Post by bonds0097 on Mar 18, 2011 19:16:26 GMT -5
I thought we had a rather interesting conversation last Thursday and so I have created this thread in order that whoever would like to continue it can do so.
Briefly summarizing what has been said so far:
- The class was discussing a variety of issues, ranging from the over-prescription of meds, difficulty in diagnosing neurological disorders, the standards by which we might determine who is eligible for certain medical procedures (such a the Radioguided Occult Lesion Localization procedure Mike described yesterday, see an article below for more info).
- I brought up what I consider to be a common issue: that many of these sorts of discussions take place under the assumption that it is possible for a third-party to determine what is best for another human being. I stated my opinion that humans should be left to make their own decisions, and that people should be allowed to choose for themselves what is best for them (whether that means amputating a limb, getting cosmetic surgery or taking pharmaceuticals for conditions that others may not believe exist).
- Ben brought up his concern that there are times when Third-Party Decision-Making is required, such as when an individual's actions pose a threat to the liberty of others.
- Charlie expanded this somewhat by arguing that there are people who need others to make decisions for them, such as the severely mentally-handicapped or for example people with mental illnesses that lead to uncontrollable self-mutilation.
- Lastly, Zach warned us that Third-Party Decision-Making is a slipper slope that can lead to dehumanizing others. He gave as examples the idea that blind people are unable to navigate on their own or fend for themselves or the example of autistic people who are considered highly abnormal by the usual standards of expected social interaction and communication but are in fact amazing prodigies in certain other areas (such as math or music).
- Alex capped off the conversation by pointing everything back to the question of 'What is a person?' and suggested that our evaluation of what a person is largely derived from the ability to communicate and use language.
Rather than bias the entire thread by starting with my own views or beliefs, I'd like to just post some links that I think can help spark the conversation and ask a few questions. Hopefully someone else will pick things up and we can have an interesting conversation.
Links
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694242/ - Link to an abstract on Radioguided Occult Lesion Localization, pretty interesting.
psych.med.nyu.edu/conditions-we-treat/conditions/lesch-nyhan-syndrome - This is a link to an NYU Article on Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome, which is what I believe Charlie was referring to when mentioning people with uncontrollable self-mutilation.
www.nads.org/pages_new/human_interest/employed.html - An interesting article on employed adults with Down Syndrome.
cat.libraries.psu.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi/GfhRCJsA16/UP-PAT/294500031/9 - Penn State library link (with a partial view in Google Books) of a book by Allen Buchanan, a Bio-ethicist at Duke, about the ethics of Surrogate Decision-Making. An early section, which is available in the free Google Version, is about determining a person's competence and incompetence. One of the chief requirements that he lists for competence, as I'm sure Alex could predict, the capacity to understand and communicate.
www.szasz.com/manifesto.html The manifesto of Dr. Thomas Szasz, who is best known for his book The Myth of Mental Illness. His views certainly 'extreme' by most standards but they still offer some good food for though.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnylM1hI2jc An amazing video called "In My Own Language" where Ms. A M Baggs talks about how our limited definitions of thought have often led to people her being labeled as non-thinking or non-persons.
I guess that's all I have for now. A few questions I think some of these links raise:
- Should people be allowed to make their own choices? If so, what limits, if any should be placed on individual choice? Should people be prevented from making 'bad' decisions? Are there people who should not be allowed to make any of their own decisions?
- How does one determine a person's competence? My competence, I mean their ability to make their own decisions. Is competence black and white, with a strict division between the incompetent and incompetent or is it a spectrum? If so, how does one determine where a person falls on the spectrum and what degree of autonomy they should be accorded?
- How does technology challenge our assumptions about thought and communication?
- Finally, what is a person? How has our definition of personhood changed over time?
I wanted to have this discussion start from a more less neutral point of view but I obviously have my own opinion and can't help but express it even in the way I choose which links to post or what questions to ask so please feel free to post your own links or ask your questions. It is my hope that at least a few of you will be compelled to join in the discussion and we can have some fun with it.
Briefly summarizing what has been said so far:
- The class was discussing a variety of issues, ranging from the over-prescription of meds, difficulty in diagnosing neurological disorders, the standards by which we might determine who is eligible for certain medical procedures (such a the Radioguided Occult Lesion Localization procedure Mike described yesterday, see an article below for more info).
- I brought up what I consider to be a common issue: that many of these sorts of discussions take place under the assumption that it is possible for a third-party to determine what is best for another human being. I stated my opinion that humans should be left to make their own decisions, and that people should be allowed to choose for themselves what is best for them (whether that means amputating a limb, getting cosmetic surgery or taking pharmaceuticals for conditions that others may not believe exist).
- Ben brought up his concern that there are times when Third-Party Decision-Making is required, such as when an individual's actions pose a threat to the liberty of others.
- Charlie expanded this somewhat by arguing that there are people who need others to make decisions for them, such as the severely mentally-handicapped or for example people with mental illnesses that lead to uncontrollable self-mutilation.
- Lastly, Zach warned us that Third-Party Decision-Making is a slipper slope that can lead to dehumanizing others. He gave as examples the idea that blind people are unable to navigate on their own or fend for themselves or the example of autistic people who are considered highly abnormal by the usual standards of expected social interaction and communication but are in fact amazing prodigies in certain other areas (such as math or music).
- Alex capped off the conversation by pointing everything back to the question of 'What is a person?' and suggested that our evaluation of what a person is largely derived from the ability to communicate and use language.
Rather than bias the entire thread by starting with my own views or beliefs, I'd like to just post some links that I think can help spark the conversation and ask a few questions. Hopefully someone else will pick things up and we can have an interesting conversation.
Links
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694242/ - Link to an abstract on Radioguided Occult Lesion Localization, pretty interesting.
psych.med.nyu.edu/conditions-we-treat/conditions/lesch-nyhan-syndrome - This is a link to an NYU Article on Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome, which is what I believe Charlie was referring to when mentioning people with uncontrollable self-mutilation.
www.nads.org/pages_new/human_interest/employed.html - An interesting article on employed adults with Down Syndrome.
cat.libraries.psu.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi/GfhRCJsA16/UP-PAT/294500031/9 - Penn State library link (with a partial view in Google Books) of a book by Allen Buchanan, a Bio-ethicist at Duke, about the ethics of Surrogate Decision-Making. An early section, which is available in the free Google Version, is about determining a person's competence and incompetence. One of the chief requirements that he lists for competence, as I'm sure Alex could predict, the capacity to understand and communicate.
www.szasz.com/manifesto.html The manifesto of Dr. Thomas Szasz, who is best known for his book The Myth of Mental Illness. His views certainly 'extreme' by most standards but they still offer some good food for though.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnylM1hI2jc An amazing video called "In My Own Language" where Ms. A M Baggs talks about how our limited definitions of thought have often led to people her being labeled as non-thinking or non-persons.
I guess that's all I have for now. A few questions I think some of these links raise:
- Should people be allowed to make their own choices? If so, what limits, if any should be placed on individual choice? Should people be prevented from making 'bad' decisions? Are there people who should not be allowed to make any of their own decisions?
- How does one determine a person's competence? My competence, I mean their ability to make their own decisions. Is competence black and white, with a strict division between the incompetent and incompetent or is it a spectrum? If so, how does one determine where a person falls on the spectrum and what degree of autonomy they should be accorded?
- How does technology challenge our assumptions about thought and communication?
- Finally, what is a person? How has our definition of personhood changed over time?
I wanted to have this discussion start from a more less neutral point of view but I obviously have my own opinion and can't help but express it even in the way I choose which links to post or what questions to ask so please feel free to post your own links or ask your questions. It is my hope that at least a few of you will be compelled to join in the discussion and we can have some fun with it.