y2k1 Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 I have come to this conclusion. If they have no sense of self awareness or very inconsistently; they have no rights and as such society is justified in killing them and harvesting their organs. They are not persons and as such they do not have rights, as they are objects.
NotDarkYet Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 People come out of comas. A cure for Alzheimer's is possible.
y2k1 Posted December 8, 2014 Author Posted December 8, 2014 People come out of comas. A cure for Alzheimer's is possible. I was referring to those that are permanent to both.
J. D. Stembal Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 You could make an argument for mercy killing, but the person still has rights over their possessions, which includes the body. You can outline in your will that upon brain death, or whatever criteria you specify, that you no longer wish to live. You can't take the organs without written consent from the person beforehand. That is theft. Doing either of these things without consent is a violation of medical ethics, and you probably won't find many doctors willing to do this unless they want to be sued into oblivion. You can't find many doctors that will perform assisted suicide because it's illegal everywhere except Switzerland, I believe. Terry Pratchett published a documentary about assisted suicide. Here's a small clip of a talk he gives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5W-NCGUkgk#t=23
dsayers Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 One critique: Ownership is in part the investment of time/labor in a meaningful way. If a person permanently lost their capacity for reason and was no longer a moral actor, they wouldn't suddenly become unowned ownable property. Ownership of them would revert back to their parents first and then perhaps other family or friends. People who invested their time/labor in that person's lives. Hell, if the person had no friends and family, you could even argue that whom they were indebted to would gain ownership if they could prove the financial prowess of selling off his organs to help satisfy his debt. So a hospital for example would still need consent to take ownership of the person's organs. Thanks for bringing this topic up. I've made similar observations but lack the courage to be the first one to speak on it.
J. D. Stembal Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Double post edit: This is a better link for the documentary preview.
Wuzzums Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Your body is your property. If you choose to give your body away after a disease then fine. If you don't then nobody is justified in taking it. If a person does not choose and make preparations accordingly (like some sort of fund for special care just in case, or express a willingness to donate one's body) then I don't think it's justified for anyone to make that choice for them. The operative word here is "justified". Sure, a person CAN make that choice for them and I don't see it as the initiation of force BUT it is not justified. Like for instance, I am justified in shooting someone in self-defense, I am not justified in shooting someone that is clinically braindead.
yagami Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Alzheimer's is caused by a lack of cholesterol in your diet. The disease didn't even exist before doctors started telling people to go on a cholesterol free diet. Try trying to find a reference to Alzheimer before 70 years ago. This has already been cured in animals but it's illegal to say the cure word in regards to humans do to the FDA. That's just a little factoid I know that's not your point. Do I have rights when im asleep? If your answer is yes then you need to explain why.
Sal9000 Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Alzheimer's is caused by a lack of cholesterol in your diet. The disease didn't even exist before doctors started telling people to go on a cholesterol free diet. Can you provide proofs for this claim? Try trying to find a reference to Alzheimer before 70 years ago. It was first described by German psychiatrist and pathologist Alois Alzheimer in 1906 after who it was later named. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer%27s_disease This has already been cured in animals but it's illegal to say the cure word in regards to humans do to the FDA. Again, can you provide information on that? A metaanalysis showed so far that people with rheuma hardly get Alzheimer's which is in line with the theory that plaques cause inflammation in the brain.
WasatchMan Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 I think a more accurate statement to make is: nobody has a positive obligation to keep someone in a coma alive, except in some case where they put the person in the coma it would be a way to not have murdered them. To say "they have no rights" doesn't really mean anything, and society has no justification to automatically inherit people who are in comas.
yagami Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Can you provide proofs for this claim? It was first described by German psychiatrist and pathologist Alois Alzheimer in 1906 after who it was later named. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer%27s_disease Again, can you provide information on that? A metaanalysis showed so far that people with rheuma hardly get Alzheimer's which is in line with the theory that plaques cause inflammation in the brain. I may have my dates wrong and in fact I probably do and I'd be glad to give you references to the other things you asked about but that's really getting off topic as I stated in my post. Im more interested in the discussion on the question of do people in comas have rights. You responded to everything but that part of what I said lol.
y2k1 Posted December 9, 2014 Author Posted December 9, 2014 Your body is your property. If you choose to give your body away after a disease then fine. If you don't then nobody is justified in taking it. If a person does not choose and make preparations accordingly (like some sort of fund for special care just in case, or express a willingness to donate one's body) then I don't think it's justified for anyone to make that choice for them. The operative word here is "justified". Sure, a person CAN make that choice for them and I don't see it as the initiation of force BUT it is not justified. Like for instance, I am justified in shooting someone in self-defense, I am not justified in shooting someone that is clinically braindead. Dead people cant own property.
Peaceful Parent Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 My son is a non-verbal child with autism and he may very well remain non-verbal into adulthood. Surprisingly enough none of the comments in this thread stirred any negative feelings inside me. I understand the logic/reasoning. I certainly identify with him as a person though. It may be contradictory to do so if my wife and I have to claim ownership of him indefinitely, but I'm more than willing to admit that contradiction.
Recommended Posts