Moral Quandary

[rwalker89]

Hi everyone. First time posting here.

I'm going to be a sophomore biology major at Pitt and am very interested in attending medical school. However one thing has been stirring in my mind for quite sometime that makes me think twice about the profession. I try to be very mindful of nature and how it works and am a firm believer that humans are no more special than any other form of life (other than the fact that we may be the most advanced). The issue that concerns me is the fact the we as humans manipulate nature in thousands of ways and the result is our unnatural and, in a sense, dangerous over population.

I want to help people, BUT have an inkling of a moral objection to unnaturally saving their lives. This mindset only applies to those that have lived a pretty full life...children, adolescents and young adults do not apply. I mean, if it's someones time to go, it's their time to go. Why should we fight nature and add to the polluter and resource consumers that humans are?

Now, another part of me answers this questions and it lies in the fact that I AM human and that I have a family that I care about and would be hurt if either of my parents or close aunts/uncles were to go. So when I put myself in others shoes, I support unnaturally saving lives, BUT then part of me thinks the way described above.

I dunno, it's really bothering me that I cannot take a side and settle this issue with myself. So I want to see if current doctors and medical students, who know much more than me, have ever fumbled with this issue and how they have resolved it, OR just get any input on this topic whatsoever.

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[armybound]

Choose a specialty that fits your beliefs.

 

[loveoforganic]

A couple things you might just want to run through your head for yourself.

Where are you drawing the line as to what's natural? Are chimps that use sticks as tools violating nature? Why is it that you consider humans' use of their environment unnatural?

What is a "pretty full life?" If you're 60, you own your own business, and your son's just entering college, is that a full life? If you're 45, and you're not really doing much but sucking welfare? Who gets to make that judgement call and under what circumstances?

 

[greatnt249]

Hi everyone. First time posting here.

I'm going to be a sophomore biology major at Pitt and am very interested in attending medical school. However one thing has been stirring in my mind for quite sometime that makes me think twice about the profession. I try to be very mindful of nature and how it works and am a firm believer that humans are no more special than any other form of life (other than the fact that we may be the most advanced). The issue that concerns me is the fact the we as humans manipulate nature in thousands of ways and the result is our unnatural and, in a sense, dangerous over population.

I want to help people, BUT have an inkling of a moral objection to unnaturally saving their lives. This mindset only applies to those that have lived a pretty full life...children, adolescents and young adults do not apply. I mean, if it's someones time to go, it's their time to go. Why should we fight nature and add to the polluter and resource consumers that humans are?

Now, another part of me answers this questions and it lies in the fact that I AM human and that I have a family that I care about and would be hurt if either of my parents or close aunts/uncles were to go. So when I put myself in others shoes, I support unnaturally saving lives, BUT then part of me thinks the way described above.

I dunno, it's really bothering me that I cannot take a side and settle this issue with myself. So I want to see if current doctors and medical students, who know much more than me, have ever fumbled with this issue and how they have resolved it, OR just get any input on this topic whatsoever.

Thanks!

So, you wouldn't object to forgoing life-saving care should you need it right this instant if it happened to be "your time"? You would be willing to sacrifice your life for the sake of the greater good of nature?

It's called doing good deeds for society. If we just sat around and did nothing while bad things happen to good people, what does that say about our moral integrity?

 

[Compass]

...

I want to help people, BUT have an inkling of a moral objection to unnaturally saving their lives. This mindset only applies to those that have lived a pretty full life...children, adolescents and young adults do not apply. I mean, if it's someones time to go, it's their time to go. Why should we fight nature and add to the polluter and resource consumers that humans are?

What lets us judge whether someone else should die? What is too much? Someone who has spent $1 over a set budget? Do you want to place a price on a person's life? Should a person suffering from early-term cancer with $100k treatments be let go as easily as a person suffering late-term incurable cancer without treatment?

Now, another part of me answers this questions and it lies in the fact that I AM human and that I have a family that I care about and would be hurt if either of my parents or close aunts/uncles were to go. So when I put myself in others shoes, I support unnaturally saving lives, BUT then part of me thinks the way described above.

The point of morality in a theoretical sense is that you need to remove yourself entirely from your own shoes. You are confusing morality with emotion. The moral thing to do would be to ALWAYS let the person live and/or make their own decisions. Deciding someone's endpoint for them is neither morally acceptable nor emotionally acceptable, with certain cases being the exception such as assisted suicide in Europe and simply requesting end-of-life hospice care or DNR orders.

I dunno, it's really bothering me that I cannot take a side and settle this issue with myself. So I want to see if current doctors and medical students, who know much more than me, have ever fumbled with this issue and how they have resolved it, OR just get any input on this topic whatsoever. Thanks!

Making such decisions is VERY difficult. In the real world, each case is different. You can't just apply a sticker to every case and say "Live, Live, Live, Live." We are not miracle workers. Most theoretical cases are either yes/no. If a cure has a 0.15% chance of success and is especially painful to the patient if it fails, it starts moving towards the "not worth the effort category." If it's 10% chance of success with no issues, then we start moving towards the "acceptable" category. There is no black and white in real life. We can't make people live longer than their bodies can physically take it. Imagine a scenario like this:

Your family member (pick one, preferably immediate, sibling, or parent, or child) has a debilitating illness. There IS a cure, but it is projected to cost $100,000 a treatment and will be required EVERY month for the rest of their lives. In a concrete example, it would be "pay for the cure forever, or not pay for the cure at all." In reality, it would probably be "pay for X time, and stop, or pay for as long as you can, then stop." These questions can't simply be answered by yes/no or math or morality. The moral thing to do would be to place life over money, but you can't reasonably survive if you're bankrupt either.

Moral dilemmas are normally solved from YOUR point of view or the OVERHEAD 3rd Person point of view in theoretical situations. In the real world, they need to be solved from EVERYONE'S point of view. If your family member doesn't want you to financially destroy your life by paying for the treatment, will you respect their wishes? Are you going to say "No, I will bleed money to keep you alive" because you love them? That would be considered morally acceptable but emotionally selfish.

As such, you can see that real-life dilemmas do not always have one answer. Do we satisfy our morals, or our emotions? Who else do we consider? Would the sacrifice of your fiscal capability be worth it? Would you regret your decision in 30 years when a treatment is made that cures it permanently?


It is easy to find the wrong answer, but it is never as simple finding the right one.

 

[rwalker89]

So, you wouldn't object to forgoing life-saving care should you need it right this instant if it happened to be "your time"? You would be willing to sacrifice your life for the sake of the greater good of nature?

Hmm, great question. I do not know for I haven't been faced with that. I think...from a selfish point of view, no I wouldn't because I'd die and not know the difference, BUT then I think about my parents and the rest of my family and how devastating that would be for them and think oppositely.

It's called doing good deeds for society. If we just sat around and did nothing while bad things happen to good people, what does that say about our moral integrity?

Good point, although who are we to say dying is a BAD thing? I don't know. Again, this is only part of me thinking this way...just looking at things from a different perspective and it is kind of unsettling.

 

[Remuneration]

As loveoforganic suggests, your definition of what natural and unnatural mean are rather arbitrary. Human's manipulating nature is unnatural? Throughout our long history we've altered our environment to better suit our needs. Natural is the state of nature in the absence of human influence? Much of our increased longevity is due in part to improved nutrition, hygeine, adaptation to climate conditions, etc. Are these unnatural? What about herbal and "natural" remedies to illness? Why are traditional manipulations of our environments acceptable but not a scientific approach to manipulating our internal environment?

Why are children exempt? What makes them more deserving of life? How do you determine who has lived a "full-enough" life? Nature is cruel. Death rates in what you might call our "natural" state are much higher for both the young and the elderly. Your decisions on who should or should not be saved are not based on what is natural, but rather what feels good to you.

 

[schrizto]

Hi, I am a Pitt student also.

I have heard numerous stories of people who are nearing the end of their lives and their families, making medical decisions for them, are absolutely against DNR and "We want everything done in the doctor's power to keep him/her alive for as long as possible". I believe that if someone is facing a terminal illness, they should die in the least painful way possible, and that they should be able to live their last moments with their loved ones to the fullest. In many cases, many people think a doctor's job is to keep someone alive all the time, but it's not. We have to accept that everyone dies and everyone deserves to die.

If you are truly bothered by the unnatural prolongment of life when it's really someone's time to go, I suggest you consider a specialty like pediatrics where almost any sort of death is premature, or any specialty where you are not put in a position to be forced to keep someone alive.

 

[greatnt249]

Good point, although who are we to say dying is a BAD thing?

You don't really get the luxury of making that decision for your patient. Informed consent dictates that you inform the patient of their treatment options and potential outcomes, and the patient gets to decide what's best for him/her (to a certain extent).

 

[Usernamed]

I'm not a doctor, nor a medical student, but I think you're asking philosophical questions, not medical ones.

To that end I did want to be responsible participant and offer one bit of advise. Allow me one indulgence: please do not believe everything you "learn" while at college. What we're REALLY in danger of is the over-protection of other species and their habitats. There would be more than an acre/person (man, woman, child) if we could build and develop throughout our world.

Before I receive inflammatory responses to that statement, please check your facts. Also, I'm a huge proponent of responsible economic growth and believe that we should only develop and exploit natural resources in a responsible manner. But I'm also a believer in not going down as a species for some cave-dwelling blind salamander.

 

[schrizto]

I also would disagree with the "humans=all other species" opinion. I think humans are superior to animals and that the world's resources are there for humans to use and manipulate. We often view humans as a separate entity from nature, but humans and their progress are as natural as nature itself.

 

[rwalker89]

What we're REALLY in danger of is the over-protection of other species and their habitats. There would be more than an acre/person (man, woman, child) if we could build and develop throughout our world.

Your putting humans above other species which I believe is wrong. Obviously, as humans, that's our natural tendency but what REALLY makes us better than that cave dwelling salamander? The fact this we're the number one predator to all other forms of life?

 

[billw]

The moral code most people have at 20 bears little resemblance to the one they have at 30. So, time may well solve this quandary for you.

 

[schrizto]

Your putting humans above other species which I believe is wrong. Obviously, as humans, that's our natural tendency but what REALLY makes us better than that cave dwelling salamander? The fact this we're the number one predator to all other forms of life?

We're better than cave dwelling salamanders because we have big brains we can use to think, have opinions, and build things. Why do you think people make such a big deal when there's news that an ape trained in a zoo can count or when an elephant can recognize itself in a mirror when all humans have this ability? There will always be predators in nature.

 

[rwalker89]

I also would disagree with the "humans=all other species" opinion. I think humans are superior to animals and that the world's resources are there for humans to use and manipulate.

How can you feel this way? We are animals and to think we're so much better is selfish and narrow-minded.

We often view humans as a separate entity from nature, but humans and their progress are as natural as nature itself.

I agree with this, BUT we have to stop and consider how our progress might be affecting this planet.

 

[Compass]

We're better than cave dwelling salamanders because we have big brains we can use to think, have opinions, and build things. Why do you think people make such a big deal when there's news that an ape trained in a zoo can count or when an elephant can recognize itself in a mirror when all humans have this ability? There will always be predators in nature.

Destroying ecosystems is not the way to demonstrate this... One day, we're going to push so hard the global ecosystem collapses.

 

[rwalker89]

We're better than cave dwelling salamanders because we have big brains we can use to think, have opinions, and build things.

Why does this make us BETTER. It makes us far more advanced, but better? I don't think so, especially, like compass pointed out, we're ****ing things up the majority of the time.

 

[greatnt249]

I'm not a doctor, nor a medical student, but I think you're asking philosophical questions, not medical ones.

You say that as if medicine and philosophy are mutually exclusive.

Obviously, as humans, that's our natural tendency but what REALLY makes us better than that cave dwelling salamander?

1. Our ability to create artificial environments, thus limiting the effects of natural selection on our population, makes us more adept at surviving in environments that are likely to decimate other species. The sheer versatility of the human species is what has allowed us to thrive thus far. I don't get why you think we have to resort to some primordial function in order to be moral beings.

2. You keep emphasizing this vague concept that moral actions can only be derived from the natural state of things. Tell us exactly what the "natural state of things" is. Sure, it's easy to espouse an unchallenged opinion, but I think you'll find it rather difficult to respond to this demand.

 

[schrizto]

Destroying ecosystems is not the way to demonstrate this... One day, we're going to push so hard the global ecosystem collapses.

I never said anything about destroying ecosystems? Becoming aware of resources becoming limited because of byproducts of human advancement is a part of progress.

 

[rwalker89]

1. Our ability to create artificial environments, thus limiting the effects of natural selection on our population, makes us more adept at surviving in environments that are likely to decimate other species. The sheer versatility of the human species is what has allowed us to thrive thus far. I don't get why you think we have to resort to some primordial function in order to be moral beings.

Once again, these abilities make us more advanced, but I don't think it makes us better or more important than other species. All forms of life are extremely special in their own right.

2. You keep emphasizing this vague concept that moral actions can only be derived from the natural state of things. Tell us exactly what the "natural state of things" is. Sure, it's easy to espouse an unchallenged opinion, but I think you'll find it rather difficult to respond to this demand.

Let me think about this, you bring up a good point. Maybe I should concider this, instead, a philosophical quadary.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Hi everyone. First time posting here.

I'm going to be a sophomore biology major at Pitt and am very interested in attending medical school. However one thing has been stirring in my mind for quite sometime that makes me think twice about the profession. I try to be very mindful of nature and how it works and am a firm believer that humans are no more special than any other form of life (other than the fact that we may be the most advanced).

That is odd. So does that mean you believe a barnacle is as valuable as a whale? Or a blade of grass as valuable as a dog? You speak as if being advanced is trivial, but advanced brings other features that make more advanced organisms more valuable. For example, more advanced creatures have a greater capacity for suffering, not just physical but mental. You are probably aware that a dog can suffer on a level that a jellyfish never could. To a lesser degree, one could make the same distinction between a dog and a person.

Another aspect of advanced creatures is their capacity to create things and make their environment a better place for themselves, and perhaps other creatures as well. So far, people have only made the world better for themselves and some of their domesticated pets. But keep in mind that the agricultural revolution actually made life harder for people in the short term, and only spread because it gave them power advantages. But over time, it facilitated people being able to make life better for each other, benefits that only recently spread to most of the population as opposed to an elite few.

A person is, in fact, of more value than other animals. The real question is by how much. This question cannot currently be answered because we don't really know how the minds of other sophisticated animals work.

The issue that concerns me is the fact the we as humans manipulate nature in thousands of ways and the result is our unnatural and, in a sense, dangerous over population.

I'm not sure why you care about what is natural or not. Overpopulation is more an issue of imbalances between sciences than an inherent problem. If our capacity to make more people live longer is not balanced by effective resource management, then overpopulation becomes a problem. For example, genetic manipulation of crops (unnatural) helps us increase yields and able to feed more people with fewer acres of land. High-rise apartment buildings helps us house hundreds or thousands of people in a small area without overcrowding that reduces quality of life. Eventually it would become necessary for us to either colonize new areas, like the oceans, or restrict birth rates.

I want to help people, BUT have an inkling of a moral objection to unnaturally saving their lives. This mindset only applies to those that have lived a pretty full life...children, adolescents and young adults do not apply. I mean, if it's someones time to go, it's their time to go. Why should we fight nature and add to the polluter and resource consumers that humans are?

Pollution is an issue of poor resource management, not population per se. If we could get our electricity from hydroelectric, solar, wind, tidal, etc. energy then there need not be extra pollution per population.

Also, I have an issue with your "time to go," idea. Early in your post, you make it pretty clear you reject the human-centered universe that characterizes religions, and then you go on to say something very superstitious, that people have some kind of predestined time-to-go. I really don't get it. Nature isn't some kind of benevolent goddess that we are raping, it is a collection of amoral processes.

 

[Usernamed]

My Dear rwalker89,

You are in for a long and difficult life. LiveUninhibited's "barnacle/whale" analogy is really the only thing that needs to be considered in your argument (well done, BTW). But because I think you're genuine, I'd like to voice my opinion that, unequivocally, Yes! Humans are superior to other forms of life on Earth.

It's ironic that you do not seem to realize that the moral quandary you're having is exactly why humans are superior to and more important than cave-dwelling salamanders -- we (humans) can actually consider other organisms' "feelings" and choose our actions accordingly. And, no, I'm not being arrogant or pig-headed, it's a fact. Consider what would happen if you crossed paths with a tiger while hiking in some Asian jungle. Do you think the tiger would say, "Well, crap, obviously this 20-year old student has so much to live for. I'd better wait and eat his grandmother. That would be more ethically, more natural, if not more fair to rwalker89." Not a chance! He'd eat you both! The human can think along those lines, consider the damage of his acts.

And while I'm ranting, do you not that overpopulation is an insignificant risk if you can do something to let some elderly person live a few more good years on this earth? I do.

I still think you'd benefit from a/more philosophy classes. One of the traits I appreciate most about philosophers is that they'll often take "arguments to completion" in order to show errors. In this case, when applied to your belief that humans equate to other organisms, we would eventually forfeit our spot on the food chain to the cockroach, if not cancer. Because, if we got cancer at 65, then hell, it must've been natural and we should die. Me? Thanks anyway, but I'd rather stick around and watch my grandkids grow up and enjoy my retirement.

And to whoever said that I was implying medicine and philosophy are mutually exclusive - the two fields are mutually exclusive for purposes of this argument. Not only that, but they are significantly different in every other aspect. Now, you're probably already furiously typing "but they teach ethics in medical school!" but it's not medicine; it's the application of philosophies/ethics. Doctoring is about the application of medicine to living beings, which is why being a health care professional is a unique occupation. I'm sure I'll still hear something about this anyway, but I hope you get my point.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Hi everyone. First time posting here.

I'm going to be a sophomore biology major at Pitt and am very interested in attending medical school. However one thing has been stirring in my mind for quite sometime that makes me think twice about the profession. I try to be very mindful of nature and how it works and am a firm believer that humans are no more special than any other form of life (other than the fact that we may be the most advanced). The issue that concerns me is the fact the we as humans manipulate nature in thousands of ways and the result is our unnatural and, in a sense, dangerous over population.

I want to help people, BUT have an inkling of a moral objection to unnaturally saving their lives. This mindset only applies to those that have lived a pretty full life...children, adolescents and young adults do not apply. I mean, if it's someones time to go, it's their time to go. Why should we fight nature and add to the polluter and resource consumers that humans are?

Now, another part of me answers this questions and it lies in the fact that I AM human and that I have a family that I care about and would be hurt if either of my parents or close aunts/uncles were to go. So when I put myself in others shoes, I support unnaturally saving lives, BUT then part of me thinks the way described above.

I dunno, it's really bothering me that I cannot take a side and settle this issue with myself. So I want to see if current doctors and medical students, who know much more than me, have ever fumbled with this issue and how they have resolved it, OR just get any input on this topic whatsoever.

Thanks!

sounds like you have a bias against old people. =)

 

[greatnt249]

Doctoring is about the application of medicine to living beings, which is why being a health care professional is a unique occupation.

It's also about administering treatments and procedures in an ethical manner; that was the point I was trying to make.

 

[ToldYouSo]

I don't think it should be such a quandary, I mean people have a natural tendency towards self preservation, the avoidance of injury or harm. Also when somebody sees another person in pain, I would hope that they feel the need to help them get better. All of this is natural so if we use technology and knowledge to help us in that, I don't think there is anything so unnatural about it.

 

[BerlinDude]

We're better than cave dwelling salamanders because we have big brains we can use to think, have opinions, and build things. Why do you think people make such a big deal when there's news that an ape trained in a zoo can count or when an elephant can recognize itself in a mirror when all humans have this ability? There will always be predators in nature.

The question "Why are humans better than cave-dwelling salamanders", doesn't deserve a reasoned (and obvious) response, only insults and mockery. I am a bit jealous of the salamander's regenerative capacity though.

What the heck is OP's question - I want to go into medicine, but I don't want to cure people of natural disease processes? Is this dude serious? OP, here are some other 'moral quandaries' for you to think over.

1. I want to be a priest, but I am a committed atheist.
2. I want to be a cop, but support total anarchy in all cases.
2. I want to be a stripper, but I am an ugly fat guy.

Help me with those, and I'll answer your quandary for you.

 

[cleothecat]

We resolve it by realizing that we serve the patients, and often make the decisions along with the patients, respecting their wishes and belief systems.
Rarely should physicians make decisions for their patients. ideally we make such decisions along with the patient and/or the families.

 

[Usernamed]

The question "Why are humans better than cave-dwelling salamanders", doesn't deserve a reasoned (and obvious) response, only insults and mockery. I am a bit jealous of the salamander's regenerative capacity though.

What the heck is OP's question - I want to go into medicine, but I don't want to cure people of natural disease processes? Is this dude serious? OP, here are some other 'moral quandaries' for you to think over.

1. I want to be a priest, but I am a committed atheist.
2. I want to be a cop, but support total anarchy in all cases.
2. I want to be a stripper, but I am an ugly fat guy.

Help me with those, and I'll answer your quandary for you.

I'm really pissed I didn't think of this before you. Thank you. It was hilarious.

 

[afugazzi]

Become a pediatrician.

 

[shiftingmirage]

Become a pediatrician.

Could also do radiology, or pathology.

 

[mdschlmyb]

Once again, these abilities make us more advanced, but I don't think it makes us better or more important than other species. All forms of life are extremely special in their own right.

You may be correct that there is nothing INHERENTLY "better" about humans, and by the way, I think what you are trying to say is not "better" but "containing qualities that make us [humans] more deserving than other species," but only an objective observer could say that. If some super advanced type of alien were to visit earth, then yes, I'm sure that it would view all the species as equally deserving of resources, or 'nature,' as you put it. But unfortunately, we are not aliens. We are NOT and CANNOT be objective observers of our own species. Though the theory of 'group selection' as opposed to 'individual selection' has been largely disproven, there can be no doubt that altruism exists and does promote longevity of the species. We, then, are merely fulfilling our genetically predisposed characteristics when we view other humans as being more deserving than other species. No one would expect a lion to not eat an antelope because the antelope has equal 'rights.' But we would not expect to see one lion killing and eating another. Species look out for other members of that same species. That is plain genetics and evolution. Simply because we have the intellectual capacity to have somewhat of a grasp on the roles these evolutionary mechanisms play does not mean that we should try to 'steer' things off course, or onto a different course.

If you saw a human and a dog trying to kill each other, which would you save? I sure hope you'd save the human over the dog. Again, this isn't about seeing us humans as 'better' or 'more deserving,' its about genetics and evolution. To us humans, we need to be our own biggest fans. It's a 'selfish gene' indeed...

 

[rwalker89]

If you saw a human and a dog trying to kill each other, which would you save? I sure hope you'd save the human over the dog. Again, this isn't about seeing us humans as 'better' or 'more deserving,' its about genetics and evolution. To us humans, we need to be our own biggest fans. It's a 'selfish gene' indeed...

Of course I'd save the human.

And whoever gave the example of the tiger and human and how the tiger wouldn't think a minute about its acts and that the human would, well your comparing a wild animal to an extremely domesticated one. If we were hungry and still hunting our food, the human would behave exactly the tiger and not give a crap either.

I'm starting to give up and just realize, "hey, this isn't none of business and it's not up to me"

BUT for those of who who are adamant about humans being the greatest creatures on earth how about this? We can't even make our own food. Look at plants and the fact that all they have to do is hang out in the sun and they have a full belly. That is an extremely intriguing ability IMO.

 

[schrizto]

We can't even make our own food. Look at plants and the fact that all they have to do is hang out in the sun and they have a full belly. That is an extremely intriguing ability IMO.

Yes we make our own food. I can pop popcorn and make pancakes and cook spaghetti. I hope you're not suggesting plants are somehow superior to humans, because that would be ridiculous. Plants have no brains and frankly, aren't conscious thinking beings.

 

[rwalker89]

Yes we make our own food. I can pop popcorn and make pancakes and cook spaghetti. I hope you're not suggesting plants are somehow superior to humans, because that would be ridiculous. Plants have no brains and frankly, aren't conscious thinking beings.

Of course they're not superior. I don't think anything is superior or inferior. Yea humans have the ability to consciously think, plants have the ability to make their own food from the sun, some insects have the ability to make their own light. The fact as ALL species have an interesting characteristic about them that makes, in the whole scheme of things, equal.

 

[schrizto]

Of course they're not superior. I don't think anything is superior or inferior. Yea humans have the ability to consciously think, plants have the ability to make their own food from the sun, some insects have the ability to make their own light. The fact as ALL species have an interesting characteristic about them that makes, in the whole scheme of things, equal.

So if insects, plants and humans were all equal, is it just as bad to kill a plant or insect as to kill a human?

 

[Rogue Synapse]

I want to help people, BUT have an inkling of a moral objection to unnaturally saving their lives. This mindset only applies to those that have lived a pretty full life...children, adolescents and young adults do not apply. I mean, if it's someones time to go, it's their time to go. Why should we fight nature and add to the polluter and resource consumers that humans are?

I'm currently doing an externship in the Neuro ICU, and I've dealt with this issue recently as well. We have several patients with massive brain damage who have basically infarcted their entire brains, but are saved from being declared brain-dead (i.e. legally dead, withdraw care no matter what family wants) by a shred of a brainstem reflex or two. It's clear by their MRI that their brain is soup and they will never recover, but their families insist on doing everything possible, and as a result, these two patients have been sitting in the ICU for weeks on ventilators and full support, incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills that their families will never pay (and eventually get written off and subsidized by the rest of us). They are taking up valuable ICU beds that other patients desperately need to get the care that might save them. Until this rotation, I would have never thought that a physician should be able to REJECT unnaturally saving someone's life, but these situations just seem horribly wrong.

 

[schrizto]

I'm currently doing an externship in the Neuro ICU, and I've dealt with this issue recently as well. We have several patients with massive brain damage who have basically infarcted their entire brains, but are saved from being declared brain-dead (i.e. legally dead, withdraw care no matter what family wants) by a shred of a brainstem reflex or two. It's clear by their MRI that their brain is soup and they will never recover, but their families insist on doing everything possible, and as a result, these two patients have been sitting in the ICU for weeks on ventilators and full support, incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills that their families will never pay (and eventually get written off and subsidized by the rest of us). They are taking up valuable ICU beds that other patients desperately need to get the care that might save them. Until this rotation, I would have never thought that a physician should be able to REJECT unnaturally saving someone's life, but these situations just seem horribly wrong.

I mentioned this in my first post in this thread... just because a patient can live longer doesn't mean that medical professionals should take all possible measures to let the patient continue to live if there's no quality in those moments alive. I see what the OP's original point was before the thread veered into a debate of the superiority of animals vs. humans.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

BUT for those of who who are adamant about humans being the greatest creatures on earth how about this? We can't even make our own food. Look at plants and the fact that all they have to do is hang out in the sun and they have a full belly. That is an extremely intriguing ability IMO.

Hm, well maybe we could genetically modify humans to have that ability someday. Well, at least those who like the sun. Little green men indeed.

 

[Compass]

Hm, well maybe we could genetically modify humans to have that ability someday. Well, at least those who like the sun. Little green men indeed.

In other news, 40,000 more WoW players died from lack of sunlight.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

BUT for those of who who are adamant about humans being the greatest creatures on earth how about this? We can't even make our own food. Look at plants and the fact that all they have to do is hang out in the sun and they have a full belly. That is an extremely intriguing ability IMO.

We also have an amazing ability. It's called the digestive process, which we use to consume said plant.

You're belief that the worth of a human being is equivalent to the worth of any other animal probably has something to do with the theory of evolution, right? That because we all come from a common ancestor there really isn't anything special about us? (I'd imagine if that weren't the case and you were religious then you'd REALLY believe we were special)

If that is the case, then doesn't that same theory talk about survival of the fittest? Why are our lives worth more than a plant's or chipmunks? Simple. We're just the stronger species. We have been able to use our intellect to manipulate the environment in a way that makes up for every physical shortcoming we have (sheer strength, for example).

If anything, I commend us for not going on an environmental rampage just because we can. The fact that we care about other species is only another reason why we're a superior species: we can, at time, be trusted with the survival of another species. That's something that's pretty much exclusive to us.

I agree that we have been abusing our environment a bit too much lately, but frankly, all this talk about how we're just the same as any other animal on the planet is bologna. We're not the same and we never will be.