Firstthey Come For Your Stem Cells...

T

toby

Junior Member
And then they want more,,,,,,,,,,,,

>> Patients designated as in a “persistent vegetative state (PVS)” should be used for medical experiments, according to several top bioethicists, regardless of whether or not prior consent was obtained.
Several articles published in the recent issue of the Journal of Medical debated the potential use of patients with non-responsive brain function for such medical experiments as animal organ transplants—to bypass ethic prohibitions against using a living human being for medical experimentation, some even suggested designating such patients as “dead,” saying their cognitive impairments justified treating them as cadavers.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06100502.html
 
That's nothing short of ghoulish! I don't know about Australia, but in this country, there's no greater right of the medical community to use cadavers for research than to use living patients without their express written permission, so that distinction is moot, here.

This sounds ominously like the statements several years ago by Ingrid Newkirk, one of the founders of PETA, wherein she said that we should use "prisoners and retarded people" for our medical experimentation and leave the rats and mice alone. The scientific flaws in such a proposal aside, this was every bit as immoral and outrageous as what is now proposed by the Australian Medical Association.
 
I plan to give every organ I can to medicine. Hell I'll give my wang.

But that is a choice someone should have the decency to make in their life. We have no right to make that decision for them.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I plan to give every organ I can to medicine. Hell I'll give my wang.

But that is a choice someone should have the decency to make in their life. We have no right to make that decision for them.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, that's the whole point. Many people sign documents to this effect while they're still alive and competent. I figure that given my family history, by the time I die (assuming it's of natural causes) at 95 or so, nobody's going to get much use out of anything, though.
 
That'll never pass here. Its pretty unnerving that "ethicists" would advocate such a violation of rights.
 
LadyT said:
That'll never pass here. Its pretty unnerving that "ethicists" would advocate such a violation of rights.
Click to expand...
Well, almost any position is open to debate in bioethics. That's the whole point.

Note that the article said that "several papers" were presented advocating this point of view, not that there was any sort of consensus on the point. In other words, they found a couple of ethicists who took rather extreme positions and then sensationalized those positions. You'll also note that they didn't even quote these alleged papers directly.

I wouldn't take this terribly seriously. This site is run by anti-abortion kooks -- or people willing to look like anti-abortion kooks, which is almost as bad. They're trying to stir up hate and fear about bioethics as a discipline because the consensus among bioethicists long ago turned against them.
 
That is a personal choice, Id be against it, unless before being in a PVS the person agreed to it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top