A question via email: morality and the breaking down of the brain

Reader:
I noted particularly your reference to the thalamus. Tough question: suppose late in life, this brain function ceases, yet the person still lives and breathes (or is that impossible?) What are the implications for euthanasia?

Nielsio:
In regards to your question, do you mean what are the implications for so-called involuntary euthanasia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_euthanasia )? Or do you mean what are someone's societal rights as their brain capacity starts falling out?

Reader:
The involuntary kind. The understanding that in early development a fetus has no way to sense any harm will bring additional comfort to those who recognize that the mother's rights are paramount until birth; however it seems to imply that if the thalamus fails late in life, exactly the same argument could be used to support euthanasia.

When your brain has degraded so much that your person no longer qualifies for being an agent (which is how I brought this up for proto-children), then yes, that could be used to support taking over all decisions of that human.

I don't believe the degradation occurs in the same way (but reversed) as the growth of brain occurs by the way.

The same principle holds that holds for children as well: whatever degree someone can be self-oriented, is the degree to which they should be allowed to self-orient.

As far as the experience goes: I don't think there is anything to worry about because when you are no longer consciously aware of things, you really are no longer 'you', and when you're no longer 'you' then 'you' also no longer have any worries.