Bringing bioethics to my students, wherever they may be.
Course material for Wake Forest University, PHI 161: Introduction to Bioethics.
Note: The views, ideas, and comments shared on this channel do not reflect or represent the opinions or commitments of Wake Forest University. The materials included on this channel are developed by Nicholas Colgrove with the intent of contributing towards the continuation of PHI 161, during a time when the coronavirus pandemic has made it impossible to continue class in person.
As students have been told, this instance of PHI 161 is designed to provide a charitable (fair) discussion of a variety of perspectives in bioethical discussions (though, to be clear, fairness does not entail an absence of criticism). As such, many of the arguments and ideas presented here will be presented in a descriptive way (as opposed to being advocated or endorsed).
Пікірлер
Laura's here
How does the metaphysical view that a fetus is numerically identical to its adult self relevant to the fetus’ moral status? What property (other than species and dna) does a human fetus possess that affords it moral status and rights?
This was recommended by my ethics teacher for the philsophy essay thank you for your hard work!
If you would ever like to talk to me about my disabilities, epilepsy, autism, and learning disability I am open to explaining how I see all three of my disabilities as positive.
Whoever Savulescu is, his argument is absolutely pathetic and idealism. Why do so many so-called experts suggest we accelerate the pace to human extinction like Savulescu? Mutations that persist in the human gene pool enhance the adaptability of the population as a whole and accelerates the pace of evolution. So terminate the mutations or neglect them, we lose adaptation to change, and accelerate the pace to extinction since we won’t be able to adapt to environmental changes. This Savulescu would terminate the sickle-cell, the sickle-cell mutation protects people from malaria infections, I don’t see it as coincidental that malaria and sickle-cell are becoming more dominant in the same locations. Remove CCR5, you make them immune to HIV infections but significantly more susceptible to West Nile disease. Savulescu is either, unqualified, thick, and careless since he’s suggesting we terminate genetic diversity.
Great video thank you just doing a masters piece on the subject
The biggest flaw factually is premise one... No one is identical to their fetal self despite having once been one. The reason is obvious, because you're not anymore, something has changed therefore not identical. The identity of indiscernible states that no two things are exactly the same (identical) in every regard. Two points in time (fetal and adult) are clearly describing differences not identicals. Also... your fetal self could have resulted in many variations of that same person from happenstance, environment, choices, opportunity, fortune, mishap and other factors outside the genetic you. A single path is not implied here. And what is true for this, is also true for any other fetus which is inconsistent. Bob is not Nick, only in one specific path. Lastly, this premise automatically presumes the point it is trying to make as already true which is circular reasoning... making a scenario where a future self goes back in time arguing against the abortion of their fetal self is assuming that future self is guaranteed. It is not. This is what abortion is seeking to do already, meaning aborting a fetus, means no future person, therefore this analogy doesn't exist because that future person is impossible and never came to be. Pregnancy does not guarantee a living baby, far from 100%. Presuming that during a pregnancy is the tragedy when an expecting couple loses the pregnancy or has a still birth, because it never came to be, not that it was already but not anymore. Wishful thinking is good to an extent but when arguing or debating reality such as abortion, wishful thinking is a fallacy and is an argument from imagination through hasty conclusions and circular reasoning.
"The biggest flaw factually is premise one... No one is identical to their fetal self despite having once been one. The reason is obvious, because you're not anymore, something has changed therefore not identical. The identity of indiscernible states that no two things are exactly the same (identical) in every regard. Two points in time (fetal and adult) are clearly describing differences not identicals." This is a misunderstanding. Pruss didn't argue that his fetal-self and his adult-self have zero differences. Rather, he argued that they are _numerically identical,_ meaning that they are one and the same being. For example, I am numerically identical to myself from yesterday even though there are differences between yesterday-me and today-me. "Also... your fetal self could have resulted in many variations of that same person from happenstance, environment, choices, opportunity, fortune, mishap and other factors outside the genetic you. A single path is not implied here. And what is true for this, is also true for any other fetus which is inconsistent. Bob is not Nick, only in one specific path." This is irrelevant. If fetuses grow up to be beings who have either the properties of personhood or the the right to life as an _essential property,_ then they had these properties at all moments of their existence, including while they were still fetuses. "Lastly, this premise automatically presumes the point it is trying to make as already true which is circular reasoning... making a scenario where a future self goes back in time arguing against the abortion of their fetal self is assuming that future self is guaranteed." Again, irrelevant. You do not understand how the inference of the argument works. You should read Pruss's actual paper on the argument for a better understanding.
@@mnmmnm925 "This is a misunderstanding. Pruss didn't argue that his fetal-self and his adult-self have zero differences. Rather, he argued that they are numerically identical, meaning that they are one and the same being. For example, I am numerically identical to myself from yesterday even though there are differences between yesterday-me and today-me. " A numerical identity is as good as saying a number without describing the units. One. One what? 1 is 1. Meaning 1 is numerically identical to 1 as is any other number. That, is a useless distinction to make which is what I was pointing out. 1 dollar is not equal to 1 diamond, 1 born alive human is not equal to 1 preborn human. Despite they all have 1 quantifying the number of units present. "This is irrelevant. If fetuses grow up to be beings who have either the properties of personhood or the the right to life as an essential property, then they had these properties at all moments of their existence, including while they were still fetuses. " What you said is actually the irrelevant part of it. Directly pertinent to their existence as a being with rights and personhood, that ends at them, to which the woman who is using her own biological bodily functions inherent to her own existence allows the fetus to continue to exist through the very same processes that keep her alive. This is not irrelevant, it's actually the opposite, irrefutably paramount. Her breathing, heartbeat, brain activity, metabolism, blood pressure and other vital functions that keep her alive allow her to stay alive and also umbrella those functions to the fetus that cannot yet do it for themselves (she eats, drinks, breathes, digests, moves, etc for both). It actually doesn't matter that the fetus is a person, with rights, because you argue they are inalienable and essential, which means hers are just as inalienable and essential otherwise you contradict the very equal argument you claim exists for the fetus in reducing hers. Meaning numerically identical is actually the irrelevant argument. The difference matter, and the differences mean, one is out of luck, while the other isn't. Flip floping it to make it seem like the opposite that the woman must compensate is in direct contradiction to the argument being made for the fetus. Hence, a self losing argument. The differences >> the sameness. None of which are unjust, inhumane nor disprovable. The harsh reality of a stalemate between the two people with rights, shows that one will continue to survive just fine, while the other is doomed, and an inequity aside from basic human rights therefore cannot be resolved using basic human rights. "Again, irrelevant. You do not understand how the inference of the argument works. You should read Pruss's actual paper on the argument for a better understanding." Yours as well as Pruss' is far from a inferential argument, but an unrealistic presumptuous one that defies scientific reality, and the nature of human reproduction as well as how it works. First science must be accurately defined, then morals based on the science. A woman in her own existence, biology, reality, reproductive power, all new humans rely on her ability to carry that pregnancy and is protected at her complete discretion before pregnancy, and thus cannot be diminished after a pregnancy that went against her initial discretion to not intend/want/ever be pregnant was circumvented to begin with. This is known as autonomy (not bodily autonomy, just autonomy)...rights protect everyone's autonomy meaning aspects of existence that are self serving, without any involvement of another party (such as vital functions, organs, servitude, property, expression). Once again, you have the irrelevant argument here, far from inferential, and far from anything provable and scientifically pertinent.
@@gb213 “A numerical identity is as good as saying a number without describing the units. One. One what? 1 is 1. Meaning 1 is numerically identical to 1 as is any other number. That, is a useless distinction to make which is what I was pointing out. 1 dollar is not equal to 1 diamond, 1 born alive human is not equal to 1 preborn human. Despite they all have 1 quantifying the number of units present.” This is not what “numerical identity” means. Numerical identity means that A and B are the same thing, not that A and B are equal in quantity. For example, Clark Kent is numerically identical to Superman. In contrast, two blueberries are not numerically identical to two strawberries. It’s hard to get the discussion off the ground if you don’t even know standard philosophical terminology. “What you said is actually the irrelevant part of it. Directly pertinent to their existence as a being with rights and personhood, that ends at them, to which the woman who is using her own biological bodily functions inherent to her own existence allows the fetus to continue to exist through the very same processes that keep her alive. This is not irrelevant, it's actually the opposite, irrefutably paramount. Her breathing, heartbeat, brain activity, metabolism, blood pressure and other vital functions that keep her alive allow her to stay alive and also umbrella those functions to the fetus that cannot yet do it for themselves (she eats, drinks, breathes, digests, moves, etc for both). It actually doesn't matter that the fetus is a person, with rights, because you argue they are inalienable and essential, which means hers are just as inalienable and essential otherwise you contradict the very equal argument you claim exists for the fetus in reducing hers.” I’m glad you acknowledge the fetus is a person. And no, we aren’t reducing any of the pregnant woman’s rights. Neither men nor women nor fetuses are allowed to make a decision with their body that *_intentionally_* harms or kills another innocent person. “Yours as well as Pruss' is far from a inferential argument, but an unrealistic presumptuous one that defies scientific reality, and the nature of human reproduction as well as how it works. First science must be accurately defined, then morals based on the science.” Science doesn’t say anything about morality. And I don’t know why you’re claiming we “defy scientific reality” - no one has made any judgements on science or espoused scientific claims. You make a lot of category errors. “A woman in her own existence, biology, reality, reproductive power, all new humans rely on her ability to carry that pregnancy and is protected at her complete discretion before pregnancy, and thus cannot be diminished after a pregnancy that went against her initial discretion to not intend/want/ever be pregnant was circumvented to begin with. This is known as autonomy (not bodily autonomy, just autonomy)...rights protect everyone's autonomy meaning aspects of existence that are self serving, without any involvement of another party (such as vital functions, organs, servitude, property, expression). Once again, you have the irrelevant argument here, far from inferential, and far from anything provable and scientifically pertinent.” No, our autonomy is not absolute nor does it take precedence over all other things. For example, we stop people from committing suicide, because life takes precedence over autonomy. And nothing you said was “scientifically pertinent’; the claims you’re making are ethical in nature, not scientific. Do you know the difference?
@@mnmmnm925 "This is not what “numerical identity” means. Numerical identity means that A and B are the same thing, not that A and B are equal in quantity. For example, Clark Kent is numerically identical to Superman. In contrast, two blueberries are not numerically identical to two strawberries. It’s hard to get the discussion off the ground if you don’t even know standard philosophical terminology." You're right. I actually did not know that, though it is a bit nonsensical because it brute forces two things into a word that means sameness. According to philosophy, a numerical identity "It is contrasted with qualitative identity which simply means that an object has all the same properties or qualities." to which still doesn't explain your point any better than what I described. A fetus does not have the same properties nor qualities as a born alive humans (born alive have more, that's what development does; clark kent and superman have the same properties and qualities), reason being that is why it is still and needs to develop further inside the woman's body (clark kent has also needed to be superman secretly without changing his clothes, a fetus doesn't do this). These differences matter and still outweigh this philosophical claim that they somehow have some arbitrary equal standing when it comes to terminating a pregnancy and nonsensical to parallel it to a fictional character changing clothes... To clarify, a "numerical identity" refers to two members in a set sharing some basic fundamental commonalities defined by the set they belong to, but not a complete/entire commonality with each other overall. This is known as extensionality. This is elaborated with its complementary term known as intensionality, the members of that set having different descriptions aside from their basic parameters of how they were grouped, thus requiring additional explanation that cannot be described in relevance by itself to the entire set it belongs to (requires extensionality). Logically, a numerical identity in your use of the unborn is extensional but not intensional, the intension of a fetus vs a born alive human matter more despite they both belong to the set of living humans when it comes to abortion. Extensionality example would be the factors of I.E. 18 (identical) , the intensionality (identical is not correct to use here) would be the various numbers in the set [ 1 is not 2 is not 3 is not 6 is not 9 is not 18] they are all integer factors of 18. And as factors they're all valid, but in some context we might use some over others, and in abortion that is exactly what is being argued, not against being in the set but the difference between members in the set and why that matters over the equality of validity of being in the set. (intensionality). Logic >> philosophy. "I’m glad you acknowledge the fetus is a person. And no, we aren’t reducing any of the pregnant woman’s rights. Neither men nor women nor fetuses are allowed to make a decision with their body that intentionally harms or kills another innocent person." Yes, indeed, I am not someone who argues against that it isnt a human being, I am someone that argues it doesn't matter especially from a equal point of argumentation. The fact the fetus cannot live without the woman's own bodily functions that keep her alive is neither killing nor harm. Suppose we simply remove the fetus from the mother, we surgically excise the uterine tissue that disconnects the fetus from her, then gently and carefully remove it from her. Thus terminating her pregnancy, which she has every right to do, nothing was done to the fetus' body, everything was done to her. The fact it will no longer survive without her body is neither descriptive of harm nor killing. This is the inequalities I was speaking of, you cannot argue in any ethical way demanding her body and it's functions for another (were not talking about bottles and blankets, were talking literal breathing, eating, heartbeat, drinking, digestion, physical viscerality etc). The rest of the world is welcome to bring all the medicine, eqiupment, methods to try and save that fetus after it is removed from her body, but failure to successfully save that fetus from doom is not liable on the woman (who never wanted it there in the first place) nor the doctors removing the fetus non violently (providing a treatment to restore her body to a state she wishes it to be in). Her choice being her body, the surgery being applied to only her body, the fetus not able to survive without her, you cannot connect those dots using the points of equality and dignity you posit for the fetus without compromising hers. Hence numerical identity can indeed apply, but as you can see, the difference matter more. To which isn't killing, harming nor murder, that fetus would still be whole, ALIVE and unharmed and has the chance for any efforts made to continue to care for it and live on, just using not her body and its functions. That choice is incontestably hers to make freely. You don't have the right to directly kill someone on your property just because you don't want them there, but you can have police come and remove them for you, despite they cannot survive outside your home, they can be brought to a homeless shelter, a hospital or anywhere else capable of caring for them, you have no responsibility to. You have a right to your property, they don't, the woman has right's to her body, the fetus doesn't, it has it's own equal rights to it's own body, and ethically there is no argument against escorting someone out of someone else's property and even moreso removing someone from someone elses body and certainly not in an unwilling pregnancy. "No, our autonomy is not absolute nor does it take precedence over all other things. For example, we stop people from committing suicide, because life takes precedence over autonomy. And nothing you said was “scientifically pertinent’; the claims you’re making are ethical in nature, not scientific. Do you know the difference?" Our autonomy is absolutely absolute. We don't force people to not commit suicide, strapping them down, imprisoning them, or convicting them of a crime just because they're suicidal, we encourage, suggest, support, provide, counsel, guide, reason and convince them through their own autonomy not to, never force. We TALK them off the ledge, they either jump or step down from it... That's the difference, you clearly don't seem to know the difference. It's called suicide watch, not governance, suicide awareness, not thought policing, suicide prevention, not punishment. Just like you don't seem to know the difference between failing to save someone, versus killing and harming someone. If a person despite every reasonable effort takes their life, no one is to blame, that is a failure to save, and nonetheless a tragedy still, but no one had a duty to personally make sure by force on them to forcefully ensure the victim didn't. Can YOU separate those concepts? Abortion results in a dead human, that is tragic, but what you need to understand is that arguing killing and harm requires proof, to which deals with the methodologies of abortion and not what abortion does. So arguing against physical harm, the current methods bring is valid, but it doesn't remove abortion as a procedure to which simply removing the fetus from her body using her body is not the same and still sustains the validity of abortion overall. Meaning you argue against dismemberment, tearing apart, etc but then by doing so narrow it down to removing the fetus from her body and despite all efforts watching it struggle helplessly into certain doom without her because her body was never up for debate here and is not to be blamed. Which is why you argue only for the fetus and leave out the woman entirely. Failing to save is not killing or harm. And her body is not/was never ethically part of that discussion in any just or valid context. After the fetus is removed from her body, the entire world is welcome to be informed and encouraged to help what better place to medically help someone than in a clinic or a healthcare setting, so no more violent methods sure, but removing the fetus from her is still yet to be rationally argued against.
Amazing explanation bro!
This was so helpful! Thank you very much, I just subscribed
Showing respect and giving adequate consideration to a doctor who has scientific knowledge by patients who do not have a scientific education is not yielding to paternalism. It is wise. Doctors should assume most patients have sufficient mental capacity to make decisions for themselves unless a mental health professional verifies their incapacity. Most patients know what is best for them, and what options of care they wish to pursue. Adults should indicate in an Advance Healthcare Directive (also called a LIving Will or a POLST document) what kind of medical care they would like to have if they lose mental capacity. In this way doctors and family members will know what the patient would wish.
Your explanation was very helpful for my nursing course
In the case of abortion, you have two moral imperatives in direct conflict: the right to life (the zygote/foetus/embryo/baby, delete for preference - "the child") vs the right to bodily autonomy (the mother). In fact, the latter right also applies to "the child". When two moral imperatives clash, you have to sort them into a hierarchy - you have to prioritise them. The right to life supersedes the right to bodily autonomy. You cannot have bodily autonomy if you are dead. You may not secure your bodily autonomy at the cost of another's life (? - see below). This is why the "violinist argument" is a failure as a "pro-choice" argument. How I came to be hooked-up to the violinist such that they would die if I unhooked myself is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not it was voluntary or involuntary. What matters is that I *am* hooked-up to them and if I unhook myself, they will die. That would be murder. In the case of pregnancy and in the hypothetical of the "violinist argument", bodily autonomy is only being infringed to the extent of temporary inconvenience and manageable health risk. Neither of these downsides weigh heavily enough on the scales to justify murder. In the case of Fritzl's cellar, bodily autonomy is being infringed to the extent of s**ual assault, imprisonment and slavery. Would murder be justified? Each of us must wrestle with our conscience, and the religious among us must also look to their faith, to answer that question. No such agonising is required in the case of abortion. Of course, the foregoing assumes that it is taken for granted that "the child" - at whatever stage of development - is both human and alive. Whether or not one shares that assumption is a different and earlier stage in the debate. This is another failure of the "violinist argument". The violinist is the analogous counterpart of "the child", yet the "violinist argument" implicitly accepts without debate that the violinist is both human and alive. A key pro-choice argument has been omitted from the analogy, i.e. that "the child" is neither human nor alive - depending on their stage of development (which varies depending on the pro-choice advocate). By choosing to formulate a thought-experiment in which the proxy for "the child" is both human and alive by even the most rigorous pro-choice standards, a point is being conceded to the pro-life position. It is also interesting that the proxy for "the child" is not just "the man on the Clapham omnibus" but is instead a highly esteemed musical virtuoso, an individual acclaimed and valued by society. This is either a subconscious admission that all of the pre-born are morally valuable, or a (hopefully) accidental assertion by implication of logic that only those who are considered valuable by society are worthy of life; specifically in the case of "the child", their moral value is entirely dependent on the subjective determination of the mother, essentially on the shifting basis of her mood. Only if she considers "the child" morally valuable does it attain that status. Given that the ineptly formulated thought-experiment has already conceded by analogy that "the child" is both human and alive, the subsequent moral contingency and relativism applied to the value of human life is, at the societal level, fascistic.
What's it called if I vanish into thin air w/o a trace, but by design? answer: last wishes. duh.
Premise 1 is false according to the psychological continuity account of personal identity which is accepted by the vast majority of professional philosophers. No one who holds that account of personal identity thinks that killing an organism is bad UNLESS you thereby affect a person (which is defined in terms of psychological continuity). So the argument is either equivocating and is thus invalid or it's blatantly question-begging against the commonly accepted account of personal identity
I'm not sure that psychological continuity is the prevailing theory, but even if it were it wouldn't be question begging to assume another theory in this defense. It would likely devalue the quality of the defense, but it wouldn't be fallacious.
The bulk od Pruss's 2011 paper is spent addressing psychological accounts of personal identity. You should read it
Thank you so much for making this video. you flimed this three years agao but you save my final paper today! Shout out to Bioethics on Demand!!! <3
You do not seem to be asking what the individual who may die would prefer. Killing an individual who does not wish to die is generally immoral. Helping an individual to die who wishes to die is an act of compassion. There is such a thing as a fatal illness, and there is also the phenomenon of a completed life. Why just wait to be taken out by an illness? Why not self-determine? Our generation has been making decisions that former generations could not even imagine.
So if i were to harm myself in the context of self harm that would be okay because its my body and my autonomy? Dont you think we as humans dont usually know whats best for us? What if today i feel like im in so much pain and agony and it wont end and its better if my life ends instead and then there is a way out and i lose at that just because i had an option to end my life.
@@zeenyakhan334 As of 2022, 11 countries have implemented medical aid in dying laws, with more considering it. Each of these countries has set up what they consider adequate guidelines for ethical practice. Some countries allow broader guidelines than others as they learn from one another. We should be talking about how these countries address voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary medical aid in dying. Humans usually know what is best for us, given adequate education.
The U.S. healthcare system is an abhorrent nightmare. The government has all but insured poor experiences are likely. The entire concept of requiring prescriptions to acquire drugs is unequivocally unconstitutional in and of itself. The FDA, DEA and other entities have their own agendas, and they do not rest in our benefit, only to our detriment. Doctors' inappropriately got tens of millions hooked on dangerous opioids for decades, but as the scope of the crisis began to crystalize and set in; suddenly the pendulum had been swung in the other direction, violently and without the best interests of, for instance, chronic pain pts, they are among the most vulnerable, yet we treat them like criminals, as opposed to human beings with legitimate medical needs to be addressed. A PhD and residency does not entitle one to play God. This entire debate needs to end by the clear legal implications of the enormous barriers imposed on pts, allegedly for their own good. Paternalism is a benefit when a pt is genuinely unable to make competent decisions, under anesthesia, in the midst of a coma, etc. Paternalism is a gross miscarriage of personal autonomy when the pt is capable of making sound decisions, regardless of the occasional disagreement between provider and pts. Freedom of choice in healthcare is non-existent, it's the pts right to do as they wish, it is THEIR life, bottom line.
Fellow philosophy prof here. This was excellent. Thanks.
What is “person” shorthand for? Developmental level I suppose.
Person or not, it does not matter. Even if a fetus was officially recognized as a person, noone is obligated to let another person use their body, even if this would be to save their life. When it comes to ones own physical and psychological health and freedom, it is perfectly understandable and acceptable to do what needs to be done for self-preservation.
Here is my counter argument. Yes a mother has an obligation to take care of her young as best as she can. The unborn has a right to exist in their proper place and that’s the uterus that’s proper function is to bare a child. As her own body welcomes this offspring. So my question is do you believe the mother has zero obligation to the unborn along with anyone else ?
This is a very interesting topic. Prior to watching the video, I held the opinion that physicians shouldn’t always tell the truth. However, this doesn’t mean they should lie to their patients. Watching this video changed that view because I now believe that it is important to always tell patients the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In general, physicians have an ethical obligation to tell patients the truth. This is known as the principle of veracity, which requires for physicians to be truthful and transparent with their patients. This is important because patients need the whole truth to make medical decisions. If patients don’t have all the accurate information regarding their care, their decision will be misinformed. We, as a society, expect a Tylenol bottle to list how much, who can consume, or side effects of what can happen if consumed. Why shouldn’t we expect the same from our physicians who took an oath to support our health and well-being? Not to compare doctors to a Tylenol container, but physicians are obligated to follow that same ethical truthful telling. Again, this is important because patients have the right to make informed decisions about their care. Without accurate information, patients may not be able to make decisions that are in their best interests. Additionally, telling the truth is necessary to maintain trust between physicians and their patients. Patients come to physicians because they trust and rely on their physicians to provide them with accurate and reliable information, and if physicians are not truthful, this can undermine the patient-physician relationship. I understand the difficulty of being truthful in certain situations such as delivering bad news or discussing sensitive topics. However, even in these situations, physicians have an obligation to be truthful while being sensitive and attentive to the patient’s emotions. Some will also argue the situation of withholding information can be justifiable, such as when a patient is capable of causing harm to oneself or others. In these situations, I may approach it differently, but I would still be truthful to my patient.
Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me" John 14:6. "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord (Jesus Christ) shall be saved" Romans 10:13 although we followed darkness Jesus toke our sins on the cross and died for us while we were living against him. Perfect example of paternalism. Now because of Jesus lives are changed and restored,
The arguments for active euthanasia tend to frequently focus on just the individual requesting it and largely ignore what the act means for other involved parties such as the physician. Voluntary euthanasia has consequences that go beyond the patient just like involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia has major consequences for the very definition of medicine and its role in society. The goal of medicine should remain what it has been traditionally which is to promote and preserve human health. It should not be used as a tool to just “relief the suffering that stems from life itself and not merely from a sick body”. I also agree with Callahan that active euthanasia introduces a new category of killing that is distinct from the three “accepted” types of killing; capital punishment, killing in war, and killing in self-defense. I do also agree that it goes against the current societal efforts of restricting the circumstance under which one person can take the life of another. As a society that is overburdened with killings, we should not be allowing the introduction of a new category of killing. The argument of allowing euthanasia out of respect for patients’ autonomy is simply not compatible with the practice of medicine. The practice of medicine isn’t just about going along with anything a patient requests even if said patient is fully competent. If this was the case, then there would be no need for the expertise of a physician. If this was the case, a physician would amputate all limbs of a patient who wants their limbs amputated for the simple reason of just wanting to amputate their limbs. Furthermore, Callahan is right in saying that active euthanasia is “no longer a matter only of self-determination”. It is definitely a mutual social decision between the patient and the physician who is being asked to do the killing.
Having a doctor cut off you limbs is not only a straw man, but really more than that, it's ridiculous. One is rational, one is not. Why bring up such an argument. But this whole argument is really fake. No one NEEDS a doctor to kill themselves, we just need the government to get out of the way and stop making the medicine impossible to get. The doctor does not have to approve it or stick a needle in me. Just give people the opportunity to have access to medicine. Who can get it? Why not any competent adult? Are doctors Gods? Let chemists give it then. Or just let doctors who want to do it. Or make a special category of professional. End of life specialists. Or just give people freedom over their own lives. My illness was CAUSED by doctors by the way. The medicine they gave me, which I did not even need, backfired. So they literally caused the illness and now they say "not my problem". Thats absolute B.S. Do you realize many chronic pain disorders are caused by pharmacueticals? By doctor surgical mistakes? Misdiagosis? Can we at least put these in a separate category, since they already messed up the "do no harm" in an enormous way.
If you don’t choose to come into the world, you should be able to choose to leave it. Just like you pay to have a nurse help deliver a baby, one should be able to pay someone to help them die. You don’t have to call it medicine, it can be a service just like any other.
Although I do not support Julian Savulescu’s procreative beneficence, I still believe that genetic screening is beneficial and therefore fully support it. The idea of reproducers selecting for beneficial non-disease genes is wrong to me. I agree with three of the four objections against procreative beneficence. I absolutely agree that procreative beneficence is highly discriminatory and that Savulescu’s arguments are harmful to people with disabilities and definitely support selection based on sex and race. The one objection that I do not agree with is the one that states genetic screening might eliminate geniuses. In this case, I agree with Savulescu in saying that the embryo selected and the one discarded are equally likely to be geniuses. Prenatal genetic screening is one example of how genetic screening has proven to be a very useful tool. Gene editing on the other hand is something that needs to be tightly regulated and restricted to disease genes only. Gene editing should not be allowed to be used for selecting beneficial non-disease genes. Allowing this will most likely lead to eugenics.
My natural response to paternalism in medicine a couple of years ago would’ve been for it to not be practiced at all. However, after learning the true meaning of this concept, I changed my mind. Any discussion about paternalism should always start with a definition of the two types of paternalism that were discussed - weak paternalism and strong paternalism. Weak paternalism is much easier to digest and understand. There are many situations in which weak paternalism could be justified. The same cannot be said for strong paternalism. There might be some situations where we can make the argument for strong paternalism, but I personally can’t justify taking away a patient’s choice in order to simply benefit the patient. Although I appreciate O’Neill’s proposal of acting paternalistically in proportion to how diminished patients’ decision-making capacities are, I do not agree with it. As a patient’s decision-making ability declines, paternalism should not increase proportionally. Instead, as a patient’s decision-making ability declines, the physician should seek to work with the patient’s caretakers and do what the patient would’ve wanted. Physicians should not be alone in making decisions for their patients as O’Neill suggests.
After seeing both videos on the discussion am definitely on the side against genetic screening, all the arguments for it seem like eugenics with extra steps and seem too heavily rely on the unfunded assumption people with disabilities will have a "worst life" It also puts too much value on human life on its function while at the same time ignoring how people having disabilities have given them a unique life and perspectives that we're unexpectedly useful Not to mention one of the main arguments given in favor of genetic screaming was that people should make the best choice with the choice they have, but any information a genetic screening can give you is not enough to make an informed decision about what children should be born, and making active choices without enough information only based on the limited information you have for an important choice like this is not something I would consider ethical.
Outstanding explanation of this topic sir 👏👏 Thank you so much for this video♥️
Screening technology eliminates people with disability, unless you are screening the egg and sperm, not using the faulty egg/sperm which would lead to the creation of a person with disability.
It was suggested that I take fluoxetine as part of treatment for anorexia, I didn't want to take it at first because I was so worried about side effects. I never felt forced, like they did their best to persuade me and gave me time to think about it and I ultimately agreed to take it. They also wanted me to gain weight, I didn't want to that and spent weeks being told I had to gain weight and that they were considering admitting me. I was also told that I was in control, no one was going to force me to eat, I had to decide that for myself. I was repeatedly told I was in the drivers seat. I started to recover and I was very much allowed to recover in my own way. I counted calories upwards gradually like 100 more each week. It was unorthodox I think, I haven't heard of anyone else using that method to recover. There was another point where the doctors wanted me to take something and I didn't want to take it. I had managed to end up in hospital this time and again I never felt forced to take it. Again I was persuaded too. It was maybe halfway paternalistic to put so much effort into persuading me to do something, I think it was appropriate though, but it also really helped knowing that I wasn't being forced and that I felt somewhat in control. It wouldn't have been helpful to ignore my wishes and force me to take x or force feed me etc. I think my autonomy was overruled when it came to being admitted to hospital, I co operated fully, I wanted to be admitted, but I have a feeling it was happening no matter what.
I searched for this video after having my rights violated by a nurse. Thanks for putting this content out. I looked it up later and she went against the state law, international accord, and acog recommendation in favor of her personal opinion. It really also decreased the likelihood I'll go to a hospital when I need it.
They should ALWAYS tell the truth!!!!!!! I've had people in the medical profession lie to me several times. I was educated enough to know they were lying everytime. They might've thought they were doing it in my best interest at the time but now I have lost all trust and in the long term I will one day probably die prematurely because of it. I'm 45 and haven't been to a doctor in decades because I don't trust them. I feel like they've ethically committed malpractice.
A medical abortion (using medication) separates the embryo or fetus from the person supporting it and it is miscarried. The medication doesn't kill the embryo/fetus directly. It dies because it isn't being supported anymore.
Something pro-life people always seem to assume is that everyone is grateful to be born. I assure you that although most people are glad to have been born there are lots of people who wish they'd never been created. I have a very privileged life but with the depression and anxiety that runs in my family I truly wish I had never been forced to exist. Now that I'm here I do my best to make this a better world but I'm absolutely an anti-natalist. I think abstinence is a great option but not everyone chooses that so I think abortion is the more moral choice over having children. Embryos and young fetuses aren't sentient (until week 17) so they have no self-interest. I think abortion should be done before 17 weeks but in that time period I think it's the best choice. As far as religion, I'm a Cathar. We believe the greatest sin is procreation. I guarantee ensoulment doesn't happen at conception because identical twins form sometime in the 1st 2 weeks and twins don't share a soul.
I don't think prolifers think everyone is happy to live. That's why pro life is not only anti abortion, but even beyond that; I think we understand that everyone suffers, and to say "oh, it's better to kill this person because they will suffer" is false compassion. I believe in the right to suffer without being suggested that you shouldn't exist. A life without suffering does not exist.
There are several levels of consciousness. You are still conscious when you sleep it's just a greatly reduced sensitivity. I'm almost superconscious when I sleep because I always lucid dream. I was even conscious of the color black and the passage of time under anesthesia. I would say an embryo or young fetus is completely different because the don't even have the capacity for consciousness if their environment changes.
Thank you for posting this. I’ve desperately been looking for a way to put what’s happening to us women into perspective for my boyfriend. We both don’t like or want ANY abortions to happen. We both agree the mother’s life MUST come first because logically, if there’s no mother then there’s no baby. However, because of his hardcore Christian beliefs, he cannot bring himself to oppose the current laws stripping me of my right to choose. He says he trusts ME personally, but clearly he can’t bring himself to trust all women. And he believes the lives of fetuses/unborn babies are MORE important than ANY suffering the mother could ensure aside from something that threatens her life or in the case of R@pe and Inc3st. What I’m trying to show him is that since I, as the woman/mother, am the ONLY being with a physical connection to the fetus, that I am the ONLY person who could decide if this was going to be detrimental to my mental, emotional, and physical health. Like he would hands down believe a doctor but not the human who feels the baby and the effects of the baby inside her. When my mom was having her strokes, I BEGGED the doctors to believe us and they ignored me. Just because nothing showed up on the CT, they doubled down on treating my mom like she was some senile foreigner (opposed to treating her like then intelligent medical professional she was). My mom was a Pediatric Oncology RN for 40 years and when she suddenly lost her ability to SEE and STAND, she told me, “take me to the hospital-I am having a stroke!” For over 36 hours they ignored my pleas for an MRI. The whole time she’s vomiting stomach bile every hour and cannot even sit up straight without falling to her left side. They were preparing to discharge her with the diagnosis of a MIGRAINE. Finally, after getting the head of the hospital involved, they FINALLY did the MRI I’d been screaming about. Sure enough, she falls unconscious whilst getting the scan and the MRI shows she’s having a MASSIVE Right Cerebellar Stroke. ANY DOCTOR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN TO DO THE MRI. But because I was being so vocal and because my mom was just some old immigrant with a heavy accent, they treated us like we were crazy and didn’t know what we were talking about. My mom went from a mountain climbing, jewelry making, child whispering, life saving HERO blackbelt… to a brain damaged triplegic. Both of our lives ended that day because now I alone take care of her. She cannot speak, stand, go to the potty (diapers), brush her own teeth… NOTHING…. ALL BECAUSE NO ONE BELIEVED WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO HER WAS LIFE THREATENING. Doctors can only go so far, then comes autonomy and self awareness. So even though my boyfriend assures me that he would believe ME no matter what, come what may… he STILL cannot bring himself to oppose the laws of FORCE against us women right now. My best guess is because he’s an intelligent, Christian, straight, white male whose NEVER been subjected to adversity due to how he was born (gender, race, etc.). And since we pretty much agree on when it’s necessary to have an abortion, I just need to show him why it’s SO WRONG to force a woman to do ANYTHING with her body that she doesn’t want to do. Like you said in your video, a person’s right to life shouldn’t impose on another person’s body. So after hearing the Violinist argument, I got an idea. I first tried to explain it to him as if he got a girl pregnant, he would have to tie his penis in a knot for 9 months. He called my example hyperbole because as a white male, he cannot even FATHOM such an atrocity forced against him. But like the hotel waiver idea, what if men signed a contract before every single time they penetrated a woman’s vagina, that there’d be a chance he could end up stuck together with the women by their privates? Have you ever seen dogs mate? Sometimes, the male’s penis gets so swollen in the process that he literally gets stuck inside her. They end up walking butt to butt (usually the boy walking backwards cuz the girl dog is so fed up with his shit at this point LOL). So what if, in the case of pregnancy, men were forced to stay attached to the woman for 9 months until the baby was ready to come out UNLESS they had an abortion? I am SO SICK of men having the right to decide what happens to our bodies when they’d NEVER be subjected to anything of the sort nor will they EVER know what it’s like to bear children. When I tried to explain it with tying his penis in a knot for 9 months (at first I went ahead and chopped the whole thing off LOL), my idea was to show just how detrimental a pregnancy can be to a woman’s body and mind. Like tying your penis in a knot for 9 months, a pregnancy can cause irreversible damage to a woman’s brain and body, it can devalue a woman’s sexuality and attractiveness to her partner(s), and it can 100% KILL YOU! That’s why I went with chopping it off at first because I was thinking along the lines of blood loss. Because even with the knot example, the only threat to the man’s life would be by his own hand (which is 100% possible for the woman as well). But after seeing this video, I feel using the example of having to remain attached to the woman for 9 months will do a better job at putting it into perspective for him. At least I freaking hope so. I just need him to understand WHY it’s so horrible to force that upon a woman. He doesn’t admit it, but he HAS TO believe women have abortions Willy Nilly if he doesn’t trust the very beings that are physically connected to the baby. I even asked him, “do you think GOD made the wrong choice?? Should it be YOU bearing children??” *sigh* it’s SO frustrating. I don’t need him to agree with me, I just need him to understand what this law of force does to us women. How it is NEVER right to force ANYONE to do ANYTHING they don’t want to do with their bodies. So, fingers crossed! THANK YOU for posting this!!!
I needed to learn this for my Social Work ethics course. This is the best explanation I have come across. Thank you so much! :)
Just to play devils advocate here... If moral relativism asserts that there is no right or wrong, does it not follow that there is also no good or bad? If so, then I would imagine that a relativistic worldview would not assert that tolerance is good or bad, only that it is preferable to intolerance. This stuff seems to always devolve into arguments over definitions of "good" and "bad".
either preferability reduces to goodness or it doesn't. if it does, then the relativist is seemingly committed to saying there's something objectively good and so is self-undermining. if it does not, then the relativist is seemingly just giving us a statement of her own likes (or dislikes) and so carries no weight. either way, no one need take the relativist's concerns seriously.
Thanks 😀
No, it is not a person at all, inside a mother can the mother decide to have or not to have a baby is inside of a person. People and science call a fetus without the mother is just a fusion, living because the mother.
No, it is not a person at all, inside a mother can the mother decide to have or not to have a baby is inside of a person. People and science call a fetus without the mother is just a fusion, living because the mother.
Love this channel, thank you. It was important to make the distinction of "needless" harm and highlight reducing suffering. Sometimes that's all you can do.
I'd hate to be a sleeping 3-month old baby near Warren
Listening to ur voice convinces me I should go for it
Why is Al Q**da more compassionate than pro-lifers? The 9/11 hijackers got to die instantly.
Another problems with Warren’s “personhood” criteria (and, to some extent, the whole “personhood” question) is that it treats a fetus as if it is as separate kind of being; not a human being in early development. “Fetus” isn’t a permanent state of existence, like monkey or alien or rock. If you apply Warren’s personhood criteria to any of those, it is true for their entire existence. This is not true of a fetus because a fetus is not a separate type of being. Fetus is a stage of individual human development. Bottom line: the “performance” view, when applied to only one moment in time, denies the fundamental human reality of change and maturity. We were all fetuses at one time, but we are not now. This is a powerful reality Warren entirely avoids… conveniently, for her position.
Isn't that the whole point of the problem he addresses regarding consciousness, etc.?
The performance strategy attempts to define personhood with specific criteria, a difficult task. The endowment strategy just arbitrarily chooses humans with no such attempt. Why not include cows. An adult cow has far more mental capabilities in common with adult humans than does a 3 month old fetus. If endowment is the better moral strategy, then where is the justification for excluding animals?
Great video! Pretty informative. Thanks!
4+32 into 5+32
Newable law
I stop eating junk food 1556 healthyer