[ExI] Vegetative patient free of pain

[Dan]

On Monday, November 19, 2012 9:16 AM Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19 November 2012 00:05, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I would err on the side of the message be right when it's of the "I want
>> to live" type and possibly mistaken when it's the opposite. That seems
>> the reasonable position to take, no? 
>
> Yes, I think it appears reasonable at least not to ignore possible "make me live"
> messages, even though this may mean that a few vegetative patients will be kept
> alive that are not actually conscious, do want to die, or simply do not care.


Agreed.

>>> Having said that, I expect that the technology will become an argument
>>> for pro-life partisans to the effect that people responding in any way should
>>> not be allowed to die in any case ("hey, if they want to die they are
>>> conscious, so this is euthanasia, bla-bla).
>>
>> Well, there's a different argument there. If someone believes suicide is not to be
>> permitted, then, yeah, it doesn't matter what the patient wants. But I was talking
>> about when one doesn't hold that view.
>
> OK. I am just saying that those who are against assisted suicide will make the request
> to die a proof that the vegetative patient is in fact "alive" and conscious.


That's true and then it becomes more the issue of not allowing an assisted suicide. My guess is, though, this would be a harder sell if it became widely known, especially if the patient were in pain. I mean, yeah, people who are against suicide under all conditions are going to use such evidence to play the patient's request as one that can't be granted because communicating the request itself means the patient is alive (in a meaningful sense of the person being alive and not merely of a nonconscious collection of organ systems being alive), but I think this would likely lose sympathy to many others, maybe even most people. I'm guessing outside the US, in Europe especially, the general sentiment would likely fall more on the side of granting the request.


>> Also, what do you mean by "euthanasia"? The term is often used to mean
>> when the patient makes the request. In this case, of course, the problem is
>> if the patient has made the request (the reliability). If it's someone else making
>> it, then it's another kettle of fish.
>
> Currently, life-death decisions are certainly not made by vegetative patients, nor
> by newborns. Still, the relevant procedures are usually still called euthanasia.  


Yeah, though I think that's a muddying of the term, but I don't know if I can shovel much sand against this tide of common usage. I still prefer to think of it in terms of self-termination, assisted or no.

>> Same here, which is always surprises me that many if not most self-identified
>> transhumanists seem to want to coerce other people, as in embracing various forms of statism.
>
> My point is however subtler: let us say that we do not intend to "coerce" nobody to live
> longer then he wish in a legal sense. 
>
> Do we consider persuading him to do so, or fostering a "live as long as you can at any
> cost" culture, part of our mission?
> 

> Because if the answer is "no", we can spare ourselves all the stupid debate about "are
> longer-living humans really happier, aren't they going to get bored, isn't intensity better
> than duration, etc", because basically what we want is simply having not just the option
> of dying, but also the option of living.

>From the perspective of coercion, the question is really at cost to whom? If others freely pay the costs, then it's not really a problem there: people who don't want to pay, don't have to; those who do, can do so. And it doesn't really become a public debate over controlling what people can or can't do with their resources or themselves.

But what I was bringing up here, if I'm understanding you, is no matter what culture you foster or don't, if people are allowed to exercise autonomy over their lives -- with the costs being borne by them and those who choose to help them -- then I think the whole issue becomes not much of a problem. The problem we have today arises because most people don't believe in this kind of autonomy. At best, they pay lip service to it, but would restrict it in all kinds of ways -- either because they "in principle" disagree with it or really don't think in terms of principles to begin with. (There's a difference between someone who has principles that simply disagree with yours and someone who really doesn't operate in terms of principles. I believe, from looking at all kinds of surveys over the years that most people fall into the later category. This isn't an attempt to moralize against them, but just to recognize that they simply don't work that way. However,
 those individuals, which I still think are the majority, tend to be persuaded by others things, typically public sentiment. So, if more people start leaning towards autonomy here, then I think many of these folks will follow. And, the history of humanity has been one of moving toward more autonomy in many arenas: slavery is pretty much gone (save for conscription, but even that's on the decline), marriage, sexuality, etc.)

Regards,

Dan