What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close
With rendition switcher

Transcript

Question: Should parents be allowed to euthanize severely disabled children?

Jacob Appel:  Absolutely.  I think the Dutch have used a system called the Hornussen Protocol for almost a decade now.  And under this principle, they evaluate children that are born with either severe defects or in severe pain and assess their likelihood of surviving into meaningful adulthood, and if the answer is no and two physicians a the parents agree upon this, then the baby can be euthanized and they do it very pain-free and very quickly in the first few days of life. 

Only in our culture is the obsession with keeping life going at all costs, even when the pain is immense and the likelihood of survival is very low come to the fore.  In many cultures historically, the ancient Romans, for example, didn’t view life as a whole in it’s beginning until well into childhood.  Understanding that infant mortality was high and that sometimes the suffering an infant went through made it not worth the **** alive. 

The real interesting ethical question is if our goal to prevent the childhood suffering.  Where their parents should actually have a say in this process.  Whether, and I’ve written about this in the past, if a child is going to suffer immensely over the course of several weeks and die, would the parents have the right to say, we want this process to occur rather than injecting the baby with Potassium instantly, or whether **** itself is a form of child abuse.  If an older child was to need a medical intervention or medical procedure and without it they would suffer severe pain, we wouldn’t let adults make that choice.  Why do we let them make the choice the other way with infants?

Question: Is it tantamount to child abuse to let such disabled children live? 

Jacob Appel: I think it can be.  I think we are very reluctant to condemn parents in those situations, in part because it is a very stressful situation.  These parents themselves have suffered.  I wouldn’t want, for example, criminal penalties to punish parents in this situation.  But I think in terms of determining what should be done with a child, the best interests of the child’s standard should be the standard we use.

Question: Why do you think life should begin after seven days?

Jacob Appel: Well I should emphasize, I don’t think there is much value in having an arbitrary hard and fast rule.  One of the reasons I’ve actually said the law should use birth, for the most part as the standard would it would be very easy to figure out whether the baby is born or not born.  Figuring out whether an infant is six days old, or eight days old is a much harder project to endeavor.  Particularly, in situations where the baby has been abandoned or the origins of the baby are unknown. 

The larger point I am trying to make, and I’m not the only person that’s made this, Peter Singer at Princeton has made this for years, is that life should be divined by cognizance, by sentience, by ability to interact with the world.  And infants who can’t do that in the same way adults do should have their lives evaluated in very different ways.  And the potentiality of fulfilling life is a factor to consider.  But the suffering that an infant may undergo if they aren’t going to lead a meaningful fulfilling life is also a valid concern to think about.

More from the Big Idea for Thursday, November 04 2010

 

Life Doesn't Begin at Conce...

Newsletter: Share: