What can be considered ethical will, of course, depend on what conception of ethics (and also, perhaps, what metaphysical assumptions) one brings to bear on the question. So, for example, if one believes in the absolute sanctity of (human) life, then the fact that the loved one continues to be (biologically) human and alive will provide the answer. On the other hand, if you think that what makes something human (in the ethical sense) is the ability to make decisions (I think it can be argued that Aristotle, for example, believed this), then it would seem that it is ethically open to end the biological life of the loved one, since their human life had already ended, in your scenario. However, it would also follow from the Aristotelian view that there is nothing wrong with terminating the life of a fetus (or even infant!) until the time it is able to engage in decision-making. In other words, a proper answer to your question must flow from having, first, an adequate conception of what sort of...

Oh boy, I really feel for you. I also have a son with autism spectrum, and as we both know, it is difficult enough dealing with that, even without the additional problem of an unreasonable spouse. My advice is that you do a little homework and find some support in your area (and not among the nutbags who have bought into the antivaccinationist nonsense, because it has been medically proven that nonsense is absolutely what it is). Because your wife needs help , to put it rather bluntly. She is feeling victimized by something that is just terrible luck and that has nothing whatsoever to do with where she is pointing the finger of blame here. But the other thing is that you really, really have a serious ethical problem here, which your questions shows you are aware of. Because your wife's adamant views now affet your otheer children, which puts not only them at risk--it also puts at risk any other children who might be exposed to your own children's (preventable) diseases. This...

I don't see why. If there is reason to think that these bad choices would continue in such a way as to make the transplant likely to fail, then I can see having them be a factor. But if a patient needs a transplant, then it does not seem to me to be up to the medical profession to deny that transplant on some moralistic ground. Consider two cases, where both need a kidney transplant. In one case (A), we have good reason to believe that the patient needs the transplant because of drug abuse earlier in their lives. (Let's not complicate the issue further by going into how likely we think it is that the person might return to drug abuse if the transplant is done successfully.) In the other case (B), we see no such evidence, but we also do know that B has been guilty several times in his life of physically or sexually abusing members of his family in numerous ways. Imagine finally that only A and B could be plausible candidates for this transplant--the kidney will spoil and be useless to anyone...

This is the kind of case that makes reasonable people feel very squeamish, and over which reasonable people can disagree. But though I won't be surprised if others respond and reject what I am about to say, I'm inclined to side with the mother. Ethical theorists generally approach questions like these from one of three basic approaches. One of these is called the deontological approach, which tends to focus on our moral notions of basic obligations and responsibilities. If we think that everyone, no matter what their mental defects, has a fundamental right to autonomy, then the mother's actions obviously interfered with the daughter's autonomy with respect to having (her own biological) children. On the other hand, we may doubt that such a fundamental extends in an absolute or complete way to someone who is incapable of exercising that autonomy, which appears to be the fact about this case. The daughter could biologically have a child, but could not actually be responsible for the child she...

I just answered another question related to this one. Please see my answer to that one. In gist, (1) which animals did you have in mind--"animals" is too generic for me to get much traction on an ethical issue. And (2) why do you think it is more appropriate to run experiments on mentally challenged or disabled human beings? Are (some species of) animals somhow more deserving of our moral respect? Why? Are (some species of) animals more ethically important than (some) human beings? What makes you think that? I can think of a great variety of what seem to me to be ethically significant issues that need to be visited here. One is the question of consent, which I discussed in my answer to the other question. Others include: ability to experience pain, cognitive capacities (such as memory, self-awareness), normal life-expectancy of the creature, normal "quality of life" expectancy of the creature (and how much experimentation would lead to deviation from such expectancies). I tend...

I think the PETA people will think I have a very blind moral eye, but I am inclined to think that your question makes the issue far more simple than it is. For one thing, I think there are morally significant differences between different species of non-human animals. I wouldn't think of causing gratuitous suffering or death to a wild primate, for example, but gladly crush mosquitoes to death whenever given the chance. For another (and related to the first, in fact) I think the very idea of whether animals do or do not consent and how this notion may apply to them is hardly obvious, and perhaps simply otiose. If animals (or some species) do not and cannot give consent or refuse it, then it seems to me this is not a useful more indicator for them.