ARTICLE: I'm Not Dead Yet

[STR Ambassador]

Given Terry Schiavo's condition in Florida this week, I thought this commentary from 1993 would be appropriate because it touches on some of the same issues involved.

Saturday, April 12, 1992

I'm Not Dead Yet

I had a fascinating discussion with some Christian friends and some non-Christian acquaintances last evening at a dinner party. It reminded me of something that Chuck Colson said last year when he addressed the Harvard Business School on the issue of ethics. He said, "Every person has an infinite capacity for self-rationalization."

I think about that often. Although this immediate application has to do with how non-Christians often rationalize their unbelief, I think about it in another way. Am I just seeking some answer, any answer, for what I happen to believe now, grasping about for any solution to a problem Christianity presents, no matter how thin that solution may be? Some proposed solutions to questions people raise are just not adequate, yet we believe them because it assuages out doubt. "There's something I can hold onto," even though it may not be a real good solution to the problem we're facing. They're enough to calm our fears, our doubts, for the moment, but other people see right through them.

This is a good reason we should always be vigilant as we seek to justify our faith. We need to always come back to two things when we confront these issues: are our facts accurate and is our reasoning sound. That's the long and short of it when seeking correspondence truth, truth that corresponds to reality. If there's a problem with our thinking, either our facts are wrong our reasoning wrong. But if our reasoning is sound and our facts are right, then there's no escaping the truthfulness of our conclusions. It's the way reason and logic works. We all live in a world where our survival depends upon that. So that's why we should be vigilant and ask ourselves, "Is this a good explanation or am I just grasping for a rationalization that will help me cling to my belief?"

In any event, we had a discussion last night that reminded me of Colson's remark. It was a discussion about how we make ethical decisions.

I had made a comment, which I have made here, that people do ethics by determining what they want and then reasoning backwards and rationalizing their conclusion based on what they really want. I call it happiness as ethics. "This is what I want in my circumstance. This will cause me the least discomfort, this will make me happy. How can I justify this?"

Of course, I think that's reasoning backwards about
ethics. We talked about not making ad hoc decisions about ethics. In other words, not facing an ethical decision and as they come up, thinking what sounds best and spouting off about it. But first examining in our lives what it is we believe, what is truth, what is right and wrong, and then reasoning from a foundation of truth to an applicational situation that we might face. And one came up yesterday.

In Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, three weeks ago a little girl was born with anencephaly. Most of her brain was missing and she only had a brain stem, but she was still alive. She had reflex functions but no cognitive functions. 95% of such babies are dead within a week, and virtually all die within two weeks.

The reason this case was so controversial is that anencephalitic children make great organ donors, but their organs must be removed while they're still alive, and that means the children must be killed to harvest the organs that will save the lives of other children. Technically this is called non-voluntary active euthanasia, in other words, a case where the life is purposefully taken from an individual who cannot decide for themselves. In this case, of course, the end in view was clear--saving the lives of other children with the organs of a child who was going to die shortly anyway.

When the parents sought the permission of the courts to allow this action, the courts ruled against them and the reasoning was that the child wasn't dead yet and therefore it would be against the law to take organs that would kill the child.

I listened to some radio discussions about this issue on a secular station, and characteristically people were not just in disagreement but enraged at the judge's decision. I heard remarks like:

"We're not killing a human being. This little baby is not a human being."

"This may be a human body, but it's not a human person because it doesn't have that which distinguishes it from animals."

"Did this judge think the baby would grow a brain? She'll never develop into a person."

"This judge is killing other babies that will die without the organs."

"This is not a decision for courts but a decision for parents."

Now, listening to those comments I'm struck by two things. First of all, they sound pretty sensible. There's a basic appeal to those sentiments. But also there are some things that are a tad curious. I quote, "This little baby is not a human being."

Of course, before one can say this is not a human being, he must have a pretty clear idea of what a human being is before he can say that any particular child is not one. And it strikes me that there's something patently unusual about saying that it's possible that any particular child could not be a human being. A baby isn't a human being? A child isn't a human being? How can a baby or a child not be a human being? But what is it that distinguishes us from animals if it is not our innate humanness?

So this whole issue hinges on what a human being is and what, if anything, makes a human being valuable. Why are human beings valuable? What is a human being? You have to answer those questions before you can say that this child isn't a human being without value.

The pragmatic, utilitarian answer to this dilemma is clear: take the organs because of the good that will come out of it. OK, maybe we have to kill the little girl early, but she would die soon anyway and there's an advantage to others to taking her now and gathering the organs.

I don't mean to be irreverent here, but this reminds me of a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It was a Medieval scene and a man was dragging a cart through town in the early morning chanting "Bring out your dead. Bring out your dead." People were bringing out the corpses of those who had kicked the bucket during the night and throwing them on this old haywain. And some young guy comes over and he's got an old man over his shoulder. He's about to throw this old man into the pile with all the other corpses and the old man says something. He says, "I'm not dead yet." The young man speaks to the man gathering the corpses and says, "He'll be dead soon, anyway." The old man says, "I'm getting better." So the young man picks up a log, bangs him on the head, kills him and throws him on the pile.

The way this story relates to the issue is that this unfortunate little girl was not dead yet. Because she would be dead shortly was no justification for hurrying the process along simply because there was a convenience to her earlier demise.

And this is where we start reasoning backwards. We first think about what it is that we think is right or what it is that we want and then seek to develop some ad hoc justification for it. If we reason that way, instead of first starting with the fundamental question "What is a human being and why are they valuable?" then we're in for all sorts of trouble.

I was asked point blank last evening if I thought it was okay to harvest the organs in this case. I said no, and then explained why. And for those of you who are utilitarian on this issue, this isn't going to sit well with you, but please hear me out. I start from a certain premise. My premise is that I believe human beings have infinite worth and are not to be treated merely as a means to an end, even if the end itself is a good one.

If we were to take the case of this little girl, we would have to say that her life is not as valuable as the end to which we will use her organs. It is not a trade off one life for five lives, if her organs would save five other children. We must view her life as infinitely valuable in and of itself and not a means to an end. And it may be true that killing one person would save the lives of five, but we won't look at human beings that way.

During the Vietnam War, if a man was wounded, they would send in helicopter after helicopter after helicopter to try to rescue that one life because it was so valuable. The loss of other life was risked to save the one.

It's the same with this little girl. We don't have the right to say her life is forfeit to save the life of someone else.

The fact is, we're all going to die eventually. If we transfer this reasoning, there is a slippery slope that is deadly in all of this. We can see this slippery slope happening. Whenever you argue quality of life, it ultimately has a poison pill buried in it. The only way you can argue quality of life is to say the life as a life, the human being as a human being, is not valuable in itself. And it has value in as much as it leads to a certain quality of life. Once you argue that way, you've destroyed something. Something that is the foundation of our Constitution and all our fundamental rights, that all men are created equal.

The only way I can illustrate this clearly is by asking a question I asked last night and I've also asked rhetorically here on this program: Are all humans created equal? Of course, it's in our Constitution. How are all men created equal? Men are not equal except in one way--they are all men. This statement "all men are created equal" is tantamount to saying all men have inherent dignity apart from any other quality they can experience or value they bring to society. Upon that truth our system of justice and human respect and dignity stand. If we remove that, there is no reason to treat people with respect, there is no reason to protect human rights, there is no reason not to treat human beings as animals. There is no reason not to treat human beings as simply a means to another end.

That's the circumstance that prevails whenever a quality of life argument is used. That's the poison pill.

Pardon me for using this illustration because it's oft
over used, but that's precisely what happened in Nazi Germany. There was an idea that there was such a thing as a life unworthy to be lived. If that's the case, then human beings are expendable.

If you ever watched the TV mini-series "The Holocaust" with James Woods as an artist. In that movie they depicted the destruction of people not just in concentration camps, but prior to that. Before they started to destroy Jews and Gypsies and political dissidents, they first started destroying retarded children, people with brain defects. And they put them into vans and piped in carbon monoxide and killed them all. They looked on it as good because these people were difficult, they were expensive, they were awkward. They didn't have the quality of life required of the Third Reich. They were expendable. And from that came the Holocaust.

I submit to you that we're thinking the same way. Every time you raise a quality of life argument or discussion you have this poison pill of the fundamental loss of human dignity and the loss of the foundation for all human rights.


Stand to Reason - training Christians in the area of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/euthanasia/imnotdea.htm

[Queen]

As someone who has done reseach on spina bifida (and anencephaly), socalled neural tube defects, I wanted to share some information.


Anencephaly Information

What is Anencephaly?
Anencephaly is a neural tube defect (a disorder involving incomplete development of the brain, spinal cord, and/or their protective coverings). The neural tube is a narrow sheath that folds and closes between the 3rd and 4th weeks of pregnancy to form the brain and spinal cord of the embryo. Anencephaly occurs when the "cephalic" or head end of the neural tube fails to close, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. Infants with this disorder are born without both a forebrain (the front part of the brain) and a cerebrum (the thinking and coordinating area of the brain). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed--not covered by bone or skin. The infant is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness. Reflex actions such as respiration (breathing) and responses to sound or touch may occur. The cause of anencephaly is unknown. Although it is believed that the mother's diet and vitamin intake may play a role, scientists believe that many other factors are also involved.

Is there any treatment?
There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly. Treatment is supportive.

What is the prognosis?
The prognosis for individuals with anencephaly is extremely poor. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth. [Editor's Note: The unborn child may have been diagnosised as having anencephaly, but be born with a less severe form of the disease, allowing the infant to live for years or more]

What research is being done?
The The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke conducts and supports a wide range of studies that explore the complex mechanisms of normal brain development. The knowledge gained from these fundamental studies provides the foundation for understanding how this process can go awry and, thus, offers hope for new means to treat and prevent congenital brain disorders including neural tube defects such as anencephaly.

Selected references
Berkow, R (ed). The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy: Specialties. vol. II, 16th edition, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, p. 307 (1992).

Bradley, W, et al (eds). Neurology in Clinical Practice: The Neurological Disorders. vol. II, 2nd edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, p. 1473 (1996).

Lemire, R, and Siebert, J. Anencephaly: Its Spectrum and Relationship to Neural Tube Defects. Journal of Craniofacial Genetics and Developmental Biology, 10;163-174 (1990).

Medical Task Force on Anencephaly. The Infant with Anencephaly. New England Journal of Medicine, 322:10; 669-674 (March 8, 1990).

Oakley, G, et al. More Folic Acid for Everyone, Now. Journal of Nutrition, 126:3; 751S-755S (March 1996).

Thomas, J, et al. Anencephaly and Other Neural Tube Defects. Frontiers of Neuroendocrinology, 15:2; 197-201 (June 1994).

Yen, I, et al. The Changing Epidemiology of Neural Tube Defects. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 146:7; 857-861 (July 1992)

Organizations
Anencephaly Support Foundation
20311 Sienna Pines Court
Spring, TX 77379
asf@asfhelp.com
http://www.asfhelp.com/
Tel: 888-206-7526

Association of Birth Defects Children
930 Woodcock Road
Suite 225
Orlando, FL 32803
http://www.birthdefects.org/
Tel: 407-895-0802
800-313-ABDC (2232)
Fax: 407-895-0824

March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
1275 Mamaroneck Avenue
White Plains, NY 10605
resourcecenter@modimes.org
http://www.modimes.org/
Tel: 914-428-7100
888-MODIMES (663-4637)
Fax: 914-428-8203

National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD)
P.O. Box 8923 (100 Route 37)
New Fairfield, CT 06812-8923
orphan@rarediseases.org
http://www.rarediseases.org/
Tel: 203-746-6518
800-999-NORD (6673)
Fax: 203-746-6481

This fact sheet is in the public domain. You may copy it.

Provided by:
The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, MD 20892

I will react to this article later (time is too short at this moment)

Lots of love, sunshine and may your children be healthy,
Queen

[Queen]

I have done some research about neaurul tube defects and the way they can be detected during the first weeks of the pregnancy.

In the 5th week you can already diagnose if the child has anencephaly. The brain and part of the skull is missing (the part above the ears). The brain stem is visible or protected by a thin layer of skin. The babies are alive because if that brainstem.

Personally I think those children deserve to be treated like normal babies. So we can not just say that the child has no human rights because it has no brain. That is unfair, insulying to the parents and it makes an bject out of a living being. They have no awareness, but they still are living and breathing human beings. Nature has made a big mistake and ''forgot to make a brain". IMHO that doesn't make the child less than a human being....I believe that we should treat these infants as human beings...a child without two legs is also a child. It is not the child's fault that he or she has no brain.

I do believe that their organs can safe lives and through the lives of the children they live on as well. But I think we have to show more respect and let the parents make the choice. It is their child, not matter what the disorder is. Good education, honest attention and the right to mourn their child would be in place....as well as respect for the child as a human being by the medical staff.

So, I have a double feeling about this. The child will not have lived in vain if he or she becomes a organ donor.........and it could bring comfort to the parents, as long as their decision is respected, we are talking about a human being here, how severe handicapped it may be.

On this site you can see beautiful pictures of babies with anencephaly and read some hearbreaking, yet beautiful stories of parents.

http://www.anencephalie-info.org/

Be well and take care, every human being deserves respect,
Queen

[dizzle]

With each thing I am reading on the Terri case, I am sickened.

[Queen]

Dee Dee, I can understand your feelings so well...we might have different points of view, but that does not mean I have no emotions about these matters. They feel somewhat personal to me, because I have been so close to these ethical matters.....I am sorry you feel so terrible

Sending you hugs.....

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[chickenman]

You might be depriving an anencephalic baby of life by using its organs to save other babies lives - but you aren't depriving it of sentience - because it doesn't have thoughts, feelings or any of those things which we traditionally consider "elevates" us above other animals.
Arguably then, if we don't allow such a thing, we shouldn't allow the use of pig heart-valves in life saving valve replacement surgery



I think it should be the parents choice

[dizzle]

If a human life has value simply because it is human, it matters not what level of consciousness or sentience is there. There are some who would say that a severely retarded child is nto truly human for it is not smarter than a dog. Oh wait, Ingrid Newkirk already made that argument didn't she? If she had to choose between saying a severely retarded boy or a really smart dog, she would choose the dog.

[Queen]

Chickenman...I agree. It is the parents choice. It is their child, they love it, no matter what the condition. They find it beautiful and if they decide to help safe other children with the organs of their child, it should be respected. I have friends waiting for heart transplantations and it is hard, really hard. They wait and wait and for most of them a new heart comes too late and their precious lives end. Why should a baby die, when it can have a new heart? We think about these babies, but what about those who are suffering and can lead a full life with new organs? Those have the right to live as well!

It is the most painful and horrible choice for a parent to make. Let us respect those who choose for their child to be an organ donor. For them it is a way their child lives on and many think of them as little angels....

Lots of love and sunshine and my thoughts go out to the souls of these babies,
Queen

[dizzle]

That didn't address though the issue raised by my post.

[Solly]

Thanks for that info Queen; I think that must have been what happened to the children of some acquaintences of mine; it happened twice, one after the other. The children did not live long, a day for the first, and a few hours for the second, if I remember. Heart rending for the parents.

[Queen]

Dee Dee....I think it is cruel to say that out loud. I believe that the parents with such a child will feel pain and feel insulted, that a dog is more worth than a retarded child. That woman is nuts....

To me, all life is valueble enough to love and cherish....even if we may not see a conscious child in these children, their life is a precious as a healthy child's life. And because it is precious I believe that these children will be able to live on when their organs are used to safe other little children who deserve to live as well....If the parents want that for their child, we can only respect that hard decision...instead of condenming this.....

Just my humble opinion.....

I hope this answers your question....or better I agree with your opinion on this matter...

Solly,
You're welcome.

LOLAS,
Queen

[chickenman]

If a human life has value simply because it is human, it matters not what level of consciousness or sentience is there. There are some who would say that a severely retarded child is nto truly human for it is not smarter than a dog. Oh wait, Ingrid Newkirk already made that argument didn't she? If she had to choose between saying a severely retarded boy or a really smart dog, she would choose the dog.

a dog and a retarded human are both sentient and both capable of feeling emotion - I wouldn't sanction the use of their organs to keep another of their species alive, because thats depriving them of the ability to experience the world. Its nothing to do with level of intelligence - you cannot measure the iq of an organism that cannot experience the world or respond to it


anencephaly is obviously a tradgedy that we try to avoid, but when it happens, I think the obvious positive that can be drawn from it is that it affords other children who were lucky enough to be born with brains but unlucky enough to have other organ failures the chance to keep on living

[dizzle]

This didn't address the heart of my question as neither did chickenman. A human being is valuable not because of what it can do , but simply for what it is. One human life is not more valuable than other. Once we start making these distinctions we have lost our moral footing.


10-24-2003 @ 09:14 AM

post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=254673#post254673)
Queen:

Dee Dee....I think it is cruel to say that out loud. I believe that the parents with such a child will feel pain and feel insulted, that a dog is more worth than a retarded child. That woman is nuts....

You may think so, but with all due respect Queen you often speak from raw emotion. I am dealing with logic. If we are going to evulate the value of life on a scale of ability to do certain things or have certain parts, her comment makes perfect sense.... of course I condemn it, but I have a substantive basis to other than emotion. You must appeal to emotion, and that is not a way to base moral decisions.




To me, all life is valueble enough to love and cherish....even if we may not see a conscious child in these children, their life is a precious as a healthy child's life. And because it is precious I believe that these children will be able to live on when their organs are used to safe other little children who deserve to live as well

You have contradicted yourself. This is kind of like Animal Farm:

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

You have just decided that certain lives are more valuable than that one child because of something it cannot do. What if we knew that there was born a genius, who owuld cure all kinds of ills of society, but in order for this genuis to live, it needed this rare blood from a complete imbelicic child. By your logic, the genuis lives, the imbecile "lives on" in the genuis. This "fluffy" lives on the memories of others I think is too cruel for words to be honest. It is shallow sweet nothings IMHO.




....If the parents want that for their child, we can only respect that hard decision...instead of condenming this.....

What if parents want to do this to a Down's child in order to save ten non-handicapped children?

I don't define humanity on what a being does, but on what a being is. That is the only definition that will ultimately protect all of us. God help us all once that utterly falls.

[Queen]

Dee Dee,

Yep, I use my emotions....that is who I am. :wink: :tongue:

As someone who worked in a prenatal diagnostics labe and who knows a few things about congetial disorders, who has sat through the evalution of the patients, know what the parents are going through. There are a few things a parent can decide:

1] Having a prenatal diagnostic examination...which can result in knowledge of certain abbreviations the embryo has:
They have to decide for abortion or no abortion, or even let it be born and decide if they let it be treated or not

2] letting nature take it's cause, hope or pray for the best.
They let it be born and decide if they let nature take it's course, let it not be treated, let it be an organ donor or try everything to safe the child, no matter what the condition of the child is

Down syndrom is a genetic disorder with many different results. Sometimes the child has only the look of a Down child and is retarded but able to take care of her or him self.
Sometimes the child has so many defects that it is torture for the child to undergo the treatments and the parents can decide that they let their child go through all that, or take it home to spend as much time as possible with their child to have good memories, or even let the child be an organ donor if possible.

I believe that every life has the same value, but I also believe that parents have the last word in this. Not the doctors, not I, not even a God. It is their child and nothing is as devistating for a pregnant couple to hear that there is something wrong with their child. They become almost property of the health care and go through hell. We forget the parents here. They have to make these hard decisions for THEIR child, the child they love since the moment they found out she is pregnant.....Their child, their sorrow and their joy.

I have learned during that time that I have nothing to say about this. Nobody has the right to judge them for any decision. Those parents go through hell.........It is horror, nothing is logical anymore. Their dream of a baby boy or baby girl is shattered like a mirror.

I have talked to people about this. I know someone who has decide not to do these tests and leave it in God's hands if their child is healthy, and whatever is wrong with this child, they will love it......maybe even more. My answer was: You are absolutely right. He thought that I would find this ridiculous as an atheist....No, I do not find religion a ridiculous reason to make choices.....I just find it horrible that parents are judged because they decide to give up their child and become an organ donor. Every parent has their own thoughts and their own idea's and their own emotions and every parent makes a decision where they have to live with the rest of their lives....

That is what I feel about this.....Who are we to judge. I have decide to stay childless because I have a heart disorder, and it is also something that runs in my husbands family. Why? Because I don't want to go through hell........You have no idea what my parents went through when I was born and no idea what my husbands parents went through. Their son died at t he age of nine....I survived. In those these only 20%-30% of the children with heart disorders survived. I had a 20-30% change of staying alive my first year. My parents went through hell, but I made it...

I have made a decision to stay childless, and I have a name for my unborn son and daughter.....two people that will never be, but are here anyway....Why, because I don't want them to suffer as I did.......

That is how I look at it. You make choices based on religion. These are your choices and I respect them so much.....you have no idea how much, but if you are a parent or ever will become one, I know you will decide on these matters for them the right way.....whatever the opinion of others is, that love for your children comes from your heart.....May your children be healthy....their whole long lives!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[dizzle]

Queen, you have yet to answer the ethical quandry I presented on its own terms. I mean no disrespect by this, and I didn't once bring up religion in my answer. I was speaking of logical boundaries and logical conclusions. I do not wish for our ethical foundations to be based upon sheer emotion, that is not going to safeguard either of us if we should ever become less than useful.

[Queen]

Hmm....

I had to think about this one. You are correct and I never had any intention of not reacting. You want my personal rational opinion?

If my child was born with anencephaly I would give it up for organ donor.

But a child that is retarded, is a child has brains and no intelligence like we would want it to have according to the general sanity of the people, that child's life is not worth less than the genius child.....both parents want their child to live...

ANENCEPHALIC INFANT DONOR PROTOCOL

The shortage of organ donors has always plagued organ transplantation. Publicity has helped to raise the public's awareness of the need, but the shortage continues. Particularly difficult to locate are donors for newborns and infants up to a year old. Babies do not become potential donors as often as adults do, because they are not as often in life-threatening circumstances (such as motorcycle accidents). Four potential sources of organs exist for newborns needing organ transplants: anencephalic infants (babies born with most of their brains missing, as Baby Gabriel), babies who die shortly after birth (from lack of oxygen to the brain or from trauma), babies who die within a few months of birth (for example, babies who die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), and animals (such as the baboon-heart transplant of Baby Fae). Approximately 110 babies under one year of age die every day in the United States. Many of them could become donors, if only their loved ones could see beyond their grief and donate. Parents who have donated their baby's organs have reported satisfaction and meaning from the experience.
The successful heart transplant of Baby Paul Holc from an anencephalic-infant donor sparked another round of national debates focused on Loma Linda. Baby Paul's donor, Baby Gabriel, was the first anencephalic infant ever to become a heart donor to a recipient who survived and went home and thrived.

Interestingly, the first baby in the world to undergo heart transplantation received the heart of an anencephalic infant. That recipient infant did not survive. A second major difference between the two cases is a law regarding brain death. The donor for Baby Paul met brain-death criteria according to the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which became law in 1980. This law defines brain death as the permanent loss of function of the whole brain, including the brain stem.

Some news-media reports said that Baby Gabriel was kept alive so that she could donate organs. Not so. Her organs were kept healthy by mechanical equipment putting oxygen into her blood. But the baby was dead.

Baby Paul's successful surgery raised the awareness of the public to the possibility of anencephalic infants becoming organ donors.

Anencephalic infants are born with most of the brain missing. The condition is a tragedy of human reproduction. In most cases, the babies are normal, except that the central nervous system and the skeletal head do not form correctly. The skull is missing above the eyes. Most of the brain has not developed, leaving only a small number of primitive cerebral cortex cells around the brain stem. More than 50 percent of them are born dead. Of those that are born alive, approximately 90 percent die within seven days. The remaining babies die within a few weeks. Only on very rare occasions do they live more than a month. The condition is uniformly fatal. Ironically, anencephalic infants usually have otherwise normal organs, organs that could save the lives of other babies.

Traditionally, anencephalic infants are given "comfort care"--they are kept warm and fed. They are allowed to die a natural death, undergoing no major medical interventions. On some occasions parents take these infants home to die. Usually, however, these infants die in some corner of an intensive-care unit. Death is characterized by repeated episodes of slowing of spontaneous breathing and of the heart rate, and associated lack of oxygen to the tissues. The dying process is so slow that the baby's otherwise normal organs are damaged by the lack of oxygen and, therefore, by the time of death, the organs cannot be transplanted.

Almost two years before Baby Paul's surgery on October 16, 1987, Loma Linda University Medical Center officials began studying the possibility of anencephalic infants becoming organ donors. They were motivated by two somewhat unrelated situations: an insufficiency of donors for babies accepted into Loma Linda's infant-heart-transplant program (about 50 percent died waiting for donors), but also by an increasing number of parents of anencephalic infants wanting to donate their baby's organs (literally hundreds of inquiries). These were loving parents who wanted to turn their personal tragedies into something good. They wanted to give "meaning" to their doomed babies' brief lives by having their normal and healthy organs live on. They called not only Loma Linda but other transplant centers as well. To be continued in next post:
Found here:http://www.llu.edu/info/legacy/Legacy5.html


I am not sure if this is the answer you want. All I know is what I would do......

[Queen]

Rest of the story.....

ANENCEPHALIC INFANT DONOR PROTOCOL

Loma Linda's special study group was established in 1985 to look at the possibility of protecting the normal and healthy organs of anencephalic infants during the dying process so that the babies could meet legal brain-death criteria and still be able to donate organs. Members of the study group included a child neurologist, a cardiovascular surgeon, an obstetrician, a pediatrician, and an ethicist. If successful, the procedure they would develop could make organs available for those babies who were dying from lack of donor organs. It would potentially help society to have one death instead of two.

During the first two years of Loma Linda's infant-heart-transplant program, many anencephalic infants were referred as potential donors. Loma Linda's heart-transplant coordinators thanked those calling, but declined the donation, because it was thought that, without intervention, anencephalic infants do not meet legal brain-death criteria prior to organ deterioration. Liveborn anencephalic infants usually have initial brain-stem activity, which means they are not legally dead. By the time death occurs, organs are significantly damaged, and these infants have not been considered as organ donors.

Hundreds of parents and their physicians called Loma Linda and were turned down. One of them was Mrs. Brenda Winner, of Arcadia, California. Her doctor called Loma Linda and was told that only the baby's corneas and heart valves could be used--after the baby had died.

Frustrated, Mrs. Winner contacted about a hundred other hospitals nationwide and was told the same thing. Out of desperation, she and her husband, Michael, went to the news media to publicize their plight. They were going to have an anencephalic infant, and they wanted to donate the baby's good organs to try to help other babies live. They could not understand why they could not donate their baby's organs.

By this time, Loma Linda University Medical Center's study group had grown and now included a neonatologist, two additional ethicists, and two legal consultants. A protocol to be used in providing modified care for anencephalic infants, "Considerations of Anencephalic Infants as Organ Donors--A Working Document," dated December 12, 1987, was within weeks of being finalized. Mr. and Mrs. Winner were invited to consider the protocol for their unborn infant.

Under the protocol, anencephalic infants would be given artificial breathing assistance for up to seven days. This would be done to add oxygen to the blood in order to keep the organs healthy while physicians performed serial tests to determine if the baby met brain-death criteria. If the brain stem died within the week, the baby might become a donor of healthy organs. The protocol was thought to be a potential facilitator for the provision of small organs for infants waiting, as well as for thoughtful parents of anencephalic infants wishing to donate organs. It was designed to help health-care providers, as well as the parents, as they, along with the Loma Linda physicians, struggled "to do what is right and good." Being a "working document," it also welcomed suggestions for improvement.

The protocol did not seek to change the law regarding brain-death criteria. Rather, it attempted to work within current legal guidelines. Furthermore, it stressed the importance of free and voluntary informed consent. One of the protocol's paragraphs relating to parental consent was strongly worded: "Only the anencephalic offspring of competent, informed, and voluntary parents who actively seek the modified management option will be accepted."

A similar statement reemphasized the parents' role in the program and gave further insight into the protocol's humanitarian intent: "The decision to follow this modified medical practice for an infant with anencephaly should be based solely on the parents' choice. A written consent should be obtained stating what is to be done that differs from customary practice, and how long such intervention will be continued. It should also provide the right for the family to request that intensive care be stopped at any time.

"Examinations for determination of brain death should be carried out twice daily by a qualified physician. Brain death must be confirmed by two physicians free from conflict of interest.... If brain death is confirmed, the infant may then be considered for organ donation....

"If brain-death criteria are not met within the preset time for intensive care (seven days from birth), mechanical ventilation should be stopped, the infant extubated, and customary, comfort- care practices should be followed, up to the time of death."

The possibility of using anencephalic infants as donors became extremely controversial. In fact, because of the impending birth of Mrs. Winner's baby, and the local media interest she had already attracted, the issue exploded into tremendous, totally unexpected, international media debate. It was on television in Southern California seventeen of the thirty-one days in December, 1987. It was covered by five national television programs in one week: "Good Morning America," "The Today Show," "CBS This Morning," "Nightline" and "The McNeil/ Lehrer News Hour." The last two broadcasts devoted fifteen minutes each to the subject. The Voice of America broadcast discussions of the issue around the world on short-wave radio on March 4 and 9, 1988.

Why the controversy? The protocol seemed to make sense to most people. A profound ethical debate developed, however, over the idea of giving breathing assistance to one infant for the benefit of another patient (the organ recipient). Usually, intensive care is initiated for the potential benefit of the individual receiving it. Continuation of intensive care past the point of anticipated benefit to the individual, however, is routinely given most organ donors, in order to benefit another. Continuation of intensive care for brain-dead pregnant mothers has allowed their unborn babies to mature and live. Also, continuation of intensive care is sometimes provided brain-dead infants in order to allow parents time to accept the futility of further treatment. These all are accepted practices of continuation of intensive care, not for anticipated benefit to the individual, but for the benefit of another.

However, Loma Linda's protocol, instead of continuing intensive care for the benefit of another, would initiate that intensive care. This fine but distinct difference became a major concern to some.

Others opposed the protocol because of their concern that it might be impossible to declare, with certainty, an anencephalic infant's brain to be dead. Still others worried that if anencephalic infants could become donors, the medical profession would go down a "slippery slope" and eventually accept as donors those patients who were in a persistent vegetative state. They warned it even would be possible that some professionals would go further down this slippery slope and accept as donors those patients who were in a coma, extremely senile or even the mentally retarded and physically deformed. They saw it as one step down a highway of no return. On the other hand, criticisms of the protocol were outright ridiculed, with sometimes colorful language.

To illustrate the intensity of response, in USA Today (February 25, 1988), Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Minnesota Center for Biomedical Ethics, in a guest column wrote, "Loma Linda's approach has many critics. Some argue that transplant teams must take organs from living children (that it is impossible to determine brain death in these unfortunate babies) in order to help others survive. This is irresponsible nonsense. It is true that the absence of a brain makes it impossible to use electrical measurements of brain activity to determine death. Critics say the absence of this test proves that killing is essential. Balderdash! The absence of a brain makes it impossible to measure brain activity. This does not mean other signs--absence of respiration, dilated pupils, absence of reflexes--will not suffice to announce death's presence.

"Others worry the use of infants with anencephaly will lead us down a slippery slope. Will not others whose brain is less than perfect then be viewed as nothing more than a potential source of organs? Again, fear and misunderstanding overwhelm logic. There is no slope that leads from anencephalics to any other human being. No other birth defect can be accurately diagnosed, is 100% fatal, permits no form of mental life, and admits of no cure or therapy." Caplan is recognized as one of America's foremost organ-transplant ethicists, and is often asked by the news media for comments.

Almost all of the media who covered the story tried to interview someone who was for the protocol and someone who was against it. Many newspapers, including USA Today (February 25, 1988), published editorials in favor of it. Some of those who were opposed to the protocol had not read it and had assumed, erroneously, that it was attempting to use anencephalic infants as donors before they met brain-death criteria. This assumption generated even more controversy.

The National Right to Life League erroneously reported that all of Loma Linda's baby-heart donors were anencephalic infants. (Only the donor for Baby Paul was an anencephalic baby). They reported that Loma Linda was actively seeking parents to donate organs despite specific guidelines stressing the need for parental initiative. Finally, the League accused Loma Linda of pretending to be able to determine brain death in infants.

Interestingly and fortunately, Loma Linda University Medical Center never had the opportunity to admit one of its own patients into the protocol. Eventually, 12 anencephalic infants were admitted into the special program, but they all were referred from community hospitals, one military hospital, and university medical centers from across the United States.

Until more of the facts became known, Loma Linda was again temporarily put on the defensive. It became a matter of public education. Hundreds of copies of the protocol were distributed nationwide.

A Texas physician, a diplomate of the American Board of Neurology, after reading the protocol for himself, wrote, "I want to apologize to you very definitely because in a nonmedical periodical it was implied that you induced the death of those unfortunate beings.... I am very glad and thankful that you corrected this bad misunderstanding, apparently brought about by a nonmedical person."

One of the people who was supposed to speak in opposition to the protocol, reversed himself on live national TV and came out in favor of it. The show ended with two physicians in favor of it.

Unfortunately, Michael and Brenda Winner's daughter, Baby Jarren, was stillborn on December 22, 1987. She was one of the more than 50 percent of all anencephalic infants who are born dead; her heart could not be used.

Anencephaly has puzzled mankind throughout human history. It occurs in the United States about once in every 1,000 births, or 2,000 to 3,000 times a year. It is the most common major central-nervous-system malformation in the Western world, occurring in female babies twice as often as in males. Nobody knows what causes anencephaly.

When Dr. Joyce Peabody first heard the idea of attempting to procure organs from anencephalic infants for transplantation, she thought it was cruel. How did she come to lead the nation's first program to do just that?

"My feelings were that it would be very cruel to go to a family with a child with anencephaly, right in the middle of their own grieving and their own sadness and ask them to be generous to another family," she says. Reversing her position on the subject resulted from her discussions with parents of anencephalic infants, such as Brenda Winner, the mother-to-be of an anencephalic infant, who said such an attempt would give comfort to the parents. They would feel that a part of their baby was living.

Brenda had talked to the baby within her. She repeated nursery rhymes and sang "Rock-a-bye Baby" in the shower. An ultrasound test at Santa Teresita Hospital, when Brenda was 5H months pregnant, revealed her baby's tragic, fatal flaw. A nun in the room started to cry. She kissed Brenda on the cheek and said, "My prayers are with you. God bless you."

But Brenda didn't comprehend what was happening. She remembers her doctor's exact words. "I can't begin to tell you how sorry I am, but your baby is incompatible with life."

The baby was missing most of her brain and, if born alive, could be expected to die within hours of birth. Abortion was discussed, but was out of the question for Brenda. But it didn't seem to make much sense to carry a doomed baby to full term and then bury it. It seemed so cold to allow the baby to suffocate and have its good heart beat itself to death. It seemed like that would be allowing the baby to suffer.

To avoid this, she and Michael eventually decided to carry the pregnancy to full term and to donate their baby's organs to other babies who needed a transplant to live. What they did not know was that what they wanted to do--donate the baby's organs at birth--was illegal. Such a baby would not meet brain-death criteria.

As a guest columnist in USA Today (February 25, 1988), Brenda recalled her memorable experience. In part, she said, "I loved the name, and even though Mike and I had already decided on names for our first child, I asked him what he thought about Jarren. A year later, we think about Jarren all the time....

"Through ultrasound pictures, I saw her hands open, then close, displaying 10 perfect fingers. Her pumping heart sounded so strong and fast. The offer to abort churned my stomach....

"Medical societies from coast to coast and England were sympathetic. Doctor after doctor apologized. But their advice was the same: Put this tragedy behind us and have another baby. Also: The organs of these babies are healthy and needed, yet cannot be used...."

Regarding the Winner's desire to give meaning to Baby Jarren's brief life, Brenda said, "I felt strong and determined; something so right could not be wrong. A nurse (at Loma Linda) who took care of me in the hospital summed it up, saying: 'I am honored to take care of you. I hold anencephalic babies, some of them all their lives. And they die, and that tugs my heart. But when the baby on the other side dies in need of a liver, that breaks my heart. You and Mike are stopping this.'

"I was thinking only about Jarren and giving her dignity and respect. The Loma Linda protocol provides that. To allow anencephalics to die, choking to death, is disrespectful and painful.

"Mike and I are at peace with our little girl. We love discussing our first baby. She is too special just to put behind us."

Peabody's first reaction against anencephalic infants becoming organ donors was in response to a hypothetical question posed one day by Dr. Leonard Bailey. Bailey was losing half of the babies accepted for heart transplantation because of a lack of donors. He specifically asked, "Why do we have to bury two children, when we could possibly bury only one?"

The plea of Mrs. Winner, and that of other parents of anencephalic babies, caused Peabody to examine and reevaluate her position. "If this is something that the families with the child with anencephaly say would somehow make the pregnancy less of a tragedy to them, then it was something I felt I needed to explore."

Dr. Calvin Stiller, chief of the Multi-Organ Transplant Service at University Hospital in London, Ontario, Canada, reported in the November 6, 1987, issue of the American Medical News a similar concern about anencephalic infants becoming organ donors. He convened an international conference in Canada, in January, 1987, to study the medical-ethical issues.

The group determined that the action was ethically defensible if the mother wished her child's organs to be donated, and if the donor didn't suffer. He cautioned that it would look "self-serving" for the transplant community to be at the forefront of the movement to use organs from anencephalic infants, because efforts could be misinterpreted. But he noted that such a movement led by mothers of anencephalic infants would be viewed very differently by the ethical community and the public.

In harmony with these concerns, Loma Linda's anencephalic-infant-donor protocol specifically focused on the importance of parental initiative, and separated itself from its infant-heart-transplant program. This was done to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Baby Jarren's courageous parents, Michael and Brenda Winner, challenged the medical establishment and led an effort to allow anencephalic infants to become organ donors. Dr. Peabody, the principal author of Loma Linda's anencephalic-infant-donor protocol, said of Brenda, "She forced us to be brave enough to try."

On August 10, 1989, the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of Loma Linda's anencephalic-infant-donor protocol. "Experience with Anencephalic Infants as Prospective Organ Donors" was coauthored by Joyce L. Peabody, M.D., Janet R. Emery, M.D., and Stephen Ashwall, M.D. The paper's abstract summarized the researcher's findings:

"Recent advances have made organ transplantation in newborns feasible, but the paucity of organs small enough for this age group remains a major limitation. Because anencephalic infants can survive for no more than a few weeks, they have been considered as possible organ donors for other infants. Under current law, however, they cannot be used as donors until their brain-stem activity ceases and the criteria for total brain death are thereby met. If anencephalic infants receive customary care, their solid organs usually undergo irreversible hypoxic injury during the process of dying and become unsuitable for donation by the time of death.

"We modified the medical care of 12 live-born anencephalic infants for one week to determine whether organ viability could be maintained and whether the criteria of total brain death could be met. Six received intensive care from birth, and six only when signs of imminent death developed. Only two infants met the criteria for total brain death within one week, and no solid organs were procured. Most organs were suitable for transplantation at birth. When intensive care was provided from birth, organ function was maintained; however, brain-stem activity ceased in only one infant within the first week. When intensive care was delayed until death was imminent, most organs were damaged to an extent that made them no longer suitable for transplantation."

This research simply asked a question: Through modified care, is it possible for anencephalic infants to meet legal brain-death criteria and become organ donors? Many people speculated, but nobody had ever tried before.

The abstract concluded, "Our findings suggest that it is usually not feasible, with the restrictions of current law, to procure solid organs for transplantation from anencephalic infants."

The future is unknown. Someone may yet develop a procedure to do it successfully. But any future research will stand on the shoulders of Loma Linda's anencephalic-infant-donor protocol.

[dizzle]

Queen, FYI - double long posts are prohibited..... You can provide links for further information.

[Queen]

Okay, thanks Dee Dee

[AtheistArchon]

- This article is fluff, nothing more. It raises some very good questions, but doesn't give ANY answers. I'll touch on some of the important parts:

Of course, before one can say this is not a human being, he must have a pretty clear idea of what a human being is before he can say that any particular child is not one. And it strikes me that there's something patently unusual about saying that it's possible that any particular child could not be a human being. A baby isn't a human being? A child isn't a human being? How can a baby or a child not be a human being? But what is it that distinguishes us from animals if it is not our innate humanness?

- Good questions. Here are the answers:

http://www.the-archon.com/Essays/abortion2.htm

- Our author exposes his emotional bias when he uses synonyms comparitively: "baby", "child", and so on. Yes, it's a "baby", but duh, it's a "baby" without much else but a brain stem. So it's the body of a "child", but it lacks the ONE thing that makes it more than just a human body. It lacks a brain.

- He doesn't reach too far in his questioning... only as far as it takes to ignore the obvious and ask the questions rhetorically. It sounds like a man at sea in a boat asking "Water? What water? Oh sure, we're at SEA, but that doesn't imply water does it?" There are no human beings, with personhood, who lack brains. There are only human BODIES. The difference isn't too hard to grasp.

So this whole issue hinges on what a human being is and what, if anything, makes a human being valuable. Why are human beings valuable? What is a human being? You have to answer those questions before you can say that this child isn't a human being without value.

- No, all we need to do is determine if it's a human being or merely a human body. Unless someone is actually advocating the murder of human beings, that is.

I don't mean to be irreverent here, but this reminds me of a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It was a Medieval scene and a man was dragging a cart through town in the early morning chanting "Bring out your dead. Bring out your dead." People were bringing out the corpses of those who had kicked the bucket during the night and throwing them on this old haywain. And some young guy comes over and he's got an old man over his shoulder. He's about to throw this old man into the pile with all the other corpses and the old man says something. He says, "I'm not dead yet." The young man speaks to the man gathering the corpses and says, "He'll be dead soon, anyway." The old man says, "I'm getting better." So the young man picks up a log, bangs him on the head, kills him and throws him on the pile.

- Right, an excellent example. Except of course for the part about the old man being perfectly healthy and responsive, and the girl in question having only a brain stem... except for that one little tiny part, it's perfect. :ahem:

I was asked point blank last evening if I thought it was okay to harvest the organs in this case. I said no, and then explained why. And for those of you who are utilitarian on this issue, this isn't going to sit well with you, but please hear me out. I start from a certain premise. My premise is that I believe human beings have infinite worth and are not to be treated merely as a means to an end, even if the end itself is a good one.

If we were to take the case of this little girl, we would have to say that her life is not as valuable as the end to which we will use her organs. It is not a trade off one life for five lives, if her organs would save five other children. We must view her life as infinitely valuable in and of itself and not a means to an end. And it may be true that killing one person would save the lives of five, but we won't look at human beings that way.

- And for the rest of the article, the author completely dismisses the question he asked for the first half of it: what is a human being? Instead, he simply assumes that a body with no brain IS a complete human being, just as if she were crying out "I'm not dead, I think I'll go for a walk" like the Python skit.

- I'm dissapointed. Why didn't we actually TRY to answer the question that was so important? We skipped right over it!!

It's the same with this little girl. We don't have the right to say her life is forfeit to save the life of someone else.

- Someone else... with a brain?

Pardon me for using this illustration because it's oft
over used, but that's precisely what happened in Nazi Germany. There was an idea that there was such a thing as a life unworthy to be lived. If that's the case, then human beings are expendable.

If you ever watched the TV mini-series "The Holocaust" with James Woods as an artist. In that movie they depicted the destruction of people not just in concentration camps, but prior to that. Before they started to destroy Jews and Gypsies and political dissidents, they first started destroying retarded children, people with brain defects. And they put them into vans and piped in carbon monoxide and killed them all. They looked on it as good because these people were difficult, they were expensive, they were awkward. They didn't have the quality of life required of the Third Reich. They were expendable. And from that came the Holocaust.

- And oh your god, what a typical slippery slope Nazism argument. This alone discredits the rest of the essay.

- There is a clear and blindingly obvious difference between Jews and Gypsies and a baby born with no brain.

- I also note that we're evidently no too concerned with god's handiwork on this particular child. Perhaps he (god) was punishing the mother or father? Perhaps he wasn't watching close enough? Perhaps deformed children are born all the time, ]and magical men in the sky aren't really responsible for them, OR for healthy, happy babies?

[AtheistArchon]

- Pff.

- My post makes a LOT of sense now. :ahem:

- Once again, I'm in the position of:

1. Not knowing who moderated my post.
2. Not knowing why it was moderated.
3. Not knowing which rule(s) I violated.
4. Not being informed when my post was moderated.

- Please folks, I've brought this up several times in the appropriate forums, and still it continues. Can whomever moderated me PLEASE PM ME so we can have some communication? Please? Pretty please?

[dizzle]

Check your PMs.

[Hoosier]

Hi all,

This my first post at theologyweb. I'm unfamiliar with the software, so hope it posts where I want it to.

Here goes:

In reading the posts regarding the anencephalitic baby girl, it seemed that Queen argued for treating the baby as any human being, but more as a personal view than a moral imperative. The final idea that the decision should rest with the parents really requires a completely different, new argument. Why the parent and not the State? Why not a doctor, a particular judge, or a democratic vote?

Chickenman went in another direction, reducing being human to sentience, then making a nothing buttery comparison to pigs and heart valves. This threatened to lead the discussion onto a side road regarding sentience.

I think the question again returns to what a human being is. If sentience is the issue, then certainly we have numerous adults who are no longer sentient due to some injury or medical condition. Are they fair game for the harvesting of organs? Are humans human because of some potential, or because of an ontological condition?

I would argue that what makes humans human is not their intellectual capacity, potentiality, or even their human DNA. What differentiates humans is, and has traditionally been believed to be, their human soul. My own religious perspective supports the idea of a soul, created in the image of God, but a soul is also supported by the strength of the substance dualism position in the mind/body debate. The absence of soul case comes more from a materialistic bias than an accounting for all of the evidence. If that a priori conclusion is suspended, the possibility of a soul is certainly plausible, and that very plausibility ought to give weight to the possibility in ethical questions like we're discussing.

If a soul is what makes human beings human, then the question in the anencephaletic case has to be framed differently. What is the location of the soul? Is the soul simply a function of the brain? Or is the soul a nonmaterial attribute of personhood? If it is a nonmaterial substance, and the brain only a bridge between it and the body, then the baby girl is a full human being suffering a severe handicap. There is empirical evidence for this very view of the soul/brain relationship in the near death experience literature, which supports the substance dualism mind/body philosophical view. These positive arguments for a soul have enough plausibility that negative arguments based mainly on materialist presuppositions ought not to outweigh them in consideration of a question like this, particularly as they are also arguments against materialism itself. Circularity would prevail.

If the baby is a handicapped, fully human creature, with a living soul, what argument is there except degree of incapacity? If we say that it might be better to just free her soul in the condition she's in, why not free the soul of someone with no legs, or bad eyes, or a chronic headache?

[Queen]

Hoosier,
First of all Welcome!! :flowers: Good to see a new face! :wink:

reaction to your post,

If the baby is a handicapped, fully human creature, with a living soul, what argument is there except degree of incapacity? If we say that it might be better to just free her soul in the condition she's in, why not free the soul of someone with no legs, or bad eyes, or a chronic headache?

Or a heartdisorder? I have one......so my parents could have done that...

Well, those things are quit different from having no brain at all. Compare this condition (and this sounds rude, but bear with me for a moment) with a pc with no hard-drive (hard-disk)...The pc will do ....nothing. Without a brain.......nothing. The skull can be open and you can look inside the head. Most of the time the upper skull is missing (the skull above the ears). They have a "cat-like" appearance. There is no change of survival....none what so ever. The child is totally helpless and reacts to the environment with only the brainstem......

Why the parents? It is their child! They would have made decisions for the child until it would reach a certain age when it would have no abbreviation.....so why not under these circumstances? It is terrible enough that their child is born this way, don't take the child out of their hands if they don't want it to be an organ donor. They have the right to decide....IMHO.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Hoosier]

Hoosier,
First of all Welcome!! :flowers: Good to see a new face! :wink:

Thank you, Queen. I'm beginning to figure out the site. I saw the quote icon!



Or a heartdisorder? I have one......so my parents could have done that...

That too would be a matter of degree, assuming your condition limits you in some way from "fully" interacting with the external world like someone with total, 100% perfect, mental and physical health (my tongue is resting in my cheek here). I think one of the problems you encounter with placing control in the hands of the parent lies between your elipses above. What if it WAS your parents choice whether or not to nurture you as an infant with a heart condition? What if they weren't the nurturing type? What if they thought it was better to let you "live on in other children" and try again for a more perfect model? Your parents must have been very loving, because whenever you address the parents role you assume a deep love. The sad fact is that not all parents are that loving. Many are selfish, and would think first of their own convienence.


Well, those things are quit different from having no brain at all. Compare this condition (and this sounds rude, but bear with me for a moment) with a pc with no hard-drive (hard-disk)...The pc will do ....nothing. Without a brain.......nothing. The skull can be open and you can look inside the head. Most of the time the upper skull is missing (the skull above the ears). They have a "cat-like" appearance. There is no change of survival....none what so ever. The child is totally helpless and reacts to the environment with only the brainstem......

I'm afraid that you've really only addressed secondary issues from my post. The meat of my argument resided in my answer to what makes one a human being, and the case I made was that it is their soul. You are assuming that the brain is the seat of reaction, when my case is that the soul is quite plausibly the seat, and that the brain is only the medium of interaction with the environment. In the near death experience literature there indeed seems to be documentation of persons without brain activity who were cognizant of events in the physical environment.


Why the parents? It is their child! They would have made decisions for the child until it would reach a certain age when it would have no abbreviation.....so why not under these circumstances? It is terrible enough that their child is born this way, don't take the child out of their hands if they don't want it to be an organ donor. They have the right to decide....IMHO.

Again you assume a certain level of love and compassion in the parents. Courts and judges already step in when parents, sadly, do not demonstrate the level you assume. Some people lock healthy, "normal" children in closets, or leave them home for weeks when they pursue some romantic involvement. I'm not saying that courts ought to take the child from their hands and force them to donate the organs. I'm saying that the court ought to step in to protect the life of the child, just like they do in the case of crack addicts who don't feed and clothe their children.

[Hoosier]

It looks like I didn't understand the quote feature. I guess I could use a little help with the board format.

Hope my last reply wasn't too hard to sort out without any indication of what was mine and what was Queen's.

I had a couple of other comments to make, but had to drive my daughter to school. I'll use regular old quotation marks until I get instruction how to place other's posts into those slick framed boxes.


Queen:"Well, those things are quit different from having no brain at all. Compare this condition (and this sounds rude, but bear with me for a moment) with a pc with no hard-drive (hard-disk)...The pc will do ....nothing. Without a brain.......nothing."

It is natural to use analogy to illustrate one thing from another. Analogy can assist us greatly in going from the known to the unknown, but it always breaks down at some point. The two situations are never exactly the same. I think you sensed that, Queen, which is why you were concerned about the comparison sounding rude.

I do think we can go a little farther with that analogy however. A hard drive doesn't do anything at all until it has a program (software) run through it. The activity of your PC all originates in the software and in your instructions through the keyboard. If your hard drive goes down you might not be able to communicate with the software any longer, but the software would still exist. I have an old computer that can no longer locate the hard drive. It was dated, so I purchased a new one, but I've never thrown the old one away. There are some files in it that I would like to have back, and maybe someday I'll get around to trying.

This is where the analogy breaks down though. Those files only have value to me. They have no intrinsic value of their own, and as far as the software goes, there are other copies available. If the life of a human being lies not in the hard drive, but in the software of the soul, then the soul itself either has intrinsic value or it doesn't, and there are no other identical copies to be had. If it doesn't have intrinsic value, then it is hard to demonstrate any reason besides utility to preserve it even if the hard drive functions properly. If it does have intrinsic value, then cannibalizing the system to build a new PC can't be justified.

I might not understand the value of a soul connected to a broken hard drive. For that matter, I might not understand the value of one with a functioning hard drive, except by reasoning backwards to it. People argue for values based on other things than utility all the time though. The idea of preserving pristine, unspoiled wilderness to a large degree is based on the idea of it having some special value of its own. Certain things mankind does to nature have negative fallout for future generations in bad air, water, etc., but other things are simply a matter of esthetics. Is it too much of a stretch to contemplate that the human soul is such a beautiful, sublime, valuable thing, in and of itself, that it needs to be preserved in the world no matter how tenuous the connection to the environment?