23 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by CrazyLilTingBTW, Bbarr, you havent answered my question:
Please, forgive my ignorance, but why do you claim that we have to be "concious" to feel pain? Apples and oranges.
This may not be in the books you have read, Bbarr. but there are dedicated neurons that drives the feedback of " ...[text shortened]... s you know and I don't know.
With the due respect
Julia
"So, is it morally correct to suspend her life? Will you do it without knowing for certain that you are not causing her a deep pain? "
I'm playing by your rules. Please answer! I'll be pleased to know the answer from a knowdgeable person that has read so many books.
I have not that time, may be 'cos it's not my profession. Or may be 'cos I'm dedicating my time to live. and not to hide my mind and my poor understanding of the world behind a pile of books.
Please, enlight us with your clear concepts, that I had always appreciated,
This may sound to you as a sarcastic post. It's not my intention. I would love to hear autoritatives opinions on the Terri's case.
I have read what I think are honest and well founded opinions from no1.
Now, about the moral aspect of this case, I want to hear yours.
Thanks in advance,
Julia
P.S. please dont say me that I must review the entire thread. As far as I remember, in *this* thread, you haven't posted nothing regarding the moral aspect of this case.
Edit: my bad spelling, sorry!
23 Mar 05
Originally posted by NyxieThat's silly - you could say the same about food, water and pennicillin for just about every human being with the same logic.
This seems to be a circular argument, without the feeding tube, she would cease to breath. She is in my oppinion, only being kept alive by medical technology.
23 Mar 05
Originally posted by CrazyLilTingThe capacity for consciousness just is the capacity to have experiences. That is just what the term 'consciousness' means, the having of experiences. When an entity lacks consciousness, there are no experiences: no pain, no pleasure, nothing. Perhaps you are confusing consciousness with self-consciousness. The latter is the state of having some sense of one's self as a persistent entity, the former is just the state of having experiences "from the inside", as it were. Other terms that are often used as synonyms for 'consciousness' include 'sentience' and 'awareness'. Perhaps you are confusing the term 'conscious' with 'conscience', I'm not sure.
Please, forgive my ignorance, but why do you claim that we have to be "concious" to feel pain? Apples and oranges.
This may not be in the books you have read, Bbarr. but there are dedicated neurons that drives the feedback of "pain" impulses that causes the body to react.... elementary Watson.
As far as I know, Terri has reflects (reflexes?) ...[text shortened]... hopefully to learn some things you know and I don't know.
With the due respect
Julia
I can explain to you how many reflexes are not even correlated with the experience of physical pain, much less sufficient for the experience of physical pain. Please look up 'reflex arcs'. Reflex arcs are responses that are elicited by neuronal activity that never even approaches the brain. One could be brain-dead and still exhibit reflexive movements. Thus, one could be completely unconscious, without even the capacity for consciousness, and still evidence reflexive movements.
23 Mar 05
2 edits
Originally posted by CrazyLilTingAs I have claimed throughout this debate, if there is reasonable doubt as to Schiavo's condition, then we ought err on the side of caution. I see absolutely no reason why absolute certainty is the epistemic standard in these cases, and you have not provided any reasons for thinking otherwise. I am not absolutely certain that if shut down my computer the house will not explode. This doesn't give me a moments pause, and for good reason. The odds are so infinitesimal that shutting down my computer will blow up my house that it is irrational for me to make my decisions based on mere possibility (even though the lives of my cohabitants are at stake). So, in the absence of an argument to the contrary, I reject any assumption on your part that certainty is necessary in the Schiavo case. After all, it could possibly be the case that Terri Schiavo's mind is fully operational and instantiated in her big toe. Perhaps, despite massive evidence to the contrary, the medical experts have been incorrect in thinking that minds require functioning brains. Perhaps, due to some fluke oversight, minds merely require intact big toes. So what? What relevance does this mere possibility have to the case? Answer: no relevance whatever.
BTW, Bbarr, you havent answered my question:
"So, is it morally correct to suspend her life? Will you do it without knowing for certain that you are not causing her a deep pain? "
I'm playing by your rules. Please answer! I'l ...[text shortened]... moral aspect of this case.
Edit: my bad spelling, sorry!
No cerebrum, no consciousness. No consciousness, no experiences (this is just what the term 'consciousness' means). No experiences, no experiences of pain.
Now, if you have any actual evidence against any of these claims, then please present it.
Note: I appreciate that you refuse "to hide [your] poor understanding of the world behind a pile of books", it is much better to display it for all to see!
Meta-Note: The note above, like your previous post, was not intended to be sarcastic. I really appreciate that you are struggling so to understand, and yet do not give up!
Oh no!: Uh, sorry. I just realized that the meta-note above could also be construed as both sarcastic and relatively snarky. No offense intended.
Bennett
23 Mar 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf that food were being insterted through a tube that was surgically implanted, yes I could.
That's silly - you could say the same about food, water and pennicillin for just about every human being with the same logic.
And yes pennicillin saves lives, but some people refuse it, and they have that right.
Nyxie
23 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NyxieAlright, so almost every human being on the planet who's had a BCG shot, a polio shot, a smallpox shot or a course in antibiotics is probably alive due to medical intervention. What's your point?
If that food were being insterted through a tube that was surgically implanted, yes I could.
And yes pennicillin saves lives, but some people refuse it, and they have that right.
Nyxie
23 Mar 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat they have a right NOT to accept medical intervention if they choose not to.
Alright, so almost every human being on the planet who's had a BCG shot, a polio shot, a smallpox shot or a course in antibiotics is probably alive due to medical intervention. What's your point?
23 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderPerhaps in theory. Not necessarily so in fact. For instance, most people are innoculated as infants. Since they have no way of exercising the right you mention after the fact, it is as good as them not possessing the right in the first place.
That they have a right NOT to accept medical intervention if they choose not to.
23 Mar 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat is a red herring; since the law presumes that infants are not capable of making informed decisions regarding their own well-being, such decisions are left to others to make for them. Do you dispute the general principle that persons have a right to refuse medical treatment?
Perhaps in theory. Not necessarily so in fact. For instance, most people are innoculated as infants. Since they have no way of exercising the right you mention after the fact, it is as good as them not possessing the right in the first place.