Abortion/Consciousness/Life

[Diablo]

What is this abortion thread adding that the other fucking 100+ page thread wasn't addressing? Seriously.

---

I'm ACTUALLY AN MD so let me clear up some confusion. First you have tried to confused autonomic nervous system with high order function. It is unfortunately not uncommon for all higher order activity to be destroyed, yet the autonomic system is intact (breathing in particular - the heart has it's own automaticity that is not intrinisically dependent on the autonomics). Next, our understanding of general anesthesia is incomplete (it truely is) but it is NOT the same as sleeping - most if not all higher order function are or can be shut down with certain anesthestics. therefore the question is legit - is the presense of consciousness required to be considered human or have human rights? If it is not then this cannot be extrapolated back to justify why a fetus does not have human rights. This does not mean that abortion is intrisinically right or wrong, only the fallicy of defining a charastic that is required for human rights.

How do you become an MD with such a weak grasp of medical ethics and the fundaments of philosophy-- or even of basic spelling and grammar?

I'd love to see a copy of your diploma, because I'm calling bullshit. And I know what I'm talking about, because I have a joint PhD from Harverd and Yayl in Merdology.

What's merdology?

[Dystopia]

What is this abortion thread adding that the other fucking 100+ page thread wasn't addressing? Seriously.

---

How do you become an MD with such a weak grasp of medical ethics and the fundaments of philosophy-- or even of basic spelling and grammar?

I'd love to see a copy of your diploma, because I'm calling bullshit. And I know what I'm talking about, because I have a joint PhD from Harverd and Yayl in Merdology.

What's merdology?

If Mr answer-42 uses a Latin descendant language merda = shit - Therefore merdology may equal shitology - Shit

[Losty]

Oh lord. I meant you're. FML

[bennyboy]

What's merdology?

If Mr answer-42 uses a Latin descendant language merda = shit - Therefore merdology may equal shitology - Shit

Shhh, now you've ruined it. I was planning on cleverly using answer-42's inability to understand what I was talking about as evidence that he could not be educated enough to have earned an MD.

[answer-is-42]

I have no need to justify my qualifications here, they are true and I have been practicing for >10 years, but regardless of that the statements themselves are true - see I am not going for a qualification bias arguement - in other words what I have stated is factually true regardless of my own qualifications. To whomever stated I don't understand medical ethics, I don't think you know what the term ethics is - my statement had nothing to do with the ethics, it had to do with physiology (not philosophy!)

Please read (as two of many examples)
Consciousness and Anesthesia
Michael T. Alkire,1 Anthony G. Hudetz,2 and Giulio Tononi3,* Science. Nov 7, 2008; 322(5903): 876–880.

Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2012 Aug;25(4):397-404. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e32835561de.
Conscious processing: implications for general anesthesia.
Changeux JP.

This is a whole issue from my standpoint is in response to those who required consciousness as requisite to be considered human or have human rights.Also, I don't know Latin, don't need to know Latin, and will never learn Latin - it has no utility in medicine. I know basic stems, suffixes, and prefixes that relate to medical terms that are used within the context of my training and that's about it. We actually speak in ENGLISH in medicine in America.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're being greasy with your use of the word conscious/ness. When we say that people are "unconscious" -as to say asleep or passed out (or knocked out on a choice cocktail)..we are not referring to the same thing as when we are are speaking of peoples "consciousness". To be unconscious is not, amusingly, to lack consciousness. I guess that's just an amusing holdover eh?

You've dreamt before, I imagine, it should be easy to understand from there. But, rights -are- modified when a person is in a coma. You can actually pull the plug on a person in a coma. Try that shit with a guy that's up and talking, hell, can't even pull the plug if he begs you to. I'm sure I'm just preachin to the choir though, doc.

On the other hand, considering your question in a different light. When the state executes someone by lethal injection they knock em out first. If they didn't, we'd call it cruel and unusual (and then they'd have a harder time doing it). So, the varying states of both your conscious activity and your consciousness -do- seem to have a modifying effect on our laws and their justifications. I'd say consciousness is required in a creature before you start wondering whether its a moral subject or not, btw...lol. You can't harm what isn't there. So, consciousness required for being human? No. Consciousness required for the full breadth of human rights - the rights that your peers may enjoy, yup. Hell, you have to add some age in there too...we have all sorts of modifiers with regards to what rights we have, what the law may or may not intervene upon. Another good example. You can spank your own child, no worries. Don't spank someone else's (and don't even touch their mommy or daddy). Tangled, tangled web, isn't it? We have alot of ways of classifying a person, legally, and most come with a variable list of what sort of rights that person posesses - so I have to say, I don't understand the question you asked at all. If you were trying to ask whether or not consciousness ought to be a factor in abortion as it applies to law or rights, yeah, I think so. If you're wondering whether or not consciousness ought to be a factor in declaring someone to be a member of a species - well, I don't see why that would be the case, no.

[answer-is-42]

You're being greasy with your use of the word conscious/ness. When we say that people are "unconscious" -as to say asleep or passed out (or knocked out on a choice cocktail)..we are not referring to the same thing as when we are are speaking of peoples "consciousness". To be unconscious is not, amusingly, to lack consciousness. I guess that's just an amusing holdover eh?

You've dreamt before, I imagine, it should be easy to understand from there. But, rights -are- modified when a person is in a coma. You can actually pull the plug on a person in a coma. Try that shit with a guy that's up and talking, hell, can't even pull the plug if he begs you to. I'm sure I'm just preachin to the choir though, doc.

Not sure you know at all what you are talking about. First of all, discontination of life support is an ethical question, not a phsyiological one. I have personally experienced awake, communicating people requesting that their life-sustaining medical interventions (not just ventilators, but pressors, anti-biotics, pulmonary meds, etc) be disconnected, it's not fun but you are EXACTLY WRONG that it cannot be done, it can and is done. In fact that is the ethically easiest situations. The hard ones are the ones you are flippant about - an unresponsive person whose wishes are unclear or more likely whose MPA's wishs are in conflict - stopping care there is very hard. Sorry you don't know what you are taking about other then your crash course from Grey's Anatomy, but real life ain't like that.
Next, the previous person required consiousness as a requirement for human life- this is the medical definition of consciousness. If I recall, you wouldn't respond to me on another thread without giving a definition of "god" (still waiting for your response there after I gave one) - so let me ask you then - what definition of conscionsness would you like to use to define human life? please be specific so we can be talking intellegently.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not sure you know at all what you are talking about. First of all, discontination of life support is an ethical question, not a phsyiological one.

and?

I have personally experienced awake, communicating people requesting that their life-sustaining medical interventions (not just ventilators, but pressors, anti-biotics, pulmonary meds, etc) be disconnected, it's not fun but you are EXACTLY WRONG that it cannot be done, it can and is done.

-And you've seen the trouble that follows when the family makes the argument that the patient is incompetent, eh? I guess you didn't get my little kevorkian joke - that's okay, it was weak.

In fact that is the ethically easiest situations. The hard ones are the ones you are flippant about - an unresponsive person whose wishes are unclear or more likely whose MPA's wishs are in conflict - stopping care there is very hard.

But just as easy, legally, if all the paperwork is in order. I'm not asking you about your personal experiences and your recounting your feelings on the matter won't be informative with regards to what you're discussing. You don't have the slightest fucking clue what I might be flippant about. We're discussing rights, law, correct? Not how bad you felt when you pulled the plug, or how bad I feel hearing the story.

Sorry you don't know what you are taking about other then your crash course from Grey's Anatomy, but real life ain't like that.

LOL, honest question, to anybody who watched greys anatomy...was the show decent?

Next, the previous person required consiousness as a requirement for human life- this is the medical definition of consciousness. If I recall, you wouldn't respond to me on another thread without giving a definition of "god" (still waiting for your response there after I gave one)

Yeah, strange requirement to be considered human.

- so let me ask you then - what definition of conscionsness would you like to use to define human life? please be specific so we can be talking intellegently.

This is going to be delicious. "I'm comfortable with the traditional definition" Ill pop into a thread a few days from now to tell you how I'm still waiting for your brilliant response.

[answer-is-42]

To Rhythm
No need to wait, I'm right here.
First- you really need to learn the word context - my arguements were responses to specific arguements levied against me - please see the posts above mine, hense you "and?" is either dis-ingenious or you are too lazy to look up.
Next you are the one that brought legality into this not me, but it is nothing but legal to adhere to the wishes of a competent patient, regardless of what their family, friends, neighbors, pastor, rabbi, vet, car washer, or you think. No paperwork beyond documentation necessary - the paperwork is required to declare them incompetent NOT the case you suggested "talking, awake, etc." And when I said hard, it had nothing to do with my feelings ( you really need to learn the term context - are you a spectrum person?) but which ones are ETHICALLY easy, not personally easy and hard.
I agree that consciousness is a strange requirement, but it IS one that was brough up ON THIS THREAD AND THAT IS WHAT I WAS RESPONDING TO, so I don't care if you think it strange, the context (again that word!!) was in response to THAT. Are you sure you are not 9 or 10?
Now I guess I will get to your definition - I'm not sure you understand the term specific. if this is a weak response to my previous response to you (which I am still waiting for another post) then I actually gave a very specific definition and then said if you don't like it then please give me yours to use as a basis of discusiion. That fact that you cannot or will not get specific is a sign of weakness on your end not mine - so if you would like to be specific please do so otherwise I will - the medical definition of consiousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, our old friend context. Yeah, gonna have to learn that one, never heard that on an atheist forum before.

Next you are the one that brought legality into this not me

You did ask whether or not a fetus was human, and whether they should have human rights, didn't you?. Rights are a legal issue, amigo.
yup. yup, thought so...

is the presense of consciousness required to be considered human or have human rights?

post 98

but it is nothing but legal to adhere to the wishes of a competent patient

-and an incompetent patient? What happened to his rights? He might be both conscious, and possessing "consciousness". As we've both decided, whether a person is conscious or not, or whether or not they possess consciousness as an attribute, doesn;t seem to be the deciding factor here.

However - in the case of the legal standing regarding abortion, it might be a deciding factor. So, there's your context for you. I'm glad we had this discussion about the word context. You simply cannot run afoul of the rights of a non-entity. Does consciousness, and being conscious have an effect on our concept of personhood? Yes. Even "diminished" consciousness has an effect (as in the case of the incompetent patient). Similarly, no sleeping person may enter into a contract, lol. All of this, of course, ignores the fact that we have another set of rights to consider. And while we may say that she cannot do this or that - there are still things that we say the state cannot do -to her-. Has to be approached from both angles or else the resolution will be unsatisfactory. -That- is why it's a thorny issue, in a nutshell.