220
Newborn dies after mother drinks raw milk during pregnancy
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
220 points (99.5% liked)
Public Health
1619 readers
194 users here now
For issues concerning:
- Public Health
- Global Health
- Health Systems & Policy
- Environmental Health
- Epidemiology
- etc.
🩺 This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.
Related Communities
- Medical Community Hub
- Medicine
- Medicine Canada
- Premed
- Premed Canada
- Public Health (📍)
See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link (!medicine@lemmy.world)
Rules
Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.
Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content
Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think we potentially can based on the proportion of people living in terminal pain and suffering -- extra sanity damage the cause was easily preventable. If an overwhelming majority choose euthanasia or some sort of dignified pass, it'd be blatantly naive and foolish to continue to claim they're incomparable. So, it can be a research question 😂.
To say it's the same for people who are fully grown and have a life behind them are the same as a newborn baby is a bit simplistic at best. They aren't even capable of understanding what it is to be alive, and there's been almost nothing spent on them yet.
We could still look into people suffering chronically out of interest, but I wouldn't say anything that comes from it can be compared to this. A baby has no concept of relationships, morals, religion, or anything else that ties them to the world. If they're gone, the world continues on just like the day before (obviously except for the parents potentially, but they're the ones that caused this).
I believe you've misinterpreted hitmyspot's comment. If you think it's worthwhile, perhaps you can describe exactly what the comparison is between, just so we're operating on the same concepts so as to be on the same page.
I don't think it's worth arguing for arguing's sake. So at the very least I hope to understand what distinctions you've made. If whatever it is is wholly subjective as you say then why refute the other person's subjective view? What could make theirs more wrong or less valid than yours? 🤔
(I'm continuing to ask in the assumption that there is some shared basis in values or whatever that can make it a bit objective or intersubjective.)
The comparison being made is them growing up with these parents, and suffering the consequences of it, or them dying at birth and not suffering. I don't think those are comparable (as in, you literally can't weight them against each other). They have totally different ways you'd evaluate their value.
Them dying at birth has almost zero cost or consequence. How do you measure against nothing? Them surviving has many costs and benefits. You can weight them against each other to argue if it's good or bad, but you can't compare it against oblivion. It's like temperature. You can say it's hot or it's cold subjectively, but you can't compare it against a vacuum that literally doesn't have temperature.