wouldn't we deny those children the chances as well? Even though I am, for every reason there is, in support to reduce the chances of mentally incapable children to be born, the only way that I'm ok with is only to choose carefully the embryos to be developed. To deny the chances to survive for those who are already developed is first, against the law in every nation and the UN declaration of Human Rights, and secondly would be very immoral and against the ethics and the expectation from society to doctors, and everytime we doctors do the oath there's the line of "trying to preserve life as long as it is feasible"
Similar threads
