I’m working in a neonatal unit at the moment, and one of the doctors mentioned that both doctors’ and parents’ willingness to “pull the plug” on a baby whose chances don’t seem too good is vastly higher than their willingness to pull the plug on a twelve-year-old with the same chances would be.
That’s a good point—so it’s not all about survival rate.
Maybe it’s about how easy it is to imagine that the child (or fetus) never existed? It’s pretty damn obvious that a twelve-year-old existed. A baby, less so, and a fetus, hardly at all.
That’s a good point—so it’s not all about survival rate.
Yvain’s point doesn’t prove that conclusion*. A baby who has a low chance of surviving the year is going to have some parents going “If zhe does survive, what then? I mean, will zhe ever recover, what if it recurs? I can’t keep going through this, especially if it’s just gonna end up with me grieving in 5 years time!”
*(I still tend to agree with the conclusion, because of things like your second paragraph, but Yvain’s point is actually somewhat irrelevant to the conclusion)
They’ve experienced 4) such events. Too many.
A 12-year-olds parents have had 12 years, and ONE nigh-fatal incident. The child is >50% of the way to reproductive age. That’s a very different situation.
Maybe it’s about how easy it is to imagine that the child (or fetus) never existed? It’s pretty damn obvious that a twelve-year-old existed. A baby, less so, and a fetus, hardly at all.
I suspect this plays a large part, combined with the sunk cost fallacy.
I’m working in a neonatal unit at the moment, and one of the doctors mentioned that both doctors’ and parents’ willingness to “pull the plug” on a baby whose chances don’t seem too good is vastly higher than their willingness to pull the plug on a twelve-year-old with the same chances would be.
That’s a good point—so it’s not all about survival rate.
Maybe it’s about how easy it is to imagine that the child (or fetus) never existed? It’s pretty damn obvious that a twelve-year-old existed. A baby, less so, and a fetus, hardly at all.
That last doesn’t seem to be reliably true. There are people who grieve for a long time over miscarriages (children who didn’t get born?).
People’s imaginations vary a lot.
Yvain’s point doesn’t prove that conclusion*. A baby who has a low chance of surviving the year is going to have some parents going “If zhe does survive, what then? I mean, will zhe ever recover, what if it recurs? I can’t keep going through this, especially if it’s just gonna end up with me grieving in 5 years time!”
*(I still tend to agree with the conclusion, because of things like your second paragraph, but Yvain’s point is actually somewhat irrelevant to the conclusion)
They’ve experienced 4) such events. Too many.
A 12-year-olds parents have had 12 years, and ONE nigh-fatal incident. The child is >50% of the way to reproductive age. That’s a very different situation.
I suspect this plays a large part, combined with the sunk cost fallacy.
I don’t think that the sunk cost consideration is a fallacy in this case.