Tay-Sachs Disease

[UptonStellington]

An interesting question has been posed to me, and I can't quite figure out where I stand. I'm interested in everyone's thoughts, and for background, you might want to check out "The Nature of Broken Units" found here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...0units&st=0

So the question goes something like this:

20 days after birth, a child is diagnosed with Tay-Sachs disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_sachs). A baby affected by Tay-Sachs disease seems healthy for the first few months, but generally, around about 6 months, symptoms start to appear. Tay-Sachs is marked by a slowing down of development, gradually resulting in the loss of mental functions and motor skills. Eventually, the child becomes deaf, blind, mentally retarded, paralyzed, and is non-responsive to the environment. Most commonly, a child with Tay-Sachs dies by the age of five. Would it be immoral for the parents of the child to have a post-birth abortion after it has been diagnosed with Tay-Sachs?

I am here concerned with the issue of the right to life as it applies to the child. Does the child have a right to life? Don Watkins, who authored the Broken Units essay, makes this point in regards to a person without a rational faculty. Since they are lacking the essential characteristic that defines the concept "man," they do not have any of the benefits that stem as a result of that characteristic -- namely, individual rights.

On the other hand, I am wondering if there is some sort of argument to be made for the fact that we still recognize the baby as a human, and as such, it should be granted rights. I don't know what this argument is, and, as far as I can see at this point, granting an entity without a rational faculty rights would destroy the concept of rights -- but maybe it's out there and it's something I have not yet considered...

Thoughts?

[Mimpy]

You cannot kill a child with Tay-Sachs for the same reason you cannot kill any infant.

[UptonStellington]

Could you please elaborate on that, Mimpy?

If a child without a rational faculty has no rights, how can they have a right to life?

[KendallJ]

Well, I'm curious as to what you see in the Watkins article that supports any conclusion that the child can be euthenized? It is not even an example of the "broken unit" concept as he described it. That is, it is not a child born without the rational faculty, but born with one, that then loses it. It would be no different than someone who has alzheimer's, except for the fact that their rational faculty has not developed fully (i.e. this is essentially saying, "except for the fact that they are sitll a child"). Does someone with Alzheimers not have a right to life, because several years in the future they will be an irrational lump?

Mimpy is exactly right.

@ Mimpy,

Would you agree that if this condition could be diagnosed in utero, that the prospective parents would have a right to abort it?

[DavidOdden]

Would you agree that if this condition could be diagnosed in utero, that the prospective parents would have a right to abort it?

(Filling in part of the sentence)...before birth. But what does an answer to that question teach us? Is the woman's right to abortion contingent on an external justification such as "would be diseased in this particular way"?

[UptonStellington]

Yes, maybe Mimpy is exactly right but as far as I 'm concerned, she didn't explain her position. I don't know Mimpy's post history; for all I know she could justify it as being wrong because God would be angry.

And I admit that I don't know much about Tay-Sachs -- I'm sorry, I was jumping the gun a bit here talking about the baby's rational faculty. So long as the baby has a rational faculty, it has rights.

Does this mean then that after the several months when it loses its rational faculty (assuming it does? again, I don't know if this is completely the case with Tay-Sachs) it can properly be euthanized?

[Mimpy]

Yes, maybe Mimpy is exactly right but as far as I 'm concerned, she didn't explain her position. I don't know Mimpy's post history; for all I know she could justify it as being wrong because God would be angry.

That's exactly where I was coming from.

Would you agree that if this condition could be diagnosed in utero, that the prospective parents would have a right to abort it?

If the fetus was pre-viable, then yes, the mother would have the right to abort it.

[KendallJ]

(Filling in part of the sentence)...before birth. But what does an answer to that question teach us? Is the woman's right to abortion contingent on an external justification such as "would be diseased in this particular way"?

No I wasn't trying ot educate the general public or qualify abortion rights. I was just checking Mimpy's position based upon a private conversation we had in chat on abortion a while back. Sorry to be obscure.

[UptonStellington]

That's exactly where I was coming from.

OH I BET IT WAS! No, I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I can only assume that given your presence here, you have a legitimate reason behind what you said -- I'm just asking what that reason is.

But still my question stands -- after several months, if the baby loses its rational faculty, can it properly be euthanized?

DOES Tay-Sachs result in a loss of rational faculty?

[UptonStellington]

And I guess I should seek even further clarification -- how are we defining "rational faculty" ?

[themadkat]

OH I BET IT WAS! No, I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I can only assume that given your presence here, you have a legitimate reason behind what you said -- I'm just asking what that reason is.

But still my question stands -- after several months, if the baby loses its rational faculty, can it properly be euthanized?

DOES Tay-Sachs result in a loss of rational faculty?

I don't believe the baby should be euthanized, but I think it is moral to make the decision to withdraw any further medical intervention once the child can no longer make any sense of its surroundings. If the parents decide to just take the baby home and make it as comfortable as possible while its final months play out, that would be an acceptable and understandable decision.

[DavidOdden]

But still my question stands -- after several months, if the baby loses its rational faculty, can it properly be euthanized?

The moral principle, correctly encoded in legal systems, is that people have rights. There is no debate over what a person is, and good moral principles are dounded on bright lines. Being a person is not contingent on having a proven rational faculty (the capacity, realized or not, to reason). The purpose behind stating the moral principle (about rights) in terms of people is to be sure that beings with a rational faculty are protected. My opinion is that Dennis Kucinich does not have a rational faculty, so he should be euthanized. I do recognise though that I could be wrong. It has sometimes been held that certain autistic people have no rational faculty, when in fact they turn out to have horrendous language and motor problems that prevent them from talking. There is pretty good evidence that Terri Schiavo no longer had the capacity to reason, which is why it was right to allow her to die of her own accord.

[UptonStellington]

I don't believe the baby should be euthanized, but I think it is moral to make the decision to withdraw any further medical intervention once the child can no longer make any sense of its surroundings. If the parents decide to just take the baby home and make it as comfortable as possible while its final months play out, that would be an acceptable and understandable decision.

For what reasons is it moral to withdraw any further medical intervention but not euthanize the child?

[UptonStellington]

the moral principle, correctly encoded in legal systems, is that people have rights.

Okay, agreed here.

There is no debate over what a person is

Actually, maybe that's exactly what I'm debating here. What MAKES a person a person? I had thought the distinguishing characteristic for man was that he is THE animal with a rational faculty? A man without eyes is still a man because he still possesses the distinguishing characteristic that makes him man... But why do we consider one without a rational faculty a person?

[themadkat]

For what reasons is it moral to withdraw any further medical intervention but not euthanize the child?

Because if you withdraw medical intervention, the disease kills the child. If you euthanize it, YOU kill the child. Now, if the child is already past the point of no return and in its last moments and it's in terrible pain, then I think you could make the argument for euthanasia, but only then.

[DavidOdden]

What MAKES a person a person?

Uh, what makes A be A? A person is a person because that's what a person is. A cat is a cat because that's what a cat is. (It's a formula). You start with the identification (this is a man, that is a dog, those are trees) and then seek the common denominator that economically implies all of the characteristics of man, dog, tree. I'm suggesting that you don't want to put some definition first, over reality -- we don't deduce reality from a definition, we induce a definition from reality.

There are hominid-looking objects that do lack a rational faculty, some of which are born alive, so we can debate over whether they actually qualify as people (I'd rather not though). I haven't seen any evidence that children with Tay-Sach's (or adults with Alzheimers) lack a rational faculty. Their capability to reason has been seriously compromised, but same goes for Kucinich.

[Qwertz]

Perhaps it would be useful at this point to mention that a concept is not interchangeable with its definition? Just because the concept "man" has the definition "rational animal" does not mean that a baby without a rational faculty is not a unit properly within the concept "man." Rights are enjoyed by all units in the concept, including those that ought to have some such characteristic or another, but for one reason or another lack it.

~Q

[UptonStellington]

Okay thanks David, that cleared it up a little bit.

Perhaps it would be useful at this point to mention that a concept is not interchangeable with its definition? Just because the concept "man" has the definition "rational animal" does not mean that a baby without a rational faculty is not a unit properly within the concept "man." Rights are enjoyed by all units in the concept, including those that ought to have some such characteristic or another, but for one reason or another lack it.

Qwertz -- this makes sense to me in regards to the unit idea. Still, could you explain a little bit on WHY rights are enjoyed by all units of the concept? I thought it was a specific characteristic of the unit that gives it rights -- the rational faculty in man. If there is a unit of the concept lacking THE property that gives rise to something else, why does that unit still get it? Just because?

And still, I'd like some clarification as to what everyone means by "rational faculty," because I realize I've been throwing that term out there without defining it.

My working definition, in regards to rights (taken from Peikoff and others): To follow reason means to base knowledge on observation, form concepts according to the actual, measurable, relationships among concretes, and use those concepts according to the rules of logic, based on the Law of Identity. To follow reason means to act rationally. The rational faculty is cognitive power that permits this. Since this is man's means of survival, he must be free to act on it -- giving rise to individual rights.

If that's a bad definition, let me know, and please, correct/edit it.

[D'kian]

I wonder if discussions like this one by her students and followers were the cause Ayn Rand joked about the Objectivist Lexicon "People will be able to look up 'babies' and see I did not advocate eating babies for breakfast."

Just an idle thought.

Edited February 27, 2008 by D'kian

[UptonStellington]

wait wait WAIT. Ayn Rand didn't advocate eating babies?! Oh crap... this is NOT good news...

[UptonStellington]

Nobody? Is anybody able to explain WHY rights are enjoyed by all units of the concept? If there's a specific characteristic of the unit that gives it rights -- the rational faculty in man, and there is a unit of the concept lacking THE property that gives rise to something else, why does that unit still get it?

I'm on the edge of my seat here..

[DavidOdden]

I thought it was a specific characteristic of the unit that gives it rights -- the rational faculty in man. If there is a unit of the concept lacking THE property that gives rise to something else, why does that unit still get it? Just because?

I find this part helpful. VOS "Man's Rights" p108:

"Rights" are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

(p. 110) A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life.

(p. 111 and Galt's Speech) The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival.

Rights are moral concepts, which means they are general principles and not specific lists. To satisfy their purpose (recognizing the nature of man and the conditions necessary for his survival) they must be comprehensible and objectively recognizable. They cannot be riddled with exceptions and marginal cases -- we need bright lines. The concept "man" is a very bright line.

[Zip]

Nobody? Is anybody able to explain WHY rights are enjoyed by all units of the concept? If there's a specific characteristic of the unit that gives it rights -- the rational faculty in man, and there is a unit of the concept lacking THE property that gives rise to something else, why does that unit still get it?

I'm on the edge of my seat here..

Your premise is that the "specific characteristic" that defines a man is "rational faculty". In my opinion the specific characteristic is our DNA, not any quality of our reason, form, race or intelligence.

Even once a rational man has ceased to form rational thought his DNA designates him as belonging to the species.

The idea that someone (anyone) could decide that humanness ceases at point X, Y or Z is truly scary, not that it hasn't been done before. The Nazi's instituted euthanasia based on mental incapacity and designated all races except the Arian race inferior and therefore non-human/disposable.

[UptonStellington]

so David, is it that you are not in agreement with:

Everything we know about man applies to deaf men, except that which follows from man’s ability to hear. A deaf man, for instance, has rights because rights follow from man’s conceptual capacity, and not his ability to hear. Equally, a flat tire isn’t edible because the edibility of a tire is not dependent on whether or not the tire retains compressed air. A brainless baby, on the other hand, has no rights, because rights follow from the characteristic which, in him, is broken, i.e., non-existent – a rational faculty.

-- From Watkins' essay

Or is it that the problem is that we don't KNOW one is lacking a rational faculty? ... for example, with Alzheimers and Tay-Sachs, the rational faculty may be SEVERELY diminished, but not lost entirely...

[DavidOdden]

My position is that a homo sapiens shell which lacks a brain is not a person. A mentally retarded person does have a brain, as does an infant with Tay-Sachs. I disagree with Don on the statement "A brainless baby, on the other hand, has no rights, because rights follow from the characteristic which, in him, is broken, i.e., non-existent – a rational faculty". Specifically, I do not see rights as being something that you deduce directly from having a rational faculty; I see rights as being arrived at inductively, stemming from man's identity and the need to say what has these "rights" thing, plus the very important need for bright lines under the law. We can be certain that a baby without a brain lacks a rational faculty, and we can be rather certain that an infant with Tay-Sachs has a rational faculty. Until tests for the existence of a rational faculty pass the Peikoff sniff-test for certainty, it would be immoral to deny mentally disabled people their rights and treat them like property. If you can prove that an infant with Tay-Sachs is actually not a person, then the question of not having rights could be considered seriously, IMO.