A dispute has broken out between Bill at INDC Journal and Paul at Wizbang. The original bone of contention was whether the killing of Mae Magouirk represents a “slippery slope.” But the argument has expanded (or devolved) into a much broader fight. I find the debate compelling.
Compelling, and yet somehow unedifying. My friend Bill thinks the debate is about “keeping everyone alive indefinitely with the best treatment,” which he argues against. But Mrs. Magouirk, like Mrs. Schiavo before her, is being denied water. I won’t descend into the slugfest, but for the record, I say anyone who has a need for water should be given water. Plus food, and a blanket. They should pay for these things if they are able, but the rest of us should pay for them if they’re unable. Would this obligation inevitably lead to an overweening cradle-to-grave welfare state, impoverishing the living to animate the dead? I very much doubt it; but then, I guess I don’t put much stock in slippery slopism.
UPDATE: Did I say the argument has expanded? Now it’s unleashed pent-up fury at Paul from many quarters, for a thousand offenses and slights.
TRUE BLOG COMICS
The comic book cover is an hilarious bit of satire, but the text is a serious disquisition on the obligations of society to care for its defenseless citizens. RTWT
Look at you, with your blanket-welfareism!
WHERE WILL IT END?!?!
TRUE BLOG COMICS
Heh. Indeed. Heh indeedy!…
“Would this obligation inevitably lead to an overweening cradle-to-grave welfare state, impoverishing the living to animate the dead?”
Well, seeing as how that’s the UPHILL fight, that direction doesn’t qualify as a “slippery slope”, except as we fail in the effort, and fall into the morass created for us by the ACLU-Disciples of Death-Felosites.
My friend Bill thinks the debate is about “keeping everyone alive indefinitely with the best treatment,”
Um, no. That’s not what I think about the Magouirk situation at all. I believe my quote on that was it’s “f’ed up.”
My argument about cradle to grave is with those that are tossing out ridiculous soundbites about the inviolable culture of life!* An issue so pure, that any practical discussion is barbaric and cruel!
* Except for those that can’t pay.
Thanks for commenting, Bill!
(By the way, in addition to reading INDC Journal daily, everyone should listen to Bill’s weekly radio show. I mean, they call it a ‘radio show,’ but you listen on your computer, not a radio. Go to Rightalk.com Thursday at 3 P.M. Eastern.)
I guess where I would take issue with you is this sort of phrase (from the 14th comment on your post):
As you know, the controversial cases driving the debate are conscious persons with functioning brains who are being killed by dehydration. Since this is a general discussion about moral absolutes, I don’t want to split hairs about any particular cases, but I certainly haven’t heard anyone advocate “animating bodies without brains.” Everyone must agree that bodies without brains are dead, and should be treated with the proper respect given to dead human bodies, but not animated.
So really the debate is about your “or care for” clause, which is the whole point of the controversy: do we have an obligation to provide food, water, and shelter to incapacitated living humans, or don’t we? I say we do. You may hold a different opinion, but in your comments, you kept bringing it on back to “animating corpses,” and “keeping everyone alive indefinitely with the best treatment,” which were never the question.
I do understand that not everyone commenting there was being logical or even civil, so I’ll allow that your own rhetorical excess was just payment in kind. If you ever really want to discuss the topic, though, feel free to do so here.
Say Sean, is it real difficult to blog? I’ve been thinking about doing it since my writing career went in the crapper I just don’t know anything about it.
Does it cost? How difficult are the programs to run nowadays? I ran a blog-precursor type program with the magazine I edited back in ‘98- it was a byzantine piece of crap and I hated updating and doing just about anything with it.
But that was in the very first days of that kind of programming, and since complete idiots now have blogs (kos- ’nuff said), I can only assume the technology has gotten better.
If you have any advice, I’d like to hear it. I’m looking for cost, ease (of use), variety and any other relevant information. If you would, email me with any tips, barring that you could just say something here. And if it’s a bother, nevah mind.
By the by, the reason I’m asking you and not treach is A) your blog looks better, quite frankly, and B) there is the offhand chance you’d actually read this.
“Since this is a general discussion about moral absolutes, I don’t want to split hairs about any particular cases, but I certainly haven’t heard anyone advocate ‘animating bodies without brains.’”
I will, then. That would be awesome.
Oh sure, Jim, it would be awesome at first, but the anencephaloid slaves would eventually revolt against their masters, and we’d be helpless, because we would have been softened by lives of pampered luxury, and then Will Smith or maybe Charlton Heston would have to save the planet by finding the secret virus or something that kills the zombies, so the human race would survive, but meanwhile millions would have died, and for what, I ask you? (The whole thing would probably be an allegory for something going on right now in today’s headlines!)
James V:
Blogging is not difficult or expensive. Your domain name (if you want one) will cost a few bucks a year, and then there’s the hosting service, which is really reasonable. I figure you already know about getting those things, so all that remains is installing the blog software.
This blog is an installation of b2evolution, an open source free blog thingy. The installer and documentation are all there on the b2evo site. I picked b2evo because I needed to make a “family” of blogs that could be read all at once, or individually, and b2evo has that feature built in.
It also has a whole lot of “skins,” designed by third parties, which you can use right out of the box, or customize to your own liking. The Gleeson blogs, for instance, are really just a few steps removed from this setup. And since b2evo is just a bunch of PHP code that resides on my own server, I can customize it to do stuff that isn’t built in.
FROM THE BLANKETS. Indeed.
By the by, thanks for the comments, they’ve been very helpful. Exceedingly, actually- you’ve already helped me from making one stupid mistake in deciding who and how to access. I’ll be insta-trafficless in no time!
Sean -
Well, you obvioulsy haven’t been reading my blog very vlosely then …
I don’t want to split hairs about any particular cases, but I certainly haven’t heard anyone advocate “animating bodies without brains.” Everyone must agree that bodies without brains are dead, and should be treated with the proper respect given to dead human bodies, but not animated.
… because that’s exactly what many of my commenters HAVE been arguing. I have consistently been arguing that there is a moral continuum between someone who is merely disabled, and someone that has suffered so much brain injury that they are merely a body without consciousness and just autonomic function, and that where someone falls on this continuum should determine alternate courses of action.
And repeatedly, people arguing with me on my nblog will NOT accept this most basic premise, choosing instead to spout off about the inviobility of life. So, sorry you joined the battle late, but I am indeed carrying a running conversation with some bizarre, moral absolutists.
Well, if you’re gonna have a moral absolute, you could do a lot worse than the inviolability of life.
I do agree that there is a certain point on the brain-injury continuum where medical care should be abandoned. But I don’t think we agree on the location of the point. I say that when brain death has been determined, then it would be licit to discontinue artificial cardiopulmonary machinery, and bodily death would immediately follow, because brain-dead bodies canot breathe or pump blood on their own.
But if the autonomic systems are all functioning, and all the patient lacks is consciousness, it would be wrong to kill him. If he sleeps for a year, or ten, or twenty, needing only food, water, and shelter, then that’s what he should be given.
From your comment above, I gather that you believe unconscious but otherwise healthy persons should be subjected to “alternate courses of action,” which I reckon must mean killing. If so, I respectfully disagree. I hope it doesn’t mean we can’t be friends, and I trust I am not open to any charge of desiring to “animate the dead.”
Well, if you’re gonna have a moral absolute, you could do a lot worse than the inviolability of life.
Right. see that virtual moonbat robot thing that you designed? That’s a sentiment that’s very similar to the mindset that inspired its creation. The inviolability of non-violence. the inviolability of life. All “inviolable” principles are effing nuts.
Left-wing moonbats fetishize pacifism and non-violence over all courses of real world common sense, whereas apparently right-wing moonbats fetishize the animation of corpses.
You just advocated indefinitely “animating bodies without brains” after saying you “haven’t heard anyone advocate” such action. Your inability to distinguish between a brain stem that allows autonomic function and actual human consciouness when determining life puts you on the very fringe of opinion in this country, among leftwingers, rightwingers, everyone.
Have you ever grabbed a chameleon’s tail and had it twitch in your hand? This is an autonomic response. Closing your eyes when you sneeze? Autonomic response. the contortions of your lower intestine? Ditto.
Similarly, when is it wrong to remove artificial means to replace certain autonomic activity? Artificial swallowing? Digestive contractions? Breathing? Heartbeat? Kidney function? Liver detoxification?
How far shall we go to fetishize bodies that cannot keep themselves alive, in patients with missing brain function and no semblance of human consciousness?
From what you just said, all the way, all the time. And in the manner that you find that “killing” these people is “wrong,” I find keeping them alive with frankenscience to be sort of repellent. Also, incredibly naive and unrealistic within the context of our current medical system.
I mean, drawing these simplistic conclusions within the framework of incredibly complex situations is what bothers me about this entire issue.
PS - Not saying we “can’t be friends” or anything, of course. Just strikes me a silly to issue sweeping declarations and moral judgments about complex medical scenerios. Especially ones that most people haven’t gone through.
Bill, I’ve never been one to quibble over mere words. If calling the right to life ‘inviolable’ strikes you as nuts, how about ‘inalienable’?
Any artifical procedure may be refused if it is burdensome or dangerous disproportionate to the expected outcome. That goes for conscious as well as unconscious folks. You see? My insistence on giving water isn’t the slippery slope you make it out to be.
I agree. It would be sounder to start with simple axioms, and then try to apply these prudently to complex situations.
For anyone interested in medical thrillers and the topic of euthanasia,please consider my book, LETHAL DOSE. Although fiction, the topic is explored from all angles in the form of a thriller. LETHAL DOSE was the first novel to be accepted for review by JAMA, in it’s 120 year history. I am a board-certified surgeon who is very interested in this topic. If we as a society do legalize euthanasia, this makes the most sense to me. The novel is neither pro, nor con. It entertains the reader, while allowing a person to decide for themselves. LETHAL DOSE is available at Amazon.com.
Steven Snodgrass, M.D,
I will get that book “Lethal dose”
I am currently pres. of end-of-life choices (formerly Hemlock soc,)in west-central Florida; also am a retired pharmacist