• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mother hears son's heart beat inside 4-year-old girl's chest

CycloneWanderer said:
Not part of the modern Hippocratic oath. Surgeons wouldn't be able to operate with a literal "do no harm" philosophy.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say that killing patients is a violation of the oath. :lol:
 
Henrin said:
I think it's safe to say that killing patients is a violation of the oath. :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that would apply to this case. Unless you're in a zombie movie, it's difficult to kill someone who is already dead.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
I'm not sure how that would apply to this case. Unless you're in a zombie movie, it's difficult to kill someone who is already dead.
Click to expand...

You are aware that cell death is the scientific measurement of death, right?
 
Henrin said:
You are aware that cell death is the scientific measurement of death, right?
Click to expand...

Certain cells in the human body can remain alive for weeks after a person dies. Would you suggest that we keep all corpses on a respirator and feeding tube for two weeks after they die?
 
year2late said:
Paleocon, the brain dead on life support came first. An opportunity to save lives came up with the opportunity to harvest organs before removing life support that was going to be removed anyway.
Click to expand...

As I've said over and over and over.

You make it sound like the desire for transplantation came first. Just to make sure, you realize that the movie "Coma" was a work of fiction and not a documentary, right?
Click to expand...

The desire for transplantation came before the laws being changed to allow it. Your inability to follow a simple chain of conversation is your own problem.

What do you mean "humans even die on ventilators" Of course they do. All the time.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you acknowledge this. Earlier you were implying that a brain dead person could be kept alive indefinitely on a ventilator. I'm glad you've realized this isn't so.

year2late said:
You cannot kill someone that is already dead.
Click to expand...

'Snowball often won over the majority by his brilliant speeches, but Napoleon was better at canvassing support for himself in between times. He was especially successful with the sheep. Of late the sheep had taken to bleating "Four legs good, two legs bad" both in and out of season, and they often interrupted the Meeting with this. It was noticed that they were especially liable to break into "Four legs good, two legs bad" at crucial moments in Snowball's speeches.'
-George Orwell, Animal Farm

BrewerBob said:
You ARE your brain.
Click to expand...

Certainly not. If a whole were reducible to one of its parts, then the other parts would not actually be legitimate parts. Which is clearly not how a human body works.

When your brain ceases to function, you are gone. I can keep your heart pumping with a machine all I want.
Click to expand...

No, you are not God, and you cannot keep a heart beating indefinitely. And neither can doctors.

CycloneWanderer said:
Not part of the modern Hippocratic oath. Surgeons wouldn't be able to operate with a literal "do no harm" philosophy.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur.
 
Paleocon said:
As I've said over and over and over.



The desire for transplantation came before the laws being changed to allow it. Your inability to follow a simple chain of conversation is your own problem.



I'm glad you acknowledge this. Earlier you were implying that a brain dead person could be kept alive indefinitely on a ventilator. I'm glad you've realized this isn't so.



'Snowball often won over the majority by his brilliant speeches, but Napoleon was better at canvassing support for himself in between times. He was especially successful with the sheep. Of late the sheep had taken to bleating "Four legs good, two legs bad" both in and out of season, and they often interrupted the Meeting with this. It was noticed that they were especially liable to break into "Four legs good, two legs bad" at crucial moments in Snowball's speeches.'
-George Orwell, Animal Farm



Certainly not. If a whole were reducible to one of its parts, then the other parts would not actually be legitimate parts. Which is clearly not how a human body works.



No, you are not God, and you cannot keep a heart beating indefinitely. And neither can doctors.



Non-sequitur.
Click to expand...
I am a woman of science. God is only associated with this conversation if you wish to apply God to yourself. I choose to go with law which is science based.

People ending up without brain activity and on "life" support first. An opportunity to consider using organs was considered and realized. So law was made to assure this was handled well. Essentially this turns tragedy into hope for another individual.

It is interesting that in nearly 35 years of ICU nursing , whenever clergy is asked for guidance by a family of the deceased - I have never ever heard a member of the clergy use "God" as an argument against donation. In fact, pretty much the opposite. The only "iffy" response I can recall had to do with respecting when the body had to be buried. Ultimately the clergy gives input and is clear that it is in the hands of the family to respect what the deceased would have wanted.

I am curious about you bringing playing God up in these conversations. I mean in light of the fact that you believe execution should be the answer for possession (let alone using) a condom....is this something your God would want?

Odd.
 
year2late said:
I am a woman of science. God is only associated with this conversation if you wish to apply God to yourself. I choose to go with law which is science based.

People ending up without brain activity and on "life" support first. An opportunity to consider using organs was considered and realized. So law was made to assure this was handled well. Essentially this turns tragedy into hope for another individual.

It is interesting that in nearly 35 years of ICU nursing , whenever clergy is asked for guidance by a family of the deceased - I have never ever heard a member of the clergy use "God" as an argument against donation. In fact, pretty much the opposite. The only "iffy" response I can recall had to do with respecting when the body had to be buried. Ultimately the clergy gives input and is clear that it is in the hands of the family to respect what the deceased would have wanted.

I am curious about you bringing playing God up in these conversations. I mean in light of the fact that you believe execution should be the answer for possession (let alone using) a condom....is this something your God would want?

Odd.
Click to expand...

You people never cease to amaze me. I make an offhand quip to Brewer (stating only the fact that people can't be preserved on ventilators indefinitely), and it set you off on your anti-God rant. For the record, I'm not going to discuss my position on capital punishment in this thread because it's completely besides the point. If you want me to discuss capital punishment, start a thread about it.
 
I believe that the heart is linked to the spirit more than the brain will ever be, so it's interesting to think about what it means to put a foreign heart into the body. Heart cells don't 100% replace themselves like the other cells of the body do, they just age. So it will be the boy's heart forever.

The mother's attachment is weird and a reason why I support keeping organ recipients a secret from the donors.
 
I don't cry.






But if I did?






This story would make me.
 
Henrin said:
I can't say I approve of organ donation for children. Parental rights should not include donating the organs of your children. Parental rights should focus on the care of the child, not the wants of the parents.
Click to expand...

Huh? If your kid is gonna die no matter what are you saying that donating organs is not within the parental rights of the parents?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Huh? If your kid is gonna die no matter what are you saying that donating organs is not within the parental rights of the parents?
Click to expand...

If the kid is still alive it's certainly not.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What about if killing one will save many others?
Click to expand...

No. Some means are inherently wrong regardless of the end sought or the circumstances.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Prove it...
Click to expand...

Some acts require malice by their very nature. Malice is a will to do evil. That evil must be avoided and good sought is self-evident.
 
Paleocon said:
Some acts require malice by their very nature. Malice is a will to do evil. That evil must be avoided and good sought is self-evident.
Click to expand...

No. It isn't. Can you do better?
 
Paleocon said:
If you don't accept that evil is bad, I can't help you.
Click to expand...

Letting multiple innocent people die for the benefit of the one is evil... yet you are for this. Can you explain this contradiction?
 
Paleocon said:
To establishing specific facts. What specific physical fact are you disagreeing about?
Click to expand...

It's been stated to you many times. Brain death is death. That person is gone. No longer exists as a part of reality.

This is the position of modern medicine. So go ahead and do what you invariably do and pretend to understand the issue better than the experts (hell, pretend to understand it at all). Pretend that they're all making a trivial mistake that is, of course, obvious to yours truly. Pretend there's a widespread conspiracy of corrupt doctors and medical experts driven by some perverse craving to steal organs from some people and give them to others. :lamo
 
Henrin said:
Your body is you, not just your brain.
Click to expand...

But a body absent a mind is not a person. It's a hunk of meat. It doesn't matter whether blood cells are flowing or muscle tissue is contracting and relaxing. There's nothing meaningful about these things simpliciter, it's just matter moving about. In brain death consciousness is gone. There is no mind.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Letting multiple innocent people die for the benefit of the one is evil... yet you are for this. Can you explain this contradiction?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between doing something and not doing something.

the_recruit said:
It's been stated to you many times. Brain death is death. That person is gone. No longer exists as a part of reality.
Click to expand...

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

Answer my question, BTW.
 
paleocon said:
repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true.

Answer my question, btw.
Click to expand...


the_recruit said:
it's been stated to you many times. Brain death is death. That person is gone. No longer exists as a part of reality.
Click to expand...

What is unclear to you about this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom