Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
What does it mean to die
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="boondocks" data-source="post: 1483657" data-attributes="member: 20599"><p>The article notes that (well-intending) doctors, biomedical ethicists (and a theologian and an attorney) worked on the original idea of a criteria for "brain death" because the advent of ventilators in the 1960s essentially allowed us to keep "dead" people alive. To GB's point, the good folks who decided that a brain-dead person was a dead-dead person were people who were very well-educated---used to the "life of the mind" and couldn't conceive of anyone wanting to continue on in an "animal" existence. I thought that's a fair criticism of the original panel.</p><p>And yet, isn't there a distinction to be made between an existence where one is blind and/or paraplegic, versus the condition of Jahi McMath? What make us "human"? Do we need the ability to interact (in some small rudimentary fashion) with loved ones and our physical environment?</p><p>Do we get to consider the cost to society of a Jahi McMath? What of hundreds of Jahi McMaths? Is it ethical to consider the $ cost to keep her in that dim tunnel between life and death, potentially for decades?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="boondocks, post: 1483657, member: 20599"] The article notes that (well-intending) doctors, biomedical ethicists (and a theologian and an attorney) worked on the original idea of a criteria for "brain death" because the advent of ventilators in the 1960s essentially allowed us to keep "dead" people alive. To GB's point, the good folks who decided that a brain-dead person was a dead-dead person were people who were very well-educated---used to the "life of the mind" and couldn't conceive of anyone wanting to continue on in an "animal" existence. I thought that's a fair criticism of the original panel. And yet, isn't there a distinction to be made between an existence where one is blind and/or paraplegic, versus the condition of Jahi McMath? What make us "human"? Do we need the ability to interact (in some small rudimentary fashion) with loved ones and our physical environment? Do we get to consider the cost to society of a Jahi McMath? What of hundreds of Jahi McMaths? Is it ethical to consider the $ cost to keep her in that dim tunnel between life and death, potentially for decades? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
What does it mean to die
Top