Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Thalidomide

Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 5:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Should it be legal for a woman to take thalidomide for morning sickness with full knowledge that it will cause severe birth defects in her child?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 6:37:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 5:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Should it be legal for a woman to take thalidomide for morning sickness with full knowledge that it will cause severe birth defects in her child?

I'm not sure a law against it would be necessary. As it is, only physicians with specific training can prescribe it, and to be eligible, a woman has to be on birth control and sign an understanding.

Another danger is men taking it and then having unprotected sex which results in pregnancy. They also have to sign an understanding that they won't have unprotected sex while taking it before it can be prescribed to them.

If there ever became a problem of men and women falsely obtaining the drug in order to create thalidomide babies - then yes, more extreme measures might need to be taken, but at the moment I think those safeguards in place are enough.

http://www.medicinenet.com...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 6:43:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 6:37:08 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/18/2015 5:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Should it be legal for a woman to take thalidomide for morning sickness with full knowledge that it will cause severe birth defects in her child?

I'm not sure a law against it would be necessary. As it is, only physicians with specific training can prescribe it, and to be eligible, a woman has to be on birth control and sign an understanding.

Another danger is men taking it and then having unprotected sex which results in pregnancy. They also have to sign an understanding that they won't have unprotected sex while taking it before it can be prescribed to them.

If there ever became a problem of men and women falsely obtaining the drug in order to create thalidomide babies - then yes, more extreme measures might need to be taken, but at the moment I think those safeguards in place are enough.

http://www.medicinenet.com...

That answer attempts to side-step the question. However, why should a woman have to sign a waiver other than to absolve the drug company from any liability? Why should any more safeguards be put into place?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 6:47:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 6:43:19 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/18/2015 6:37:08 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/18/2015 5:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Should it be legal for a woman to take thalidomide for morning sickness with full knowledge that it will cause severe birth defects in her child?

I'm not sure a law against it would be necessary. As it is, only physicians with specific training can prescribe it, and to be eligible, a woman has to be on birth control and sign an understanding.

Another danger is men taking it and then having unprotected sex which results in pregnancy. They also have to sign an understanding that they won't have unprotected sex while taking it before it can be prescribed to them.

If there ever became a problem of men and women falsely obtaining the drug in order to create thalidomide babies - then yes, more extreme measures might need to be taken, but at the moment I think those safeguards in place are enough.

http://www.medicinenet.com...

That answer attempts to side-step the question. However, why should a woman have to sign a waiver other than to absolve the drug company from any liability? Why should any more safeguards be put into place?

I don't think women wanting to have disabled babies is something that happens much, if at all. If it did happen, I think we would consider it a mental disorder and treat it accordingly rather than have laws against it, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to put together some kind of argument against abortion maybe?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 6:50:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 6:47:56 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/18/2015 6:43:19 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/18/2015 6:37:08 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/18/2015 5:42:45 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Should it be legal for a woman to take thalidomide for morning sickness with full knowledge that it will cause severe birth defects in her child?

I'm not sure a law against it would be necessary. As it is, only physicians with specific training can prescribe it, and to be eligible, a woman has to be on birth control and sign an understanding.

Another danger is men taking it and then having unprotected sex which results in pregnancy. They also have to sign an understanding that they won't have unprotected sex while taking it before it can be prescribed to them.

If there ever became a problem of men and women falsely obtaining the drug in order to create thalidomide babies - then yes, more extreme measures might need to be taken, but at the moment I think those safeguards in place are enough.

http://www.medicinenet.com...

That answer attempts to side-step the question. However, why should a woman have to sign a waiver other than to absolve the drug company from any liability? Why should any more safeguards be put into place?

I don't think women wanting to have disabled babies is something that happens much, if at all. If it did happen, I think we would consider it a mental disorder and treat it accordingly rather than have laws against it, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to put together some kind of argument against abortion maybe?

Yes, but showing it in different terms. You would say that women who intentionally disfigure and handicap their children are mentally unstable, yet there is unfettered access for them to kill their own children.

I'm attempting to see how people reconcile this issue. It is the philosophy section after all.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 8:33:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 6:50:50 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Yes, but showing it in different terms. You would say that women who intentionally disfigure and handicap their children are mentally unstable, yet there is unfettered access for them to kill their own children.

I'm attempting to see how people reconcile this issue. It is the philosophy section after all.

Rather obviously, it's because having a thalidomide-affected baby rather than an unaffected baby benefits nobody, whereas not being pregnant may have many benefits to a woman depending on her circumstances.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2015 8:33:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 6:50:50 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Yes, but showing it in different terms. You would say that women who intentionally disfigure and handicap their children are mentally unstable, yet there is unfettered access for them to kill their own children.

I'm attempting to see how people reconcile this issue. It is the philosophy section after all.

Rather obviously, it's because having a thalidomide-affected baby rather than an unaffected baby benefits nobody, whereas not being pregnant may have many benefits to a woman depending on her circumstances.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 11:05:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/18/2015 8:33:06 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 3/18/2015 6:50:50 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Yes, but showing it in different terms. You would say that women who intentionally disfigure and handicap their children are mentally unstable, yet there is unfettered access for them to kill their own children.

I'm attempting to see how people reconcile this issue. It is the philosophy section after all.

Rather obviously, it's because having a thalidomide-affected baby rather than an unaffected baby benefits nobody, whereas not being pregnant may have many benefits to a woman depending on her circumstances.

Still avoiding the question.

Let's assume that the mother has no marketable skills and that the money that comes from the government for disabled children will afford her a better lifestyle. Or one could assume that she accidentally had a first child with thalidomide and that she was afraid of how he would feel being the only person around with this condition so she decides to make another so that the two bond strongly through their disability.

An interesting side to your comment, it is acceptable to do something to someone else if there is benefit to you. So if my granny has a $5 million dollar life insurance policy and I'm financially struggling it is fair for me to bump her off because of the benefit to me? Or even kill off my father because if he is dead she'll be grief stricken and die making me the next in line to inherit?