i see very little moral distinction between letting a 4 year old and an 8 year old and a 13 year old end her life by choice. if she was 21 i would vote fair.
what about between a 15 year old and a 17.999 year old? I mean there's nothing magical about 18 or 21. At least admit that this is a gray area, white at age 3, black at age 40 with some moral scale in between. What if it's one of those baby geniuses. Would it be morally acceptable to let Doogie Howser, M.D. choose to end his life at age 16?
i freely admit it's a grey area and agree that it's a sliding scale of morality. 13 is on the insane side of letting someone choose to die by refusal of medical treatment. and i'm all for exceptions like doogie howser, but the blanket rule should be that 13 year olds don't get to choose death by denial of medical attention. i also think jack kervorkian is not a criminal because he didn't kill any kids.
clearly the girl was assisted by her parents in her decision. i'm sure that any parents could convince their daughter what it means if she doesn't get the operation. it seems like this kid has had a pretty awful life and extending it by another five years won't necessarily result in anything other than pain and more trauma. i agree that she should be allowed to say "enough is enough."
So then shouldn't the headline say "UK Teens parents win right to refuse new heart for their 13 year old daughter"? This legal precedent, as I read it, says the child can make this decision. Even if that point is murky, read this sentence: "if Hannah did have a transplant it was likely she would need another within five years." So this is saying that the sum of the relief of the parents and the ending of trauma for the girl is worth letting her die. This is terrible. This is like assisted suicide, only the person is a kid and not terminal without hope. They ought to find some help or bring in foster parents and get that girl to the hospital. With counseling, I'm sure she could have a very happy 5 or 10 or 20 years of life. Emotional exhaustion is not an excuse for letting someone die. Girlfriend should get the transplant and counseling, and maybe supplemental parents who are more encouraging and stronger.
interesting. i am certain that her condition yields more than just emotional exhaustion. i am sure that it is painful and prevents her from having a full life. even if she had the transplant, she'd need another in five years. just because doctors and modern medicine can make someone live longer doesn't mean that the person must live longer. it sounds like you'd rather force someone to live an awful life than let that same person die peacefully.
no, i'm simply saying that a *child* shouldn't have the right to make that decision. it should be an exceptionally rare case where we "let" someone die who's suffering. i support assisted suicide when the person is of sound mind (meaning old enough and not in a drug induced state), the person is terminal with no hope and the person is in severe pain. i think this is a case where your intention is to be merciful, and i respect that, but it's also ignoring the possibility that this girl could have a meaningful, pain-minimal life ahead of her. in other words, i see this as giving into the moment without fully thinking through what her life might be 5 or 10 years from now. it's not the same morally as a 50 year old late stage cancer sufferer who is in severe pain and will surely die within a few months. there is hope here and when there is hope and the real possibility of minimizing the suffering, i think the girl should live. and take this with a grain of salt, i'm just over the line of deciding here, i think this case is just shy of meeting the 'let her die' test. i think with the right parents and doctors this girl can live a happy life.
RSS Feed
i see very little moral distinction between letting a 4 year old and an 8 year old and a 13 year old end her life by choice. if she was 21 i would vote fair.
what about between a 15 year old and a 17.999 year old? I mean there's nothing magical about 18 or 21. At least admit that this is a gray area, white at age 3, black at age 40 with some moral scale in between. What if it's one of those baby geniuses. Would it be morally acceptable to let Doogie Howser, M.D. choose to end his life at age 16?
i freely admit it's a grey area and agree that it's a sliding scale of morality. 13 is on the insane side of letting someone choose to die by refusal of medical treatment. and i'm all for exceptions like doogie howser, but the blanket rule should be that 13 year olds don't get to choose death by denial of medical attention. i also think jack kervorkian is not a criminal because he didn't kill any kids.
very well.
clearly the girl was assisted by her parents in her decision. i'm sure that any parents could convince their daughter what it means if she doesn't get the operation. it seems like this kid has had a pretty awful life and extending it by another five years won't necessarily result in anything other than pain and more trauma. i agree that she should be allowed to say "enough is enough."
So then shouldn't the headline say "UK Teens parents win right to refuse new heart for their 13 year old daughter"? This legal precedent, as I read it, says the child can make this decision. Even if that point is murky, read this sentence: "if Hannah did have a transplant it was likely she would need another within five years." So this is saying that the sum of the relief of the parents and the ending of trauma for the girl is worth letting her die. This is terrible. This is like assisted suicide, only the person is a kid and not terminal without hope. They ought to find some help or bring in foster parents and get that girl to the hospital. With counseling, I'm sure she could have a very happy 5 or 10 or 20 years of life. Emotional exhaustion is not an excuse for letting someone die. Girlfriend should get the transplant and counseling, and maybe supplemental parents who are more encouraging and stronger.
interesting. i am certain that her condition yields more than just emotional exhaustion. i am sure that it is painful and prevents her from having a full life. even if she had the transplant, she'd need another in five years. just because doctors and modern medicine can make someone live longer doesn't mean that the person must live longer. it sounds like you'd rather force someone to live an awful life than let that same person die peacefully.
no, i'm simply saying that a *child* shouldn't have the right to make that decision. it should be an exceptionally rare case where we "let" someone die who's suffering. i support assisted suicide when the person is of sound mind (meaning old enough and not in a drug induced state), the person is terminal with no hope and the person is in severe pain. i think this is a case where your intention is to be merciful, and i respect that, but it's also ignoring the possibility that this girl could have a meaningful, pain-minimal life ahead of her. in other words, i see this as giving into the moment without fully thinking through what her life might be 5 or 10 years from now. it's not the same morally as a 50 year old late stage cancer sufferer who is in severe pain and will surely die within a few months. there is hope here and when there is hope and the real possibility of minimizing the suffering, i think the girl should live. and take this with a grain of salt, i'm just over the line of deciding here, i think this case is just shy of meeting the 'let her die' test. i think with the right parents and doctors this girl can live a happy life.
i refuse to comment further until you clarify the voting on the brain dead religious kid.
btw, i think that kid died today (respectfully, i offer condolences to the family, i don't mean to make fodder out of their tragedy).
looks like you got your wish, kapauldo.