College urges euthanasia for sickest newborns (1 Viewer)

[RightinNYC]

BRITAIN'S Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is reportedly calling on doctors to consider euthanasing "the sickest of newborns" which it says can disable healthy families.

The Sunday Times newspaper said today the proposal was in reaction to the number of such children who were surviving because of medical advances.

The college argued "active euthanasia" should be considered for the good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

The proposal is contained in the college's submission to an inquiry into ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborn babies.

Euthanasia of newborns is illegal in Britain.

"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family," the submission says.

"If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.

"We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns."

Dr Pieter Sauer, co-author of the Dutch national guidelines on euthanasia of newborns, told the paper British paediatricians were performing mercy killings and the practice should be open.

Joy Delhanty, professor of human genetics at University College London, told the paper she supported the proposal, declaring it was "morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are then going to suffer many months or years of ill health".

Before people have knee-jerk reactions to what they're arguing, take a step back and think for a minute. I'm not by any means saying they're right, but consider the arguments they raise before rebutting them.

 

[danarhea]

I wonder what the president has to say about the youth in Asia. He will probably say it is none of our business.

 

[1069]

I did read this article yesterday; I have mixed feelings about it.
If parents wish to (and can afford to) take extrordinary measures to prolong the lives of terminally ill newborns or children, then I feel that is their right.
On the other hand, anyone who has lived with a chronically, terminally ill family member knows the brutal, inhuman toll it takes on every member of the family.
In a case where a newborn is suffering needlessly (in that it will die anyway) and a family is suffering, I believe active euthanasia is an option that should be presented to the family. And certainly extraordinary measures such as life support should not be encouraged... although ultimately they should be permitted, for awhile, if the family needs more time to say goodbye. Dying babies should not be made to have their suffering extended indefinitely, however, even if their parents, in their grief, desire it. Families in this situation should be counseled and supported in letting their terminally ill children go, and not prolonging their suffering overmuch.

 

[talloulou]

I think parents can already decide to sign "DNR's" on infants. You can already tell a dr. not to resuscitate your newborn in the US can't you? You can opt to have them taking of breathing machines as well. Is British law different in that regard? As far as having the dr. take action to actually "kill" a child that can live on its own....that's harsh. Obviously my opinion on the subject would vary depending on circumstance and condition. If a baby was breathing on it's own but suffering in a horrible way and it was determined by the drs. that the baby would only live a few weeks or months than perhaps a "mercy killing" could be seen as a gift. But those laws would have to be well written and well defined or it will be similar to abortion where it gets out of control and no criteria need be met to justify the action.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I have no objections to this, and as long as the family holds the final authority, I support it.

There is no sense, no justice, in bringing a life into this world whose only purpose and only option is to suffer.

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't think this is just referring to DNR's or cases where without immediate expensive surgery, the child will die. I think they're recommending it even in cases where the child has severe, crippling, but not life-threatening disabilities.

Does this change people's take on the issue?

 

[Patrickt]

I am fairly old and was born in a poor colony of the U.S., Tennessee. Babies born who were not healthy died. Everyone had friends or family who had lost babies the first week or so of life. The family would grieve and 18 months later they would have a healthy baby and life would go on.

A few years ago a friends grandson arrived. They had over $750k in hospital bills the first year. He told me one day his son and his son's wife had told him that their son would live perhaps 12 years, require a lot of care and expense, so they were not having any more children.

I thought about it and decided that perhaps the old way was better. I would not be in favor of killing but I'm not sure saving at all costs is good, either.

 

[BubbaBob]

DNR I could live with, though I'd be uncomfortable with it...taking active measures to kill a baby, though, I'd net even consider supporting, for a couple of reasons.

First, while I don't consider myself a religious "fanatic" (who does?), I do believe that this borders on humans playing God, and, in my book, there is only one God, and He ain't us.

Second, I see a slippery slope here. What would eventually be considered enough of a disability to warrant the killing of a baby? Many things that, in the not so distant past, were horrible disabilities are now insignificant irritants for those that live with them. Remember, in the 1930's a fella named Hitler considered a lack of blue eyes and blond hair a "disability". I just don't trust folks in power on either side to put the brakes on when a slide down that slippery slope has begun.

BubbaBob

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Before people have knee-jerk reactions to what they're arguing, take a step back and think for a minute. I'm not by any means saying they're right, but consider the arguments they raise before rebutting them.

Ya their arguments are quite similar to those used by the Nazi's, hay and why stop there I mean what's good for a new born is good for adults, let's just go ahead and open up some concentration camps while we're at it. Mercy killings ha, life unworthy of life, this is some sick sh!t we're talking about here people.

 

[Voidwar]

The College is correct.

Healthcare resources are limited, sick babies are not.

Eventually grown-ups have to decide what is worth saving.

Burning the lives of several Nurses to maintain one vegetable is a waste.

This question is much like the Schaivo case, in that what is really called for is some maturity and a syringe of morphine.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The College is correct.

Healthcare resources are limited, sick babies are not.

Eventually grown-ups have to decide what is worth saving.

Burning the lives of several Nurses to maintain one vegetable is a waste.

This question is much like the Schaivo case, in that what is really called for is some maturity and a syringe of morphine.

So you're in favor of the murder of the mentally and physically handicapped? Life unworthy of life is that it? You and Hitler would have gotten along famously.

 

[talloulou]

I have no objections to this, and as long as the family holds the final authority, I support it.

There is no sense, no justice, in bringing a life into this world whose only purpose and only option is to suffer.

Yeah but we often judge others before standing in their shoes and that creates circumstances where we don't know what the f-uck we are talking about. I've seen some people who are very happy and lead amazingly productive lives against all odds. Deformities and disabilities that look horrific to us and we couldn't imagine living like that......well there are people out there doing it everyday and who the hell are we to decide their worth?

If an infant is going to suffer a few months and then die I can understand why a dr. might feel like an active decision to kill that infant is "mercy." But killing something because it's uncomfortable for you, anotherwards 'cause you don't want to deal with it....that's some bulls-hite.

 

[Patrickt]

Ideally, the family should make the decision. But, I have friends who can't tell their 91-year old father it's time to quit driving. I had a friend who was insisting her 95-year old father have brain surgery to prolong his life. When my mother was dying it was difficult to tell the hospital to do nothing to prolong life and many simply can't do it.

I think parents should decide but one option they should have is to allow someone else to decide for them.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I don't think this is just referring to DNR's or cases where without immediate expensive surgery, the child will die. I think they're recommending it even in cases where the child has severe, crippling, but not life-threatening disabilities.

Does this change people's take on the issue?

Not in the least. It doesn't matter to me if the child would die at five months or fifty years-- if the child will never be able to grow up and function as an adult, then it is cruel and pointless to keep them alive out of squeamishness.

Second, I see a slippery slope here. What would eventually be considered enough of a disability to warrant the killing of a baby? ... I just don't trust folks in power on either side to put the brakes on when a slide down that slippery slope has begun.

That's why I say leave it in the hands of the parents. They're the ones most affected, and they're the ones responsible for the health and well-being of the child; even if they're too far down that slippery slope, they're not endangering anyone else's children or telling anyone else that they can't decide to raise their child.

Ya their arguments are quite similar to those used by the Nazi's, hay and why stop there I mean what's good for a new born is good for adults, let's just go ahead and open up some concentration camps while we're at it.

Your argument is long on shrill and short on sense. Nothing in this argument proposes that any adult might be euthanized for their disabilities, nor any child more than a couple days old; no law written on this basis would authorize it.

And we are talking about the parents making this decision for their own children-- they're certainly not going to subject themselves to ethnic cleansing.

I've seen some people who are very happy and lead amazingly productive lives against all odds.

And for every one, there were dozens of healthy children who could have been very happy and amazingly productive if they'd gotten a small fraction of the care we bestow upon the helpless and hopeless. Why do we spend so much money on children who will never grow up?

 

[talloulou]

And for every one, there were dozens of healthy children who could have been very happy and amazingly productive if they'd gotten a small fraction of the care we bestow upon the helpless and hopeless. Why do we spend so much money on children who will never grow up?

What do you mean by never grow up? Should a woman be allowed to kill her infant for something like spinabifida in your opinion? Or lobster hands? Downe Syndrome?

 

[Deegan]

Well I urge them to shut the f**k up, something tells me either of us are going to be taking the others advice any time soon!:roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Your argument is long on shrill and short on sense. Nothing in this argument proposes that any adult might be euthanized for their disabilities, nor any child more than a couple days old; no law written on this basis would authorize it.

Oh well killing new borns is way better. :roll:

And we are talking about the parents making this decision for their own children--

Ok so now parents have the right to choose if they can murder their own children. "Abortion," not just for the unborn anymore.

they're certainly not going to subject themselves to ethnic cleansing.

This is precisely how ethnic cleansing started in Nazi Germany, first they went after the mentally and physically handicap.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

What do you mean by never grow up?

Never being able to support themselves, live on their own, or raise a family. Surely, despite our disagreement, you can recognize the difference between someone who can function as an adult and someone who cannot.

Should a woman be allowed to kill her infant for something like spinabifida in your opinion? Or lobster hands? Downe Syndrome?

Definitely yes, in the first two cases. I'm torn on Down's Syndrome, but I am inclined to err on the side of permissiveness; an unnamed infant can be easily replaced, while a named invalid child is a lifetime commitment.

Nothing in this argument proposes that any adult might be euthanized for their disabilities...

Oh well killing new borns is way better. :roll:

Unlike the possibility of euthanizing disabled adults, I believe that this is what we were actually discussing. So, now that we're back on topic, would you care to make a more sensible argument about why this is wrong?

Ok so now parents have the right to choose if they can murder their own children.

"Murder"? Please. It's triage at worst, and closer to an act of mercy. And, I will remind you-- since you keep conveniently forgetting-- that there is a specific and inflexible time limit attached to this determination.

Noone is suggesting we allow parents to euthanize their five year olds for bringing home a bad report card.

 

[talloulou]

Definitely yes, in the first two cases. I'm torn on Down's Syndrome, but I am inclined to err on the side of permissiveness; an unnamed infant can be easily replaced, while a named invalid child is a lifetime commitment.

Now that's odd of the three I think Down Syndrome might be the most burdening. Lobster hands is like no big freaking deal and is easily fixed after the age of 4 or 5.

Unlike the possibility of euthanizing disabled adults, I believe that this is what we were actually discussing. So, now that we're back on topic, would you care to make a more sensible argument about why this is wrong?

Well "wrong" is hard to argue as it is so relative and hard to prove. I will say that I dislike the idea of engineering "perfection." I guess I dislike the idea that the world could one day be filled with "beautiful people." Makes me think of the Marilyn Manson song.

If something like the idea of living with a child with lobster hands till they are 4 or 5 and old enough to undergo corrective surgery is enough to have some parents have that child killed than it would seem that society as a whole will become much colder, more distant, less compassionate, ect ect.... There are all manner of things to overcome in life. The ability to "overcome" makes us stronger and kinder. A society that adopts the notion that it is okay to kill those of us with imperfections will be a very unforgiving society. I have an aunt with spinabifida. They didn't have the advancements back then that they have today so she spent alot of time in and out of hospitals. She's probably spent more time in one year of her life in hospitals than I have in my entire life. And despite being in a wheelchair her whole life is just amazingly active and independent. She is such a crusader for the disabled that she has spent time in jail for being such a crazy outlandish activist. If society would move in the direction you are talking about her parents may have killed her and that would have been acceptable since she would be viewed as a "burden." I'm sure as a child she was more of a burden than a healthier child. But she's independent now and s-hite like this thread would make her go nuts!!:shock: If you ask her she is "more alive" and more functioning than many able bodied people.

So I guess that is what I think is wrong with this line of thinking. And how far would this line of thinking go? I'm legally blind without my contacts. I have had to wear glasses since I was three. What if they could tell you were going to have bad eyesight in infancy and what if people opted to kill or discard embryos or infants with bad eyesight? Does my bad eyesight make me less of a person? I can see why a parent with a choice would choose good eyesight over bad. No spinabifida over a crazy wheelchair driving activist who won't rest until the world is covered in ramps. But what else might we be discarding by attempting to fill the world with beautiful people?????

 

[ProudAmerican]

just as abortion was once only justified in a case where the mothers health was in jeapordy, or in cases of incest,

what stops this from evolving into getting rid of kids that just may be more difficult than normal to raise.

my son is autistic. he is very difficult to raise, however, he is very happy and well adjusted.

its not out of the realm of possibilities to see this evolving into a way to save parents some hard work and difficult times.

and for all those that will say im crazy and thats not possible, see the thread about Oreilly outing an abortion doctor. read what that doctor is all about.

who would have ever thought such a practice would exist when abortion was first thought of to save moms lives.

 

[Jerry]

Before people have knee-jerk reactions to what they're arguing, take a step back and think for a minute. I'm not by any means saying they're right, but consider the arguments they raise before rebutting them.

Slip....slip....whoa, slipping down that "slippery-slope"......dehumanizing and devaluing our children continues....first with divorce and abandonment, next with abortion....and now.....

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

A child who is given up to die for being sick is an orphan, as her parents have abandoned her, and it is my job to look out for them.

I categorically oppose all euthanasia of newborns.

This is nothing more than "right to die" crap. It is destructive.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Unlike the possibility of euthanizing disabled adults, I believe that this is what we were actually discussing. So, now that we're back on topic, would you care to make a more sensible argument about why this is wrong?

What the hell is the difference? Why would you support murdering disabled and handicapped infants but not disabled and handicapped adults? Does a mental incompetent or phyically handicapped individual cease to be a burden on the state or the family unit after a certain age?

"Murder"? Please. It's triage at worst, and closer to an act of mercy. And, I will remind you-- since you keep conveniently forgetting-- that there is a specific and inflexible time limit attached to this determination.

Ya that's what the Nazis called their euthanasia programs too: "mercy killings," ie the destruction of "life unworthy of life."

 

[RightinNYC]

What do you mean by never grow up? Should a woman be allowed to kill her infant for something like spinabifida in your opinion? Or lobster hands? Downe Syndrome?

Someones been watching nip/tuck...:2wave:

 

[talloulou]

Someones been watching nip/tuck...:2wave:

That show is a bit over the top for me and it comes on too late but I catch it occasionally. I did see it recently and the one drs. wife was getting it on with a "little person" so you see you might be feeling sorry for someone thinking they have a problem 'cause they're physically different or thinking their life isn't worthwhile and all the while they could be banging your wife while you're at work.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Someones been watching nip/tuck...:2wave:

I refused to watch that show, until a buddy of mine brought the DVD over to my house. Unfortunately I must admit I got hooked pretty quick. best line evar.....

"fear? its what makes me slip on a jimmy hat every time I perform a slipindictame"