 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/30/2002 3:49 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom,
I understand you wanted to have a discussion on bioethics. Dude. I'm up for that! Tell me. What were you thinking or have in mind? There is a lot to talk aboot.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/30/2002 7:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Yeah man. Will get right back to ya! Wife is calling me for breakfast!
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/30/2002 11:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon-
How about we agree on the five hottest bioethics issues of the day and go for it? I admit to being pretty ignorant on this stuff, but I want to change that. Surely, human cloning and stem-cell research are two of the hottest, right? What would two or three other crucial issues be? Let’s name ‘em, lay some foundations, and then go for it.
Modes, you’re in on this one right?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/31/2002 5:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok. Go eat your breky and then we can talk. But just for some starters, for subjects, I was thinking of reproductive technologies and abortion such as what was discussed over on the "Christian and Politics" thread. Also, euthanasia and right-to-die.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/31/2002 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | | P.S. I like your subjects as well. As a matter of fact, this month CT Mag has an editoral on human cloning.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/31/2002 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Reproduction techno and abortion are it.
Both are wrong. Next subject?
Tom
PS Just kidding!
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/31/2002 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | I was listening to BBC radio tonight. They had two doctors debating genetic selection. They brought up the case of a deaf couple who wanted to genetically select a deaf child. Turns out that the couple was lesbian and they were talking to a congenitally deaf sperm doner. Hmmmm...
Should we be allowed to select something as simple as the sex of our child? Parents who adopt get to and nobody objects.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 05/31/2002 2:09:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/3/2002 3:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom. I will try and get back at this later on today. But, I have some thoughts on the story you just mentioned. The story is 'bout 2-3 months old now. But my in-laws are deaf, so there is something to be said for deaf culture in this case. Actually there are two to three issues going on here, depending on how you look at it. Homosexuality. Deaf culture. And sex/deaf/hearing selection. I think the first two are pretty more or less incidental. The last one is in my opinion where all the hoopla is at. Anyhoo, I think to start off we need to have the areas that we will discuss. These areas would be as follows, but not necessarily in this order.
1. Abortion.
2. Human Cloning
3. Stem Cell Research
4. Reproductive Technologies
5. Euthanasisa
6. Right to die.
Involved in a discussion of this sort would be not only ethical and legal questions but questions of a very fundamental nature--personhood. For it seems to me that all the issues hinge on the question of or value of personhood. In other words, when we as a society commit acts of abortion or euthanasia, etc, we are make fundamental judgments as to the status of persons. Later...
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/3/2002 4:01 AM (GMT -6) | | These issues give me a headache! But they're very important.
At present, I want to just insert one observation:
It seems to me we can't avoid making judgments about personhood. WE DECLARE PEOPLE DEAD and bury them. If they have no brain waves (above a minimum level -- for there are electro-currents still popping in the brain for a long while after this) and if they have no heart beat, we declare them non persons.
Yet the dead have human DNA and continue to grow human cells for weeks. (They have to shave corpses because hair still grows.) Also, we believe that God has the power to raise the dead. Indeed, one can take some of Jesus' statements as implying that we are supposed to be able to raise the dead, just as he did! So is it not a lack of faith to give up hope and simply bury them? (I'm think here of the common argument against euthanasia that God might heal the person).
Just a thought.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/3/2002 4:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
These issues give me a headache! But they're very important.
Greg,at present, I want to know why they give you a headache.  They give me no more of a headache than theological dilemmas. Actually, those give me more of a headache. And by "headache" what do you mean? Because of the issues one has to wade thru or because of something emotional, like they come off sounding "moralistic?" in the end. What? I don't understand. If they are important (how important would that be?), why should they give you a headache?
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/4/2002 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, sorry I haven't got to this the last couple of days. Anyhoo, I will have time tmw. Umm...just to let you know, I don't know a lot about stem cell research, though I do know that embryos need to be destroyed in order to retrieve them. This is not necessary. As some scientists say, stem cells can be gained from adult human beings. If the embryo is a person, then to destroy embryos for reasons of saying curing Parkinson's, etc, seems a little to steep to moi.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/5/2002 3:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg and Tom. Back on this tmw. Greg makes an interesting point, but in my understanding, comes up flawed or more precisely weak. Two reasons why is because it seems to rely on a "functional definition", nor does it make distinctions between the persons (comatose, PVS, and anencephalic infants) involved in the euthanasia debate. Later...
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden
Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/05/2002 8:50:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/5/2002 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc: "we declare them non persons." (brain dead)
I know what you mean. To be picky though, even when their soul is wreste from their body, their body is still holy. Their personhood is created, not socially agreed upon.
But you're not on the hook. I'm just being unbelievably picky -- or lamenting the fact that the Celtics are not playing!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/9/2002 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | You are right O Great One! We can’t avoid making judgements about personhood. Every moral and public policy decision in bioethics assumes a particular view of a human person. Abortion, at its foundation, has a view of human personhood, which is answered holistically by referring to metaphysical, theological (talk about mixing religion and politics!) philosophical and physical, definitions. But this will also go for reproductive technologies, and human cloning, infanticide, etc.
However, I think I would have a problem with two things that you say here.
1. It still doesn’t seem to answer the question of personhood. It would seem to me that you are relying mainly on a “functionalist” definition of personhood which is defined mainly by a quality of life ethic. That is, that the biological life is simply a means to it “biographical life” or quality of life. And therefore, if such a person has no biological life they have no biographical life. I would have problems with this.
2. Also, it would seem to me that you have not distinguished between say those in a comatose state and those who are in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) and those in a third category—namely anencephalic infants. A few definitions:
a) Comatose state-eye closed unconsciousness. Damage to the brain stem which makes involuntary functioning difficult. Usually requires a ventilator. Medical complications usually lead to death within a few weeks to months. These patients do have the capacity to feel suffering or pain. Very unusual to live more than a year. Regarded as terminally ill and it is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, for to continue to do so, would be futile. That is, there is no obligation to treat these patients. Death is imminent.
b) PVS-considered by a presidential commission as those in which “all components of mental life are gone, including, self-awareness, thought, emotion, feeling and sensation.” Eyes open unconsciousness. Technically awake but not aware (sentient) of their environment. Experience normal times of wakefulness and have cycles of waking and sleeping. Cannot feel pain. They have lost all functions in the higher centers of the brain, the cerebral cortex. Brain stem intact and functioning which explains involuntary functions such as breathing, heart beat, etc. These patients have lost all higher-brain function due to traumatic head injuries. All consciousness is non-existent. These people are not dead, but generally require artificial nutrition and hydration to stay alive. Also, they generally can breath on their own without assistance from a ventilator.
c) Anencephalic infants-born only with a brain stem which is abnormal. A severe congenital condition which the cerebral cortex does not develop. Usually die within a few days to a few weeks. Like those in a comatose state, they feel no pain and they are considered terminally ill and it is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, for to continue to do so, would be futile. That is again, there is no obligation to treat these patients. Death is imminent. Still they should not be abandoned. But should be treated with dignity and as the people they are.
So the question of personhood is raised, but especially for the PVS patient, we wonder if we should consider euthanasia in their case. That is, how can we consider such human beings persons? The issue here is different for these patients as opposed to the preconcious unborn in the abortion debate, where these persons will develop higher-brain function i.e. consciousness. It may be considered temporarily latent in the unborn. While in a PVS state, it is consider permanently latent with no prospects of ever being actualized.
Still, in either case, consciousness is not necessary for personhood. To argue that one must be conscious to be a person is an argument from a “property-thing” position. That is, that consciousness is a property and possession of it is the determinant of personhood. I would argue from an “essentialist” or “essence” or “substance-dualist” position. I have major reservations about the “property-thing” position. So the question is, do we change the definition of personhood from a “essentialist” or “essence” based definition to a “functionalist” one. Let me ask rhetorically that if a patient who is PVS and they are a “person” then how would I be able to justify removal of treatment? Would that not be considered killing or murdering a person? I would say no. The reason being is that if people come off of some sort of life support system, it is not the removal of the life support that kills them but the underlying diesease or illness that is that is the cause. For example, nutrition and hydration can be removed if they are futile and if they are more of a burden than a benefit to the patient. If there is not clear evidence, that the patient doesn’t want it, then with all kinds of treatments there is the presumption to (continue to) provide it.
But the bottomline in such decisions is that we don’t have to change the definition of personhood from an “essentialist” position to a “functionalist” one to justify these patients liberty to refuse treatment.
So I would agree with Greg, on “letting the person go” yet, I would also add that we don’t do this under a “functionalist” position. For the a functionalist position is rather absurb frought with contradictions.
Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden
Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/09/2002 12:16:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/9/2002 10:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's the CT article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/007/5.42.html
At the bottom of this article there several good links to sites that provide info and views on related issues.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:30 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|