Anti-abortionists and anencephaly

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by LiveUninhibited, Dec 17, 2015.

  1. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,425
    Likes Received:
    2,859
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A conversation on another thread (below) led me in the direction of looking into anencephaly again, to explore the ethics of abortion. Anencephaly is a medical condition where a part or usually all of the brain besides the stem is missing due to an error in development.

    Here's the end of that conversation:

    That's fine that you have your definitions of "a human" versus human, but just having definitions doesn't tell us what should be valued. Why exactly do you value "a human" who doesn't have a mind at all yet? Some "babies" are born with a condition referred to as anencephaly. Most die quickly, but a few have lasted a few years. You see, these would qualify under your definition of "a human" but their brains lack everything except what is required for bodily functions, but completely lack feeling or thought.

    I'm most interested in discussing the cases where they lack a brain but have a brain stem, and so can "survive" in terms of a beating heart outside of the womb, usually with extreme medical care, but do not have a mind at all. Thus they are "a human" organism, but are not a person in the sense that I think of one.

    Here's a description of an illustrative case:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K

    What should the law be regarding anencephalic "babies" like this? In what ethical ways is this similar to or different from abortion? An anencephalic of that severity can never become a person, while a fetus simply isn't one yet. Does that distinction matter? Even though it's pointless, I do think mothers should be allowed to be able to carry it to term (since it's her body at that point), but I don't think doctors should be compelled to spend millions or even thousands of scarce healthcare dollars to take care of it after birth. It's not a person and never will be. In contrast, if a baby could be born without, say, a heart, but somehow could be saved with EXIT-to-ECMO and a heart transplant, that would NOT be futile if it had a reasonable chance of success.
     
  2. SteveJa

    SteveJa New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me see if I understand what you are asking. Are you asking if laws should be made to protect anencephalic babies? I think the medical community has an obligation to do whatever necessary to ensure these babies live as normal, healthy and pain free life as possible. I also feel this would qualify as an exception, as the baby would have a very low chance of surviving a few days with, or without medical treatment when at full term, as it is missing most of the brain. Also I'm not sure but I'm sure the pain and suffering the baby would go through would have to be tremendous. This would be the woman's decision to terminate, or not, but she would also be responsible for the costs. Would the baby still qualify as a person? Yes I believe it would as the only legal qualification to be considered a person is to be born. And my only qualification is to be conceived.
     
  3. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,425
    Likes Received:
    2,859
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no normal or healthy life possible for such a thing, and pain is irrelevant because without a brain you can't experience it. An interpretation of the law in the case I mentioned suggests that the status quo is that they are considered babies who should receive care. I believe the law should explicitly state that doctors cannot be compelled to render anencephalic babies care, since babies like Baby K are not persons and it takes care away from real patients. They cannot feel pain or experience anything, the only brain-related function they have is the kind that keeps their body functioning, albeit not very well.
     
  4. Zeffy

    Zeffy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I agree, except that they are persons because they are born. However, doctors should not be compelled to provide care above palliative. They aren't forced to give chemo to cancer patients when there's no hope, so why should they be forced to keep an anencephalic infant alive?
     

Share This Page