Heartland

any thoughts?

genuinely interested and expecting polemic answers as should be in this instance

Evil. The whole case is evil and speaks of evils of modern medicine. She shouldn't be alive.

Anybody care to enlighten me?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 03,00.html

...unless of course he's talking about some other Ashley X.

If she's got permanent disabilities.. then maybe that was the only way for her parents to keep their control over helping her live. If she grew fully, their ability to help may have been hindered.

Hom_Corleone wrote:Anybody care to enlighten me?

Google? BBC news?
It really is a difficult matter. If the doctors are right, she will never notice anything is wrong with her and her life or body, and her family have it a lot easier to nurse her, which helps their health. A point that shouldn´t be underestimated. Unfortunately I know too well what I´m talking about here.
If they are wrong though..
Can you actually judge what state of conciousness anybody is in if he can´t comunicate with you?

There is nothing difficult in the matter from the point of view of nature. "Educated" (or should i say, ill-adviced, alienated, estranged) people will find the matter difficult because they are used to giving a f**k about nature and life and wanting their own way no matter what.
That is to say, the difficulty in the matter arises solely from people's own unnatural mindsets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_X

I am in no way qualified to even consider what is "right" in those circumstances.

itnAklipse wrote: That is to say, the difficulty in the matter arises solely from people's own unnatural mindsets.

And of course you know what is natural and what isn´t.
The only thing I understood about nature was that whenever you thought you had the answer for a question a closer look showed further questions.
That is naturual.

eotunun: i'm sorry, but everyone, and i do mean EVERYONE, knows what is the natural response to this. You claim you don't, but you do. You think the fact that you claim you don't makes you better, but that's not the case at all.
You are also happy when the issue is muddled by such things as modern medicine so you don't need to deal with nature and life.

It's obvious to everyone what should have been done at the birth of the child. Come hell or high water, i'll stand by this.

itnAklipse wrote:eotunun: i'm sorry, but everyone, and i do mean EVERYONE, knows what is the natural response to this. You claim you don't, but you do. You think the fact that you claim you don't makes you better, but that's not the case at all.

Your implications are as wrong as they can be.

itnAklipse - you might want to take a leaf out of Lucien's book.

What exactly are you proposing then, a return to the Spartan method of childrearing? Let me just be clear on this.

in This case, I think it was the most humane option.
This is beyond good or wrong, and no one is to blame for the situation. There are far more terrible ways to deal with this that are used every day.

boudicca wrote:itnAklipse - you might want to take a leaf out of Lucien's book.

What exactly are you proposing then, a return to the Spartan method of childrearing? Let me just be clear on this.

he's proposing euthanasia, a method used f. ex. by the nazis to exterminate so-called "unworthy life". Unworthy of course in the eyes of intaklipse.

What he's forgetting though is that the striving for medical progress is an inherent trait in human nature. If there's a medical possiblity it will be done. That's the nature of humans.

canon docre wrote:
he's proposing euthanasia, a method used f. ex. by the nazis to exterminate so-called "unworthy life". Unworthy of course in the eyes of intaklipse.

There's not exactly anything surprising about this sort of thing coming from him. Of course, the fact that it's not a surprise doesn't make it any less revolting.

I'm not getting involved in the other debate but how can anybody possibly know how the parents of this girl feel or how they cope with something like that. I would imagine anything to ease the burden would be a godsend. Nor can any of us speculate about the amount of love they have for their daughter.

Serious post over.

bueno, s'pose you were ashley... difficult to get into her skin of course...

I cannot judge her mental capacity, but just reading some of the stories here, I have the impression it's very low; meaning she mostly lives on 'feeling' and 'like-dislike' kinda things.

Then... I'd like to stay home with the folks in surroundings I know.

So, and this is just my boring and humble opinion, I'm by no means an expert in this matter, but I'd say they did the right thing.

canon docre wrote:

boudicca wrote:itnAklipse - you might want to take a leaf out of Lucien's book.

What exactly are you proposing then, a return to the Spartan method of childrearing? Let me just be clear on this.

he's proposing euthanasia, a method used f. ex. by the nazis to exterminate so-called "unworthy life". Unworthy of course in the eyes of intaklipse.

He doesn't seem to be talking so much about the Youth In Asia (which I personally tend to be supportive of) as eliminating the poor useless unfortunates at birth... Still awaiting clarification from the man himself.

canon docre wrote:What he's forgetting though is that the striving for medical progress is an inherent trait in human nature. If there's a medical possiblity it will be done. That's the nature of humans.

Whether that's a good or a bad thing I think you touch on a really important point there. Human beings cannot transcend, defeat or be in conflict with nature - we are PART of it. Our technology, our science, our medicine are all "natural". That's not to say we should push them all to their most ridiculous conclusions - but even when we do, it does nothing but demonstrate the follies and the weaknesses of human nature.

or triumph

boudicca wrote:

canon docre wrote:What he's forgetting though is that the striving for medical progress is an inherent trait in human nature. If there's a medical possiblity it will be done. That's the nature of humans.

Whether that's a good or a bad thing I think you touch on a really important point there. Human beings cannot transcend, defeat or be in conflict with nature - we are PART of it. Our technology, our science, our medicine are all "natural". That's not to say we should push them all to their most ridiculous conclusions - but even when we do, it does nothing but demonstrate the follies and the weaknesses of human nature.

thank you Bou for emphasising my thoughts with a lot more clearer & nice words.

boudicca wrote:itnAklipse - you might want to take a leaf out of Lucien's book.

He's certainly talking a load of sense here.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that I feel even remotely qualified to form any kind of personal opinion on this one. The best thing to do is just live and let live.

An emotional topic, but do not get overly emotional in responses. Complaints or concerns are coming in already that this thread is getting too heated. If you can not treat each other civilly, expect this thread to get locked. We already have another topic recently which got the best of some of us; we do not need a repeat performance.

well i hope it doesn't get locked, that would be too easy

i've been interested in all i've read so far, even the eugenics comments. i don't think any of us is qualified to comment in depth but all of us are entitled to an opinion

for her not to have been born is the easy way out, but she has been, so what now?

without medication, tampering with nature, my daughter would be dead, which wouldn't be nice and as she's a clever little thing, probably in the longterm a waste. Ashley is the absolute extreme of this situation and i can relate totally to the parents desire to cherish their 'pillow angel' and in doing so, making her more managable for them [their words]

anyway, as you were

paint it black wrote:without medication, tampering with nature, my daughter would be dead, which wouldn't be nice and as she's a clever little thing, probably in the longterm a waste. Ashley is the absolute extreme of this situation[their words]

As in so many issues of ethics it's (at least partly) a question of "where do you draw the line"? It didn't even occur to me, thinking about this topic, that as a premature baby I would never have survived more than a couple of days after birth had it not been for the tubes and wires that surrounded me in my very first pouting photograph...
I dare say there are many other people here who wouldn't be if not for various medical interventions.

It seems to be part of human nature to look for moral absolutes in matters like these. The irony is that in doing so, we develop beliefs and views which can override other natural impulses.
The urge human beings (and even other animals) feel to look after and sustain those who are weak - especially when dealing with one's own child - is not to be sniffed at. There can be little more natural than parents wanting their own flesh and blood to survive.

We are not a society on the edge of physical survival. If we were still living in caves, or we were nomads in some barren edge of the planet, we would have to discard our infirm if it was simply impossible (even dangerous) to help them. But we (in the West at least) are not living hand to mouth. We are in a situation where we can afford to devote time and resources to the weakest members of our society, it is a feature of civilization in much the same way as art, religion, philiosophy etc. are. I don't believe we are any more merciful than any other animal who would leave their weak offspring behind them without sentimentality - we have the same Darwinian instincts - but what sets us apart is that we can afford the luxury of compassion.

So in this situation, our decisions should be based on what will cause the least suffering to the individual and their immediate carers (as far as we can judge this). On a case by case basis - moral (and legal) absolutes may make thinking about it all in the abstract easier but God knows the misery they create for families and carers, as people who have no comprehension of their situation try and judge who's life is worth living and who's isn't.

The question must be, is this Ashley X suffering? Is she in great mental distress? Is she in great pain? It seems she can't communicate her feelings, but from the responses she does have, can we tell how she feels about being alive?
I don't get the impression, from the reports I've seen, that she is locked in some internal nightmare, that she wishes to be dead. That alone would suggest to me that she should live.

As far as her parents are concerned - I don't think we can possibly criticise them for wanting their daughter - terribly disabled or not - to live, provided it is not causing her distress. But the issue that's been raised by this case is not one of who should be allowed to live or die anyway, it's the stunting of her growth. I must say I find their reasoning very odd. She's 9 years old, she would probably not be more than a few stone heavier if she was fully grown, and maybe half a foot taller - so I fail to see the practical advantage. The benefits of the treatment do seem to be outweighed by the fact that it's just so drastic, and I'm surprised that any parents would want their child to have invasive (some would say mutilating) surgery just so they didn't have to strain quite so much when they picked her up.

I'd be very disturbed by this case if there was the suggestion that this little girl would ever have any awareness that she was not sexually mature, but it does seem that she will never be troubled by that. I'm still not comfortable with it as I fail to see why it needed to be done.

Btw, as might be somewhat related to the matter, i've always found the biblical story of Abraham extremely fascinating. Kierkegaard's treatise on it quite largely has influenced the development of my views on associated topics.

i'd go as far as to suggest everyone read it.

Regarding Ashley X, and this might not be related to PIB at all, as he mentions Ashley is an extreme case, what makes the whole thing more unpalatable to me, is the sheer idea that many people use a considerable amount of their time which they could use much more purposefully and meaningfully, in simply caring for a "person" whose life serves no purpose or meaning. Now as i say this, i am familiar with the feeling that it's not quite as simple as to deny any meaning and purpose of her life, but what purpose or meaning her life might serve is, i fear, out of the reach of any human being, unless of course she truly enrichens the life of her family, which i don't deny it might do, so as to make them "better people" on the whole. For some reason i am inclined to believe that that's not IT.
It's still hard for me to imagine that from natural atrocities good might come out of, illgained is illgained and that's that as far as i'm concerned. So far as the pillow angel angle goes, i don't think that's quite a dignified way for a human being to be considered. Actually i might think quite the opposite, that the whole issue merely degrades human life. Which is exactly the case with modern medicine anyway.

Boudicca mentions that it's not an issue of who is allowed to live or die. But to me, that is the issue, this issue of controlling her growth is a minor issue to me. And it's not about allowing to live or die, it's about artificially keeping alive.

And one more thing: what her parents do with her is entirely their business. The whole problem develops, in my mind, when modern medicine and media and do-gooders interfere. If they lived quietly without public attention and cared for her herself without raising issues in the minds of good people, i'd say the better for them if they make their own decisions.
If you were to ask me what is so horrible about modern medicine, i'd say it destroyes and disrupts the cycle of nature.

Now you can get your flamethrowers out.