Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 02:48:03 PM

My lack of support for their existence (That makes me sound like a monster, but that's how I'm gonna phrase it) is almost entirely the result of the impact that these people have on others, and the loss of quality of life to those who have to take care of them for their entire lives. I'm fully aware that the mentally retarded can live happily, but their primary caretakers, usually their families, were forced into that position of literal servitude without consent. It's a disservice to them.

Hmm, it's not an unreasonable stance to hold but not one that I share.

They are indeed a burden, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a detriment. The saying goes to judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners and animals (I think) well that should also extend to the infirm and the mentally handicapped. By carrying the burden and helping them to enjoy life despite the expense and pain it might cost to do so to me is a better reflection of the good aspects of humanity than almost anything else on the planet.

Here's the filthy commie socialist in me though, it is entirely unreasonable for any family to shoulder that burden alone. That is where the state should be helping to provide for it's citizens as they provide for it (taxes), and in the UK that's how it works.

I was recently on a work placement with a learning disabilities team, so I got to see firsthand how they go about caring for some downright difficult people. The families of the people under the purview of the LDT were all under ridiculous strain, which is what the job of the LDT also involves - to help the family cope with it as well as providing primary care.

Some families can't cope and nobody should hold that against them, the shame and guilt the parents hold involuntarily from giving birth to an 'imperfect' child is stigmatic enough. So those with LD who are not cared for by the family go into carehomes, residentials or assisted living depending on the severity. There they are (in theory) cared for 24/7 by people who are trained to manage any and all of the nastier sides to the problems they face and on the whole it works quite well. There are plenty of problems still, but I came away from it with a favourable impression of the whole system.

A little bit rambly all that, but loosely the tl;dr is that the state should be providing primary and secondary care for people with severe LDT as a simple matter of principle. Which in the UK is written into law courtesy of Valuing People 1 and VP2 but as I understand it the states are uh.... not so keen on the whole safety net concept >_>

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on September 26, 2015, 04:17:50 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 02:48:03 PM

However, from my experience, I have yet to meet someone with a severe learning disability who has absolutely no enjoyment of life at all.

Kids with severe mental disabilities are some of the happiest people I've ever met.

Which is why happiness alone is a poor way to measure quality of life.

On it's own it is, but it's usually factored into a few other checkpoints to determine if the person in question is having a reasonable QoL.

Off the top of my dodgy memory, things like promoting independence (a pretty wide umbrella), family contact (if appropriate) and safety from harm etc are the ones they use but I didn't get to see a checklist firsthand just the bits I heard from the staff discussing one <.<

It's a subjective measure all the same though.

Edit: Ninja'd by the edit.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 05:17:29 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 04:05:53 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 02:48:03 PM

My lack of support for their existence (That makes me sound like a monster, but that's how I'm gonna phrase it) is almost entirely the result of the impact that these people have on others, and the loss of quality of life to those who have to take care of them for their entire lives. I'm fully aware that the mentally retarded can live happily, but their primary caretakers, usually their families, were forced into that position of literal servitude without consent. It's a disservice to them.

Hmm, it's not an unreasonable stance to hold but not one that I share.

They are indeed a burden, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a detriment. The saying goes to judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners and animals (I think) well that should also extend to the infirm and the mentally handicapped. By carrying the burden and helping them to enjoy life despite the expense and pain it might cost to do so to me is a better reflection of the good aspects of humanity than almost anything else on the planet.

So whether or not it is correct to prevent some sort of inconvenience, or downright loss of living quality, is determined by it's capacity to reflect the good nature of humanity? How far are you willing to go with this philosophy; where do you draw the line between a burden rightfully endured because it shows the good nature of man, versus a burden that we should not have to deal with to begin with?

I believe that it is wrong to present this inconvenience to the afflicted people from the start simply because forcing them to do so is more "Humanitarian." If the circumstance under question can be accurately predicted and, therefore, stopped, then we should do it.

It might have come across like that, but I didn't quite intend it to read like that if it did <.<
Carrying a burden for the sake of doing so isn't really all that special, it's just remarking upon the capacity of humans to look after one of their own even if that one is on paper a detriment to society (in a non-harmful way like an arsonist or serial killer would be obviously)

I'm not opposed to abortion of people who would be born with an extreme mental disability, or ideally not even reaching conception via genetic screening/engineering but that doesn't really cover a whole lot of cases. The vast majority of people with some form of LD aren't at the extreme end of the spectrum and even the ones who are there generally aren't there as a result of a detectable prenatal predisposition.

We can screen reliably for downs syndrome and for notable brain tissue defects, but we can't as of yet screen for severe autism and the like. I can't quite remember the aetiology of cerebral palsy so that might be possible but loosely there isn't a lot to be gained from pursuing a birth-prevention scheme because iirc a lot of LDs only present themselves by the time the child is a few years old and has not begun normal mental development.

So unless we as a society/species are comfortable with euthanising toddlers, it's not really a feasible option.

In the ideal hypothetical though, where you can with absolute certainty tell that a developing embryo will be born with severe LD and will endure a pretty short and shit life at the expense of those around them, then of course the more moral option is to prevent gestation in the first place.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 06:55:01 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 06:46:39 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 05:17:29 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 04:05:53 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 02:48:03 PM

My lack of support for their existence (That makes me sound like a monster, but that's how I'm gonna phrase it) is almost entirely the result of the impact that these people have on others, and the loss of quality of life to those who have to take care of them for their entire lives. I'm fully aware that the mentally retarded can live happily, but their primary caretakers, usually their families, were forced into that position of literal servitude without consent. It's a disservice to them.

Hmm, it's not an unreasonable stance to hold but not one that I share.

They are indeed a burden, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a detriment. The saying goes to judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners and animals (I think) well that should also extend to the infirm and the mentally handicapped. By carrying the burden and helping them to enjoy life despite the expense and pain it might cost to do so to me is a better reflection of the good aspects of humanity than almost anything else on the planet.

So whether or not it is correct to prevent some sort of inconvenience, or downright loss of living quality, is determined by it's capacity to reflect the good nature of humanity? How far are you willing to go with this philosophy; where do you draw the line between a burden rightfully endured because it shows the good nature of man, versus a burden that we should not have to deal with to begin with?

I believe that it is wrong to present this inconvenience to the afflicted people from the start simply because forcing them to do so is more "Humanitarian." If the circumstance under question can be accurately predicted and, therefore, stopped, then we should do it.

It might have come across like that, but I didn't quite intend it to read like that if it did <.<
Carrying a burden for the sake of doing so isn't really all that special, it's just remarking upon the capacity of humans to look after one of their own even if that one is on paper a detriment to society (in a non-harmful way like an arsonist or serial killer would be obviously)

I cut out the rest of your argument because it isn't quite what I want to be talking about. Hypothetically, I would be in favor of a method of detection that allows for an understanding of the mental health of an unborn child. No such system yet exists (It likely will in the coming century). But in a world where such a scanning system did exist, I would leave it up to the parents to determine if they wished to birth the child. And there would be, to me, zero shame in saying "No, I can't bear this burden, let's abort it."

Yes, looking after our less-abled members of society is a nice gesture and a nod to our capacity to help, but as I said before, that hypothetical honor isn't outweighed by its price. A lifetime of care-taking, so many losses for opportunity, and the suffering enduring by the family members, primarily the parents, is wrong to me. There exist those who willingly work in careers that involve overseeing their care, but I would prefer that they not exist to begin with to prevent that system from needing to exist at all.

I'm not saying we should go ahead and euthanize the disabled. I'm saying that in the future, when we have the capabilities to predict these mental or physical defects more accurately, we should exercise the right to choose freely and without moral scrutiny.

Well I'm afraid the bit you cut out is the bit that is quite pertinent to your last paragraph there.

There are some things in life that can be predicted and tested for and measured and an awful lot of things that cannot. As I pointed out and will do so again in a shorter manner, the severe LDs this thread refers to can't simply be screened for a lot of the time because the aetiology of the condition is not a purely genetic one. It's usually down to a mixture of predisposition and environmental stressors in the womb, but given that it covers a large range of conditions (because severe LD isn't just one specific ailment) it is pretty damn unlikely we will ever be able to reliably screen/test for them prenatally at all.

If you want to run along the lines of a purely hypothetical world in which the future can be predicted perfectly with regards to a child's developmental cycle then the answers are a lot simpler and lose a lot of their value.

So in short -> Yes, if a child is going to be a complete shell of a human being that does nothing but drain those around it there wouldn't likely be a problem or even a question over aborting the child-to-be. Except in the real world, none of that is ever going to come to pass so constructing moral arguments to defend it doesn't have much point beyond doing it for the sake of doing it.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 07:45:44 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 07:38:02 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 07:22:24 PM

I'm gonna gloss over the physical defects point though, mostly because that is something I'd rather not get worked up over at 1am. I'll just say this, don't lump physical and mental handicaps in together for christ's sake.

I'm talking extreme cases.

I really shouldn't but go on, I'll bite.

How extreme are we talking? And any mental comorbid conditions? or just straight up extreme physical?
Detaaaaaaaaaaaaails.

Spoiler

Surgery can sort out two of those cases with relative ease, the middle of the three images isn't clear what the ailment is. Someone born with extra limbs or a parasitic twin isn't doomed to a miserable life courtesy of modern surgical expertise.

There are very few physical conditions that would warrant abortion of an otherwise healthy foetus. Even the ones that previously could have been used as a point here are generally treatable today.

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 27, 2015, 07:23:50 AM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 11:09:46 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 07:45:44 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 07:38:02 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 07:22:24 PM

I'm gonna gloss over the physical defects point though, mostly because that is something I'd rather not get worked up over at 1am. I'll just say this, don't lump physical and mental handicaps in together for christ's sake.

I'm talking extreme cases.

I really shouldn't but go on, I'll bite.

How extreme are we talking? And any mental comorbid conditions? or just straight up extreme physical?
Detaaaaaaaaaaaaails.

Spoiler

Surgery can sort out two of those cases with relative ease, the middle of the three images isn't clear what the ailment is. Someone born with extra limbs or a parasitic twin isn't doomed to a miserable life courtesy of modern surgical expertise.

There are very few physical conditions that would warrant abortion of an otherwise healthy foetus. Even the ones that previously could have been used as a point here are generally treatable today.

I didn't research anything beyond "Horrible birth deformities," because the point I'm trying to get across doesn't need anything to be acknowledged other than that the deformities I'm referencing are either unable to be fixed, or suggest an incredibly high chance of a major loss in quality of life. The fact that the images I chose didn't meet those parameters was just bad luck, because I know nothing about what any of the children involved here suffered from. If it meets those qualifications, though, then I would abort it.

That would be part of my point in general then, when looking at this sort of issue it doesn't really pay to make examples with no real basis because all it does it make a nice shiny polished hypothetical that has no sway in the real world.

Which of course anyone is free to do so, but the danger is to then take the hypothetical and apply it to cases where in actual fact it really doesn't. Horrible birth deformities being a good example of that, at a cursory look the children would appear beyond help but a little bit of wider knowledge of the field (nothing specialist that requires study mind you) and you realise that actually only one of the children looks to be in a particularly bad way and that's as a result of the unknown rather than the obvious.

It goes without saying if a child will be born to die a horrible death, with nothing between it's exiting the womb and it's entering the grave to be filled with suffering as a result of a condition then abortion is a sound moral argument. The danger, as I just said, is to then use the same argument to apply to cases where it really does not but it seems to do so - thus inadvertently causing more suffering in the world by trying to prevent it. (The suffering of the mother as a result of the abortion, which is not outweighed by the prevented suffering of a child who wouldn't have actually suffered a whole lot after the first week or so whilst they were treated)

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 27, 2015, 12:46:52 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 27, 2015, 11:12:18 AM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 27, 2015, 07:23:50 AM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 11:09:46 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 07:45:44 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 07:38:02 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 07:22:24 PM

I'm gonna gloss over the physical defects point though, mostly because that is something I'd rather not get worked up over at 1am. I'll just say this, don't lump physical and mental handicaps in together for christ's sake.

I'm talking extreme cases.

I really shouldn't but go on, I'll bite.

How extreme are we talking? And any mental comorbid conditions? or just straight up extreme physical?
Detaaaaaaaaaaaaails.

Spoiler

Surgery can sort out two of those cases with relative ease, the middle of the three images isn't clear what the ailment is. Someone born with extra limbs or a parasitic twin isn't doomed to a miserable life courtesy of modern surgical expertise.

There are very few physical conditions that would warrant abortion of an otherwise healthy foetus. Even the ones that previously could have been used as a point here are generally treatable today.

I didn't research anything beyond "Horrible birth deformities," because the point I'm trying to get across doesn't need anything to be acknowledged other than that the deformities I'm referencing are either unable to be fixed, or suggest an incredibly high chance of a major loss in quality of life. The fact that the images I chose didn't meet those parameters was just bad luck, because I know nothing about what any of the children involved here suffered from. If it meets those qualifications, though, then I would abort it.

That would be part of my point in general then, when looking at this sort of issue it doesn't really pay to make examples with no real basis because all it does it make a nice shiny polished hypothetical that has no sway in the real world.

That's the point of this discussion to me. I'm not concerned with real-world applications to this issue. I'm arguing from a principle standpoint assuming these methods exist, because that expresses adequately my view on the subject.

Alrighty well have fun with that then, hypotheticals in this vein struggle to hold any value to me. Especially ones that simply don't translate into the real world, nor will they ever.