Life and Death

[Meshavrischika]

Okay... caught part of Awakenings at lunch (for those of you who don't know what that is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awakenings)

So... my moral/ethical question is:

If patient A could live a functional life, but a short one... say a year... due to a medication (that would damage and kill him, but allow him to function normally)

or

patient A could be catatonic and live approximately 20 years without this medication

which one is more morally/ethically appropriate? short life with function or long life without?

 

[Washington]

In other words, which is more morally right, choosing a good short life or a bad longer life? Actually, I fail to see where morals enter into the decision. Care to explain?

 

[Meshavrischika]

In other words, which is more morally right, choosing a good short life or a bad longer life? Actually, I fail to see where morals enter into the decision. Care to explain?

you tend to fail to see moral/ethical anything. if you don't see the point, why participate?

 

[Mling]

Give it to the person long enough to let them wake up, then let them decide.

 

[Mling]

Give it to the person long enough to let them wake up, then let them decide.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Give it to the person long enough to let them wake up, then let them decide.

or let them see what's going on with CF posts and they will think they're still dreaming... what a mess

that's an interesting concept. i wonder if even waking someone up and causing damage with meds (possibly) that way would be moral. (splitting hairs)

 

[cantata]

What's the point of living if you're unconscious?

 

[Meshavrischika]

What's the point of living if you're unconscious?

that's my thought... but doctors are instructed to "do no harm"... so basically they either break their oath, or let someone be a vegetable forever.

 

[Meshavrischika]

What's the point of living if you're unconscious?

that's my thought... but doctors are instructed to "do no harm"... so basically they either break their oath, or let someone be a vegetable forever.

 

[lawtonfogle]

In other words, which is more morally right, choosing a good short life or a bad longer life? Actually, I fail to see where morals enter into the decision. Care to explain?

Ok. One choice is actively reducing life length to increase quality. No matter what the reason, the standard person sees reducing life length as a morale issue.

 

[cantata]

that's my thought... but doctors are instructed to "do no harm"... so basically they either break their oath, or let someone be a vegetable forever.

Well, obviously it depends how you're defining harm. A surgeon has to harm perfectly healthy skin in order to cut someone open to remove their tumour, for example. I don't think giving someone a carcinogenic drug, especially at their behest, which will improve their quality rather than their quantity of life, can be called 'harm'.

 

[Washington]

you tend to fail to see moral/ethical anything.

Not at all, but I don't assign morals and ethics to every choice either, an example of which is what you seem to be doing here. Of course, if you can't explain yourself (which I suspect) I certainly understand.

if you don't see the point, why participate?

Sorry, I didn't realize that asking for clarification is a No-No. If one doesn't understand the question, then just stay away. I'll have to remember this the next time I'm asked to explain myself; although, I'll probably be more accommodating. That's just the way we agnostics are---helpful to a fault

 

[Meshavrischika]

Not at all, but I don't assign morals and ethics to every choice either, an example of which is what you seem to be doing here. Of course, if you can't explain yourself (which I suspect) I certainly understand.

Sorry, I didn't realize that asking for clarification is a No-No. If one doesn't understand the question, then just stay away. I'll have to remember this the next time I'm asked to explain myself; although, I'll probably be more accommodating. That's just the way we agnostics are---helpful to a fault

I just get tired of everyone else understanding and getting the point but a few. If you don't get how it applies feel free not to participate. You ask the same question with every thread I start and everyone else seems to know how to address them... maybe waiting until others have posted would allow you to understand better.

 

[cantata]

Ok. One choice is actively reducing life length to increase quality. No matter what the reason, the standard person sees reducing life length as a morale issue.

A moral issue, surely.

If the question is whether or not to exchange someone else's quantity for quality of life, it's a moral question. If it's about whether or not to do so with your own, it isn't.

 

[lawtonfogle]

A moral issue, surely.

If the question is whether or not to exchange someone else's quantity for quality of life, it's a moral question. If it's about whether or not to do so with your own, it isn't.

I think that may depend upon what you found what you think is moral or not on, being that such a choice will most likely (I don't see how it can't unless you are isolated from society) affect other people.