Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by LinZ at 1:13 pm on Oct. 4, 2006 This stems from a discussion I'm having on another forum. Do you think it would be inhumane to euthanize people who are retarded, severely mentally disabled, or have any other kind of mental condition that would prevent them from caring for themselves in adulthood? I myself do not see a problem with this, to be honest...what reason is there to keep people alive who will be nothing but burdens to their families and everyone else? I'm not saying it's the person's fault for being born with some kind of mental condition, but is it fair to them to let them live when they'll never live normally? The parents are in part to blame, because they chose to spin nature's roulette wheel and conceive. Then you get the dumbasses who smoke, drink, and use drugs during pregnancy and wonder why they give birth to fucked-up babies. I do feel sorry for the ones who did not fill their bodies with substances that contributed to their child's condition, however. These parents will be wiping their adult child's ass when they could be enjoying retirement. It's bad enough caring for a kid for eighteen years, but caring for one its entire life is way too much. We don't even have the decency or compassion to euthanize those who are dying or who experience extreme amounts of pain while prior to imminent death, so I know there will never be a time when those who are mentally disabled will have this available to them. I just don't see how it's fair to bring a person into the world who will never have their own life because their minds remain in an infantile state. What do you think? Should parents have the option of euthanizing their mentally disabled children? -- Posted by CuMaige at 4:43 pm on Oct. 4, 2006 Having flashbacks to the mass exterminations of the Jews in pursuit of the Aryan race here.... My sister is severely mentally disabled.  As is my mother. is it fair to them to let them live when they'll never live normally? I am curious as to whether or not you have had any kind of experience with a mentally disabled person.  If you have, I would suggest you look deeper.  Just because a person is mentally disabled does not mean that they do not know fear, that they do not know pain, that they would somehow not sense that they were dying even at a very early age, or at the very least sense that something was wrong. Just because a person does not live normally does not mean that they don't enjoy life, that they don't cling to it as passionately as every other living soul on this Earth.  My sister for example is one of the most passionate people I know, one of the most brilliant minds I have ever come across (and she has an IQ significantly higher than my own as tested). She does not, nor will she ever live normally, but to deny her the life that she loves, a life that she fights for on a consistant basis is cruel and an unbelievable measure from any account. who will be nothing but burdens to their families and everyone else? Edgar Allen Poe had a severe mental condition.  As did many, many other famous people (sorry, I'm drawing a blank right now).  A burden to the world in some ways, perhaps, but who is to say that with every baby culled you would not be depriving the world of another brilliant mind? Interesting topic though.... -- Posted by azp at 9:45 pm on Oct. 4, 2006 The Tripartite Soul composes of three components which makes us human, Rational, Emtional, and Instinct. The definition for mentally disabled is defined; "disorder that affects cognitive or emotional functions to the extent that capacity for judgment is significantly diminished." For most part, the person lacks rationality and emtional depth. Which we can assume the state of conciousness and awareness is also diminished. Like Socrates stated "For man, the unexamined life is not worth living." Without conciousness, life cannot be examined, therefore I agreed with the argument and mentally disabled should have the right to be euthanized because I would simply rather die than to live a meaningless life. -- Posted by born to be king at 1:41 am on Oct. 5, 2006 Quote: from azp at 2:45 pm on Oct. 5, 2006 therefore I agreed with the argument and mentally disabled should have the right to be euthanized because I would simply rather die than to live a meaningless life. Though how can we judge that they see their own life like that to them their life is probably meaningful it is other people who are saying they are not.  Would this whole idea extend tot eh physically disabled who require aid from other people should we euthanise them?  I think this argument is inhumane and frankly quite disgusting to even consider pondering so I shall leave it there -- Posted by LinZ at 8:50 am on Oct. 5, 2006 I am curious as to whether or not you have had any kind of experience with a mentally disabled person.  If you have, I would suggest you look deeper.  Just because a person is mentally disabled does not mean that they do not know fear, that they do not know pain, that they would somehow not sense that they were dying even at a very early age, or at the very least sense that something was wrong. I don't mean someone with slight or mild mental problems - I'm not advocating killing off people with ADD. I mean severely disabled people, as in the ones who are basically vegetables. It's no different than keeping someone alive on life support when they can't survive on their own. I realize few, if any people die from mental disabilities by themselves, but the two scenarios fall on a somewhat similar plane. Would you keep someone alive when they have no chance of having a real life, as in, a life where someone doesn't need to constantly hold their hand? Edgar Allen Poe had a severe mental condition.  As did many, many other famous people (sorry, I'm drawing a blank right now).  A burden to the world in some ways, perhaps, but who is to say that with every baby culled you would not be depriving the world of another brilliant mind? I'm sorry, but someone who is so mentally disabled that they can only communicate by waving and grunting is not a brilliant mind. I'm not saying this was Poe's case, but there are people who are like this, and most cases are due to poor decisions on the mother's part during pregnancy (drugs, alcohol, etc.) -- Posted by schoon at 9:47 am on Oct. 5, 2006 My father works with these people, and many of them, however oblivious, spend their days happy. They are very much alive, and they enjoy what they can perceive of life, so it would be inhumane to kill them. -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 10:26 am on Oct. 5, 2006 Quote: from azp at 5:45 am on Oct. 5, 2006 For most part, the person lacks ... emtional depth. I strongly disagree. I work with special needs kids some of whom have mental disabilities that mean they can't function on their own. But to say they don't have the emotional depth that mainstream kids do have is simply not true. They have different ways of dealing with their emotions but this doesn't mean they don't feel the basic emotions that mainstream kids do. Which we can assume the state of conciousness and awareness is also diminished. That's a very big assumption which I feel is wrong. The vast majority of people with mental disabilities are equally aware and conscious of their surroundings as I am. I would simply rather die than to live a meaningless life. I find this particularly strange, because I hardly see how mainstream lives have any more or less "meaning" than the lives of people with mental disabilities. Most people with mental disabilities can feel a full range of emotion and can comprehend and be conscious of their surroundings. Just because they don't tell you aboue it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In the context of very, very severe mental retardation then it should be a judgement call for the legal guardian or next of kin if that doesn't apply. But I'm talking about vegetables here; people with such bad mental disabilities that they aren't conscious. -- Posted by straypussy at 10:52 am on Oct. 5, 2006 Its not fair that many mentally disabled people will never have a full life. I think that it should be up to the parents who make that desicion because it will be them who will presumably be having to take care of the person for the rest of their lives. Its a heavy burden to carry. I think it should be an option made available. -- Posted by Chava at 11:02 am on Oct. 5, 2006 I've wondered that before. But now I have a mentally disabled cousin, best friend, and alot of people that are around me with mental disabilties. They aren't really that different from us other than they can't reason  They also have some of the biggest hearts I've ever known in a person. It would be inhumane to let them die. -- Posted by bex101 at 12:33 pm on Oct. 5, 2006 i think rather than euthenasia i think it should be made more obvious the problems a child could have and emphasise how the child may suffer. i have OCD and aspergers syndrome and dont want to have kids because i dnt want to pass on any mental health problems, however i consider myself to be fit for parenting so will probably adopt or foster children. -- Posted by CuMaige at 4:53 pm on Oct. 5, 2006 I'm sorry, but someone who is so mentally disabled that they can only communicate by waving and grunting is not a brilliant mind. What of the autistic boy (I'm blanking on the name at the moment but will look it up and provide reference later) who did not communicate and could not communicate except through writing?  The boy who waved his arms frantically and never spoke a word until he wrote a book regarding his perspective? My point is that we simply do no know the expanse of the human mind -- disabled or not, and it is quite a leap to assume that because they do not outwardly express emotion in a socially interpretable fashion, that they do not experience the same existance as we do, whether they are "vegetables" or not. That's a very big assumption which I feel is wrong. The vast majority of people with mental disabilities are equally aware and conscious of their surroundings as I am. Bravo.  I would like to add to this that they also see things very differently than we do (ie: their brain is physically interpretting the stimuli recieved in a manner that is incomparable to you or I).  Just because we do not understand it (which we cannot assert that we do at this point) is no reason to irradicate it. -- Posted by rosebud at 12:37 am on Oct. 6, 2006 it is inhumane and immoral to kill anybody unless they are of sound mind and request it while having a good reason for doing so, and even then the morality of it is debatable. -- Posted by Midnight Frost at 10:22 pm on Oct. 9, 2006 I don't think its neccessary to euthanise someone who isn't even suffering as of yet. -- Posted by Bizilbur at 11:14 am on Oct. 11, 2006 No. Just give them the option of committing suicide. If their life sucks, then they'll take the option. If you're worried about spending resources on 'tards, then just don't spend any of your resources on 'tards. Simple as that. -- Posted by DaRareBlackNerd at 3:38 pm on Oct. 12, 2006 You can't miss what you've never had-their lives probably aren't nearly as bad as you might think.  Just because someone isn't capable of living what you may define as a full life, or life at all doesn't justify taking it away. For all we know, they might find their lives rather nice. I'd imagine that being severely mentally disabled after being fully-functional warranting euthanasia, but not from birth. -- Posted by InsaneBlue at 1:56 pm on Oct. 14, 2006 I do not think they should be euthanized. They are people after all, and it would be barbaric to kill them off, What we do need to do however, is seperate them from the rest of the people. Not totally, but I think they need to have their own schools. It seems to me the classes are often held back by these so called retarted people having scenes or just not being smart enough. The ones that are severely retarted have no business being in a class they won't learn anything in. Parents should also have the option to send them to institutions where they don't need to worry about them anymore. Think about it this way. These people are born, and they stay infants for their entire life.         There's also the matter of public opinion. Euthanizing retards will never be legal, for if it was, there would be no end to liberals complaining about it. Heck, there'd probably be a new breed of terrorists blowing stuff up in the name of these people. -- Posted by Bialor at 1:15 pm on Oct. 15, 2006 I don't think most mental disorders stop people from having at least some quality of life...I mean they enjoy life in their own way. Therefore they should not be allowed to die. However, I consider it wrong that babies who are born with terrible, terrible diseases that cause them to have non-stop pain and suffering, and have to endure operation after operation only to die at a very young age anyway, are not allowed to be gently put to sleep before they can suffer....but that is a whole other issue. -- Posted by beckster at 8:20 pm on Oct. 23, 2006 I'm going to screw reading everybody's posts and get to the point before I forget what I was going to say. Basically, have you ever gotten to know a mentally disabled person? Well I've worked with them for the past seven years as a volunteer, and now work full-time at an assisted living home with them, and I'm going to tell you that these are wonderful people. One of the men I work with is severely mentally retarded, at 46 he has the mental development of a 2 or 3 year old. Although he is nearly impossible to work with (especially since we have to help meet his needs while treating him as an adult) and his quality of life is not what you or I would expect from a 46 year old. I don't know, I guess I am pretty emotionally connected to this issue, but all of the people I work with are the most caring sweet people. So many people think that they have no personality, that just because they can't do what a "normal" person can do, they aren't really a person, that they shouldn't have to "suffer," but if you spent any amount of time with them you would understand that they have the exact same emotions as we do. They are still people. -Edit: As far as communication goes, just because they do not have vocal capabilities does not mean they have no clue what is going on. Another one of the residents communicates by nodding or shaking his head to yes or no questions, or using a handheld computer that speaks for him. -- Posted by pegger21 at 1:16 pm on Oct. 24, 2006 If we start killing people on the basis of mental capacity, where are we going to stop? Going down that road can lead to no good things. It's too bad that humans are cold enough to entertain ideas like this. We might as well kill with cancer, AIDS/HIV, or diabetes. Then we can work up to obese people and anyone that is retired. Then we can kill all the kids in orphanages and all the kids with only one parent. Then let's kill the parent for being stupid enough to have a kid. Society needs to respect the humanity of every person. -- Posted by Savage at 5:47 pm on Oct. 24, 2006 First off, there are many reasons why this desicion is not up to us in the first place. Quote: from DaRareBlackNerd at 3:38 pm on Oct. 12, 2006 You can't miss what you've never had I agree 100%. How can we compare their lives to ours, and base the desicion of allowing them to live or not on this, whenever they don't have the slightest idea of what our lives our like in the first place? Sure, they may see us as fully capable people, and may become jealous, but does that give us reason to kill them? I may be jealous of someone much more wealthy than me to the point of being in severe emotional distress, but are they going to kill ME to put me out of MY pain? No, so why should we do the same for them? No, I'm not saying that my pain can be compared to theirs by ANY means, I'm just saying that there are many other options open for these people besides death. Also, I don't think we are certified to even enforce our oppinions unless we ourselves are parents. We can not ask a mother to kill their child because of it's dissabilities. That child is not only a part of her, but is also a part of the father. I am currently training horses for a young couple who have three children. One of these is a severely dissabled boy, probably around the age of five. He is restrained to a wheelchair or stroller at all times because of his disease. Well, his mother brought him outside the other day, in his stroller, and I kept an eye on him while she went inside to get something. I must say, for having no communication besides literally waving his arms and making noises, he was one of the most happy children I have ever seen. He was SO interested in the world around him, I could just see the inquisition is his eyes. Ever for such a young age, I could see the lack of care for his dissability, and the interest in learning and exploring the world around him. Should we deny him this privelege simply because he would have to do it from a stroller or wheelchair? No, I don't believe that they should be euthanized because many people believe that their sould purpose in life is to have children; whether it be by conception, forster care or adoption; and to take care of these children with all of their hearts. If a parent does not see the need in spending the rest of their lives assuring their child a happy, constrictive future, than I'm sure there's someone else out there who would. -- Posted by IamNotBritish at 9:24 pm on Oct. 24, 2006 Regarding the parent's choice on euthanasia, I don't think a human being should ever have the choice to end another innocent human being's life. If the person is capable of killing themselves, I think that's fine (I'm a supporter of suicide), but intelligence, health, strength, or lack thereof, are never reasons to deprive someone of the choice to live. -- Posted by n0thing at 10:07 am on Oct. 25, 2006 I'm an intellectual now! She does not, nor will she ever live normally, but to deny her the life that she loves, a life that she fights for on a consistant basis is cruel and an unbelievable measure from any account. Edgar Allen Poe had a severe mental condition.  As did many, many other famous people (sorry, I'm drawing a blank right now).  A burden to the world in some ways, perhaps, but who is to say that with every baby culled you would not be depriving the world of another brilliant mind? My father works with these people, and many of them, however oblivious, spend their days happy. They are very much alive, and they enjoy what they can perceive of life, so it would be inhumane to kill them. I've wondered that before. But now I have a mentally disabled cousin, best friend, and alot of people that are around me with mental disabilties. They aren't really that different from us other than they can't reason  They also have some of the biggest hearts I've ever known in a person. It would be inhumane to let them die i have OCD and aspergers syndrome and dont want to have kids because i dnt want to pass on any mental health problems, however i consider myself to be fit for parenting so will probably adopt or foster children. I don't think most mental disorders stop people from having at least some quality of life...I mean they enjoy life in their own way. Therefore they should not be allowed to die. Ok, blah blah blah. We're talking about 'terri schiavos' here, i think. If you don't know who she is, go research it. Even people like Terri Schiavo who can't communicate or do anything are still human beings. That, in itself, is a good enough reason to let them live. But with people like her, you can't know whether she wanted to live or not. Do we pull the plug, and watch as the nutrients stop flowing through her feeding tube? Then do we wait until we see this: ____________? Did she even feel anything? Before they removed the tube, was she even really alive? -- Posted by Fluffay Bunnay at 12:02 pm on Oct. 29, 2006 Thank God, there are other people who have thought of this. I made the same statement a while back to my mother who thought I was satanic. Here's my thoughts: I think that parents should have the option of euthanasia. We have it for our pets and to some people pets are their children. I feel that it is somewhat cruel to have a severely mentally handicapped person living. First, they have no idea what the world is or will ever be able to. They can't feed themselves or even learn. If a dog becomes so challenged or even injured [with their mind totally still intact] people will have them euthanized because it is cruel to let a living being suffer. Suffering doesn't just consist of pain, but also living a life of retardation. I do no think however, that because someone can't learn they should be put to sleep, but someone that can't get up, can't talk, and can't know. I've met a few mentally challenged people and feel sorry for them simply because they will never understand the real nature of life. They will enjoy things that we all will such as the beach and a sunset, but never love, have children, pay a bill, or even shop alone. I could see myself adopting a mentally challenged girl or boy, one that has the capacity to learn some things and live a nearly normal life, but not someone so handicapped they could never do anything alone, even the simplest of tasks. So yes, I think they should have the option to have their loved child escape the cruel world. We have it for our pets, why not our children who may bare the same problems? However, I also think that since they ARE living beings too that they should be able to have the chance of living life like anyone else. This is a hard topic, but I would 60% say yes. -- Posted by ichasecarz at 10:33 pm on Oct. 29, 2006 Just because a person may be a little less capable than people like you or I, it does not make them any less of a person. And who are you to decide what kind of illness makes a person disabled? Am I disabled because I have panic disorder and depression? -- Posted by Fluffay Bunnay at 6:52 am on Oct. 30, 2006 You're missing the point IChaseCarz. It isn't for people that are less of people, it is for those who are so mentally challenged that they are practicly vegitables. Not those who will never move out or can't drive, but those who just have to sit in a chair their whole lives etc... -- Posted by morriss30 at 8:32 am on Oct. 30, 2006 Quote: from CuMaige at 5:43 pm on Oct. 4, 2006 Having flashbacks to the mass exterminations of the Jews in pursuit of the Aryan race here.... My sister is severely mentally disabled.  As is my mother. is it fair to them to let them live when they'll never live normally? I am curious as to whether or not you have had any kind of experience with a mentally disabled person.  If you have, I would suggest you look deeper.  Just because a person is mentally disabled does not mean that they do not know fear, that they do not know pain, that they would somehow not sense that they were dying even at a very early age, or at the very least sense that something was wrong. Just because a person does not live normally does not mean that they don't enjoy life, that they don't cling to it as passionately as every other living soul on this Earth.  My sister for example is one of the most passionate people I know, one of the most brilliant minds I have ever come across (and she has an IQ significantly higher than my own as tested). She does not, nor will she ever live normally, but to deny her the life that she loves, a life that she fights for on a consistant basis is cruel and an unbelievable measure from any account. who will be nothing but burdens to their families and everyone else? Edgar Allen Poe had a severe mental condition.  As did many, many other famous people (sorry, I'm drawing a blank right now).  A burden to the world in some ways, perhaps, but who is to say that with every baby culled you would not be depriving the world of another brilliant mind? Interesting topic though.... I know exactly what you mean my sister has a severe mentally dabilitating condition known as cerebral palsie and dude its called eugenics when you sterlize people who are by your standards sub human and when you kill them its called crimes against humanity FUCK YOU And GET THE FUCK OUT OF THESE FORUMS AND JUST ARGH YOU DON"T COUNT AS A HUMAN BEING IN MY BOOK -- Posted by Fluffay Bunnay at 9:01 am on Oct. 30, 2006 Well Morriss I never want to hear of you putting your dog or cat to sleep for any reason, got that? That would be a crime against humanity! -- Posted by n0thing at 9:47 am on Oct. 30, 2006 I know exactly what you mean my sister has a severe mentally dabilitating condition known as cerebral palsie and dude its called eugenics when you sterlize people who are by your standards sub human and when you kill them its called crimes against humanity FUCK YOU And GET THE FUCK OUT OF THESE FORUMS AND JUST ARGH YOU DON"T COUNT AS A HUMAN BEING IN MY BOOK Dammit! Read the whole damn topic before you make idiotic posts. It might make you sound a little smarter. We're not talking about fucking quadraplegics(sp?) We're talking about terri schiavo's! Anyways. What makes a human a human? That's the question that needs to be answered. Does a brain constitute humanity? If so, having a brain that doesn't work makes you sub-human, and it's ok to euthanize someone. But if it's something more, like a soul or a beating heart or the ability to feel, then the situation becomes much more difficult. How can we determine whether Terri Schiavo felt happiness or sadness? She couldn't express those feelings, but what if they were in her searching for a way to escape? -- Posted by Hoop Jargon at 3:54 pm on Oct. 31, 2006 We as humans don't have the right to make that decision,  we don't have the ability either.   Yeah,  putting down retarded kids is all fine,   until you have your own kid that may be retarded,   you wouldn't be talking in that manor then I assure you.   Euthanising mentally disabled babies is giving up on them before there was ever any hope,   It's hard on the families and even the kids themselves,  but one day their could be a cure.  And in the end,  what right do we have not too deny them a life?   -- Posted by LinZ at 7:08 am on Nov. 6, 2006 Here's something somewhat in support of the question originally posed in this topic: LONDON -- A leading British medical college has called on the health profession to consider euthanasia for seriously disabled newborns.    The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has said that "active euthanasia" should be considered to spare parents the emotional and financial burdens of bringing up such children.    "A very disabled child can mean a disabled family," it says in a formal submission. "If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome."    The call comes in the college's submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which is conducting an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborns.    The submission states: "We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management of options available to the sickest of newborns."    It is not officially calling for the introduction of active euthanasia, but wants it openly debated.    The proposal has been supported by several leading geneticists and medical ethicists.    Joy Delhanty, a professor of human genetics at University College London, said: "I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are going to suffer many months or years of ill-health."    But John Wyatt, a consultant neonatalologist at University College London hospital, called the proposal "social engineering."    "Once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice, you change the fundamental nature of medicine," he said. But of course, these parents must be unbelievably selfish for not wanting to care for their precious little miracles, even if they are extraordinarily fucked up. Heaven forbid one be so self-centered as to think of their own life. The sickest of people is who this topic applies to, not people who have mild Asperger's or autistic tendancies (although there are probably some parents who wish they could put their autistic brats down occasionally). Pages: 1 2  Next