Comments on: An Ethical Choice

by: Cao

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:57:52 +0100

Well said Wayne, I don’t think any of us disagree, when children are in our care there is a resposibility and obligation to protect them, not that they are property but that they are unique individuals who deserve respect from those who are authorised to make decisions for them.
Thanks for the comment!

by: Wayne the Aussie in Prague

Sun, 25 May 2008 10:31:15 +0100

I’ve read all the posts. It seems to me that everyone is coming at this from the perspective that parents have some devine right, some cultural, legal and inalienable right over their offspring. Children shouldn’t be considered as PROPERTY. We need a licence to drive a car, a boat, an aerooplane, to practice medicine, nursing, engineering and so on and on. Yet any moron can, and often does become a parent. We don’t let drivers and doctors and engineers make daft decisions. Similarly, if applying the principles of ‘the Emperor’s New Clothes’ (ie bloody common sense!) then a blind man can see that preventing a child from receiving traetment is morally wrong. There is a concept in law called something like ‘callous indifference’ - I recently read a case wherein some kids threw a mate into a clay pit, in England I think, then wouldn’t let him out even though their could foresee that this might cause his death. They went to jail. For me, failing to permit protection, care and intervention to a child (I will not use the possesive YOUR children - they are not property) is morally and probably criminally wrong. No-one invested parents with wisdom, infallibility and insight. Any walk around any city will reveal incredibly ill equipped parents. Any community that calls itself civilised must take a collegiate responsibility for ALL it’s citizens. Not the most articulate post, but I hope my main meanings come across.

by: Cao

Tue, 20 May 2008 09:44:44 +0100

Thank you Shine, I am glad we are all in agreement with holding life, and not some idea, in the highest regard!

by: Shine

Tue, 20 May 2008 07:25:27 +0100

Gosh, every one say the right thing, we are not to decide life or death, commiting that mistake we are digging our grave, God has His plan and that is all. Doctors believe they have the right to do that, or give the right ot the parents ot decide, no matter what, when I went to Medicine University I had to pledge and swear with the hand in my heart one of the things we swear was to give alive, and never death to anyone.

by: Cao

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:19:00 +0100

You are right Kimba and I think we all agree!

by: kimbathewhitelioness

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:10:28 +0100

Life… though some of my viewpoints may seem a bit ancient in this modern day, I have to say I believe that God is the giver of life. It isn’t only because of my own personal “religious” convictions that I believe this way; on the contrary, I believe science itself points to(and confirms) the very existence of God. Because of that, I don’t feel I’m qualified to make a decision about the death of another. I don’t have the wisdom required to discern particular circumstances individually and mete out that type of judgement - it is FINAL. That’s a scary thought. I only know that it’s my heart’s instinct to PRESERVE life at all cost when I feel it’s in jeopardy to a person or animal. Perhaps that’s just a woman’s emotional response though…

by: Cao

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:13:28 +0100

Thank you QP for the comment and the kind words!
Your theories on the Util’s and the Deon’s is intriguing. In nature of course non-predatory animals usually congregate in herds, flocks, or schools (as in fish) so if attacked there is a fair chance that enough will survive to continue the species. Are humans beyond that mentality yet? It would seem that if the Deon’s make the decisions they would be acceptable to the Util’s unless it would cause harm to the majority. Is the lack of Political Correctness a new standard by which the majority becomes outraged? Do we have to bend to PC even when it goes against common sense or the way the Deon’s see things? I guess the Deon’s will have to keep a close eye on the Util’s!

by: Queen Poobah

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:45:19 +0100

I have been mulling over this blog post for several days now. When it comes to ethical issues two theories emerge, that of Utilitarianism and that of Deontology. Utilitarianism in a nutshell, means the greatest good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is the guiding ethical theory with any large body whether a government or organization (as Euroyank experienced while in service of country). The greatest good for the greatest number is about numbers, odds and statistics. Meanwhile, deontological theory is essentially doing the right thing, because it IS the right thing each and every time. It is founded on universal principles (not exclusive to any one faith or religion) of truthfulness, doing no harm, and justice. So for those individual cases that are not served by utilitarian principles, it would seem that it is charged to us to act when we perceive unfairness or worse. As Cao has said, it must be taken case by case. Sometimes an outcry is required. Demanded even. One cannot be a little bit principled. We are or we aren’t. We can’t be a little truthful or an advocate for the rights of children most of the time. We must keep fighting the good fight. Keep on blogging, Cao! You rock!

by: Cao

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:22:59 +0100

Good point Shawn and thanks for bringing that up! Especially since the “experts” disagree on most things, what are caring parents supposed to do these days? Once the “new best thing” was Thalimide (sp?) which was supposed to help but caused birth defects. What else is out there causing trouble? There must be a careful line between the State and individual rights, but I think if we should somtimes err, it should be on the side of life. Thanks for the link!

by: Shawn Hessinger

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:01:08 +0100

A more complicated issue involves neither religion nor political correctness but the question of whether the state has the right to decide what is best for the individual or in this case for the child in a parent’s care. With the increasing controversy, though rarely reported, over some kinds of vaccinations , discounting for the moment the religious motivations, should it be alright for parents to decide against a treatment that they consider questionable if experts disagree?