Giving a Cure

[AndrewMSFO]

This is a pure thought experiment (as the cure doesn’t exist at this time), but I was wondering what the moral obligations would be concerning giving a cure for something like Alzheimer’s when you know the following:

The person currently with Alzheimer’s is actually getting better quality of life despite the disease then if left on their own (as in they would never spend a dime on the own care if given the chance).

The person currently with Alzheimer’s has a sizable amount of money to their name (in excess of $1 million).

The person if cured would more than likely marry someone who is 70 years their younger in order to have person care for them in their old age. And the would be wife would more than likely have been a set up by another relative in order to take advantage of the money.

The person with Alzheimer’s if cured wasn’t the nicest person to live with and was rather a selfish controlling individual (although this is not the case with the disease).

So is one morally obligated to cure such a person?

 

[kimmielittle]

This is a pure thought experiment (as the cure doesn’t exist at this time), but I was wondering what the moral obligations would be concerning giving a cure for something like Alzheimer’s when you know the following:

The person currently with Alzheimer’s is actually getting better quality of life despite the disease then if left on their own (as in they would never spend a dime on the own care if given the chance).

The person currently with Alzheimer’s has a sizable amount of money to their name (in excess of $1 million).

The person if cured would more than likely marry someone who is 70 years their younger in order to have person care for them in their old age. And the would be wife would more than likely have been a set up by another relative in order to take advantage of the money.

The person with Alzheimer’s if cured wasn’t the nicest person to live with and was rather a selfish controlling individual (although this is not the case with the disease).

So is one morally obligated to cure such a person?

Hiyas

IMHO the moral precepts that govern my actions and responsibility…are not governed by another, either by their past actions OR my interpretations of their actions which they may or may not take in the future.

I hope this helps.

 

[Alindawyl]

IMHO the moral precepts that govern my actions and responsibility…are not governed by another, either by their past actions OR my interpretations of their actions which they may or may not take in the future.

Well said.

Why do so many “thought experiments” on moral issues end up granting us knowledge of the future, which we will never possess, and then ask us to play God? The situation isn’t realistic.

 

[revert_jen]

The person with Alzheimer’s if cured wasn’t the nicest person to live with and was rather a selfish controlling individual (although this is not the case with the disease).

So is one morally obligated to cure such a person?

I would say in this case that one would be MORE obligated to cure the person. It would provide them with the opportunity to repent of and/or fix their behavior while of sound mind. They might not do it, but it would be the right thing to give them as much opportunity as possible.

Anyway, the person making the decision would be a medical proxy, which is to say that they are supposed to make the choices that they believe the person himself would make if of sound mind. What do you think he would choose? If he doesn’t like spending money and time on medical issues, shouldn’t that be his choice? How can one decide for someone else that he has a better quality of life without having the freedom/ability to make his own decisions?

I’m afraid I think that the providing the cure would be a moral obligation.

Just my :twocents: though. I’m not a moral theologian.

–Jen

 

[StCsDavid]

Jesus cured a lot of people who likely sinned again. That possibility of sinning was not his criteria for curing…why should it be ours?