hcross
|
posted on April 29, 2001 03:23:31 PM
A world-acclaimed professor posed this medical situation-an ethical problem-to his students.
Here is the family history: The father has syphillis, the mother has tuberculosis, They already have 4 children, the first is blind, the second died, the third is deaf, and the fourth has tuberculosis. The mother is pregnant again, but she will have an abortion if you decide she should.
Some of you may have already heard this, I myself would have said that abprtion was the only option, until I heard the ending. What is your opinion? Heather
|
snOwyEgreT
|
posted on April 29, 2001 03:36:52 PM
Antibiotics.
|
reamond
|
posted on April 29, 2001 03:37:05 PM
Obviously the fetus in question became some great personage.
However, the position uses the logic fallacy of proving a rule from a single example.
|
hcross
|
posted on April 29, 2001 03:43:54 PM
reamond, yes you are correct. The flaw I see in this is that the example was a family from very, very long ago, abortion as we know it was not an option then, and neither were antibiotics. It makes you think what could have been though.
|
snOwyEgreT
|
posted on April 29, 2001 03:51:50 PM
He could find some ethical problems relevant to the present by checking out the case of the conjoined twins separated by court order against their parents' wishes in the UK.
|
EnchAnTed
|
posted on April 29, 2001 03:54:50 PM
were they Beethoven's parents?
|
HEPburn
|
posted on April 29, 2001 03:56:54 PM
Good guess, Enchanted! Dont know if that is correct, but it fits.
|
HEPburn
|
posted on April 29, 2001 03:57:48 PM
BTW..I just noticed how you have your name spelled out. Are you hungry by chance?
|
hcross
|
posted on April 29, 2001 03:57:57 PM
Enchanted, yes it was Beethoven's parents.
|
reamond
|
posted on April 29, 2001 04:05:16 PM
Abortion has been available from before the Roman Empire.
|
hcross
|
posted on April 29, 2001 04:07:11 PM
I said abortion as we know it, I know perfecly well that women used to take potions to try and end a pregnancy.
|
krs
|
posted on April 29, 2001 04:09:27 PM
Big deal. Beethoven was an idiot savante who couldn't even count past nine.
|
hcross
|
posted on April 29, 2001 04:17:51 PM
lol, krs.
|
reamond
|
posted on April 29, 2001 04:21:26 PM
Isn't RU 486 a "potion"?
|
reamond
|
posted on April 29, 2001 04:26:06 PM
I think the point may be that we are better off because of Beethoven, and I guess the Beatles too.
Far stretch.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on April 29, 2001 04:27:41 PM
I can't imagine a "world-acclaimed professor" posed a heart tugger as an ethical question.
|
EnchAnTed
|
posted on April 29, 2001 04:54:51 PM
you're right Hepburn, I was hungry when I signed in like that LOL
krs surely you jest, i don't believe he was an idiot savant, and he composed such beautiful music.
edited to take out an extra word that didn't make sense!
[ edited by EnchAnTed on Apr 29, 2001 05:37 PM ]
|
HJW
|
posted on April 29, 2001 05:12:33 PM
Heather,
I am surprised that you would have considered
abortion as an option.
Helen
|
HJW
|
posted on April 29, 2001 05:15:37 PM
James,
Why not?
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on April 29, 2001 05:17:12 PM
Because emotions are a relatively minor consideration in a medical ethics question.
|
Borillar
|
posted on April 29, 2001 05:17:45 PM
"However, the position uses the logic fallacy of proving a rule from a single example."
Exactly! That's the one used by anti-abortionists a lot - the Beethoven one. I always counter with this one:
A normal couple growing up near the Rhine River has perfectly normal children and is having a perfectly normal fetus -- do you allow it to grow to full-term or to be aborted? Which is best?
When they say, "Let it live!" I tell them that Surprize! You just gave birth to Adolf Hitler and 12 million people are mass-murdered!!
Such a ridiculous example works both ways.
|
HJW
|
posted on April 29, 2001 05:20:42 PM
It would seem to me that separating emotions
from the situation would be the first
consideration in making such a decision.
Helen
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on April 29, 2001 05:21:59 PM
Exactly. That's why this isn't a real medical ethics question. It's an anecdote meant to persuade.
|
EnchAnTed
|
posted on April 29, 2001 05:43:51 PM
I don't agree james, i think this is the kind of example used to generate thought and comment in a medical ethics class, because it quickly shows the fallacy of thinking our opinions are so wonderful that we know or can predict the outcome of many situations. What a quick way to teach a classful of doctors that the doctor should not make a decision like that, the parents should, because the doctor cannot see into the future, he can only present information to help the patient and the family make the decisions. The advice itself cannot predict the future in either example.
Maybe it's time for another human cloning discussion and the medical ethics of cloning. great Britain has outlawed human cloning for reproductive purposes now.
|
snOwyEgreT
|
posted on April 29, 2001 06:39:05 PM
I have to disagree, enchanted. In medical ethics cases that are presented to the ethics committees, the case at hand is considered. "Is everything potentially recoverable?" is a question frequently heard. The case presented here is seen every day, and is easily treatable, therefore, no relevance. Present something like the case I cited, with court ordered experimental surgery against the parents' wishes. Or court ordered blood products transfusions against parents' wishes and religious beliefs. When to stop artificial life support. Those are relevant.
|
hcross
|
posted on April 29, 2001 07:48:03 PM
Sorry, it is a real example given in a medical ethics class, I just read a book on medical ethics, this was posed in the first half of the book, and I cannot now find the page number to give you the profeesor's name. Enchanted is 100% right.
|
hcross
|
posted on April 29, 2001 08:07:35 PM
Adding, as for abortion, I truly do not know what to think. On one hand I think it is wrong, that it is murder, on the other I think that it would be a terrible shame to have a child brought into a loveless or abusive home. I have gone from one extreme to the other on the issue, it is a horrible thing to have to decide. Since most women who are having an abortion can't or won't consider adoption, there is nothing that will change. This was not a intended to get the big abortion debate started again, but don't you wonder how many potentially great people could have been born? Or for that matter, bad?
|
HJW
|
posted on April 29, 2001 08:21:27 PM
hcross,
I asked because you brought it up on the
death penalty thread today, accusing me of
being illogical.
I don't like the idea of
abortion either and probably would not choose
it for myself but I believe that it should be
an individual's choice. As you probably know,
there are many reasons to justify such a choice.
So, I think that it was wrong of you to
question my logic based on your knowledge
that I had stated this position in the past.
I can, for example, choose to have an abortion if I think that the child will have
a debilitating disease. This decision is not
inconsistent with my position against the
death penalty.
HELEN
[ edited by HJW on Apr 29, 2001 08:23 PM ]
|
hcross
|
posted on April 29, 2001 08:28:20 PM
Helen,
I am just curious why that the majority of Liberals believe that the death penalty is so very wrong, and abortion is so very right. In one case you are taking the life of an innocent child, in the other you are taking the life of someone who was proven guilty? That, to me, is illogical. Heather
|
HJW
|
posted on April 29, 2001 08:28:38 PM
The following post is the one that I am
referring to above.
hcross
posted on April 29, 2001 03:41:43 PM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Helen,
I find it interesting that you feel so strongly about the death penalty being wrong, but yet, you feel abortion is fine. Where is the logic in that? Heather"
|
