From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: A mirror for Adrienne Regard's NO OTHER HUMAN...
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  4 Sep 92 22:24:46 GMT

In <1992Sep03.174528.25138@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <nyikos.715474639@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <1992Sep01.234125.29513@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
>>
>> >In  <nyikos.715380785@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
>> >> In <1992Aug30.072618.32178@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm
>> >>
>> >> But the bottom line is, do we stake the life of a being who is already
>> >> quite possibly sentient on it, or do we give it the benefit of the doubt?
>>
>> >Before 28 weeks, it's *not* possible.
>>
>> It is very possible.  [...]
>> _Fetal Electrocardiography and Electroencephalography_, By Richard Lee
>> Bernstine [Charles C. Thomas, Springfield IL, 1961]
>> [...]
>>      CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FETUS IN UTERO
>>
>>         The determination of the state of consciousness of fetus
>>      in utero is an intriguing problem and one which receives
>>      speculation from time to time.  From the observations
>>      of the electroencephalograms of the fetus, it is possible
>>      to make general statements on this subject.  In the
>>      author's recording from the brain of a forty-three to
>>      forty-five day old fetus "sleep spindles," not unlike
>>      that observed during sleep in adults, was observed.

>OK, he saw spikes in an EEG.  Does he draw any conclusions regarding
>sentience?  The neuroscientists I quoted explicitly stated that it's
>not possible before 28 weeks.

And as I said, this is bullshit, and Bernstine was too honest a person
to indulge in bullshit in the opposite direction.  

This was my point about philosophy.  Sentience, consciousness, these
things belong to the Philosophy of Mind, and this is an area to which
I have devoted decades of reading and thought.  For a scientist to
pontificate on them without a great deal of philosophical expertise
is the height of arrogance--like a physicist without a great deal of
grounding in moral philosophy pontificating on the proper use of
nuclear weapons.

Now that the time seems to be ripe, I will post some of the things I
have written on the subject, but that won't be for another week or so
because I am still trying to find out how to convert files into posts.
If worse comes to worst, I'll retype what I have.

In the meantime, though, let me tell you a bit about what Hamlin wrote
in JAMA, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.  He
advanced there the thesis that the legal definition of death should have
to do with brain death and not cardiac death. 

This seems to be taken for granted today, but not in 1964, when his article
"Life or Death by EEG" appeared [Oct. 12 issue, pp 112-114].  In fact,
he says "Medicolegal texts do not mention the consideration of brain death
by EEG."  

It would be interesting to know whether his article, in fact,
was the very thing that led to the present definition of death!

He also suggested that life should be taken to begin with EEG brain activity,
and here he most tragically, IMHO, has not been followed.
Among the things he wrote, citing Bernstine's book for the experimental
data, and giving his own conclusion:

"Recordings of embryos of 45 to 120 days gestation through surface and
depth electrodes have shown responses to sedative and stimulant drugs,
normal sleep spindles, and the effect of lack of oxygen by paroxysmal
high voltage slow waves and ultimate electrical silence.  The intra-uterine
fetal brain responds to biochemical changes associated with oxygen
deprivation by abnormal EEG activity similar to that produced in the adult
brain.  Thus at an early prenatal stage of life, the EEG reflects a
distinctly individual pattern that soon becomes truly personalized."
 
>> >You mean because I have facts and figures to back me up, while you have
>> >lies and unfounded opinions obtained from anti-abortion newsletters?
>> >Yes, typical.  :-)
>>
>> I suppose the Alan Guttmacher Institute is your idea of a reliable source
>> of facts and figures?

>Yes, I consider them one reliable source.

Bernard Nathanson, who has spent a lot of time on both sides of the
abortion fence (he was one of the co-founders of NARAL) says this
of the Institute: "if you believe *them*, you're ready to invite
Exxon in to clean out your swimming pool."

>> And another thing: "carrying to term" is a misnomer because that
>> 8 to 12 times bit includes C-sections, does it not?

>Given the definition "the normal elapsed period for birth after conception",
>I don't think it's a misnomer for C-sections which take place at or after
>the time when birth would normally be expected.

That does not quite answer the question.  How far back in the pregnancy
do the C-section data go?  I am referring to your mortality tables.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Peter Nyikos