From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Jul 12 2002 - 19:18:13 MDT
T0Morrow@aol.com wrote:
2) Consent to suspend. Suppose a patient has neither expressly
consented to
> suspension nor expressly objected to it. Does hypothetical consent justify
> suspending that patient?
>
> Argument pro: Any reasonable person would consent to a life-saving
> process--even if one a bit more cutting-edge than CPR--that stands to give
> them another shot at life. If upon revival they don't like it, well, they
> can again opt for death.
>
> Argument con: Hypothetical consent relies on a judgement of what a
> reasonable person would agree to. Most reasonable people, even in the most
> advanced of today's societies, would not agree to suspension. Their acts
> reveal as much. They would have good reasons for that view, too, as they
> might well object to the process on grounds that it will waste resources
> better spent on the living, that it will give false hope to their loved ones,
> and so forth.
>
> I'm on the fence between those two arguments, and so welcome comments.
>
Definitely con. There is no way to predict how long it will be
or under what circumstances a person might be revived. To send
someone on an involuntary trip without consent to some unknown
future time and circumstances is an act of coercion that cannot
be justified. Many quite reasonable people object to far more
mundane life-saving processes of certain kinds or extremes every
day for a variety of reasons. Also, could you imagine the
negative comments like "They couldn't squeeze enough blood money
out of the poor dear and her family while she was alive so they
made her a corpsicle on some spurious promise that she will
someday live again!" No, we can't justify making this decision
for other people.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:23 MST