food for thought : EUTHANASIA OF DISABLED BABIES

[Bex]

Allowing Euthanasia and Mercy Killing Is Wrong Posted by: eMaxHealth on 11-05-2006. "Let's kill severely sick and disabled babies and actively practice Euthanasia, says Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology unshamefully and unethically." Euthanasia and Mercy Killing of Disabled Babies UK Obstetricians propose to actively practice euthanasia and allow mercy killing of severely disabled newborn babies. This proposal, according to Independent, has been put forward by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology, as an option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of medical ethics. While unbelievable, the College justifies the mercy killings of severely disabled babies in the following way: that "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall benefit of families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial suffering. According the report, the College has submitted its proposal to Nuffield Council on Bioethics and argues in the submission that "A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making," Our publication strongly condemns such a proposal and calls on governments and societies to not allow such and evil proposal. "Euthanasia is not a future problem. It is a present problem. It is happening now and becoming increasingly accepted. And we are asleep, not realizing that the road we are on will lead to the massive elimination of the elderly and "incompetent," and anyone else considered to be a burden to society," writes Fr. Frank A. Pavone National Director of Priests for Life. In his article "Mercy Killing Is Murder" Rev. Ignatius -W. Cox, S. J, Ph.D. writes "The way in which the same moral question will thrust itself periodically on public attention is a curious phenomenon. It becomes a dangerous phenomenon, indicating a widespread moral malady, when with each periodic recurrence, more and more individuals of great potential influence take the wrong side, the ethically unscientific view, the immoral solution." Our fear is that this question of severely disabled baby Euthanasia is being presented in nice "valuable" terms: benefit of families, financial and emotional suffering, impact on obstetric decision-making, a chance for women to decide... Who are we do decide? Is this not crime to decide to kill the innocent babies? Since when did we start to play God? Do parents have the right to kill their babies? If no, how can governments or doctors decide so? It would be taking an advantage of an innocent severely disabled newborn child, who is ill, thrusts to those who bring him to life just about to kill and who can't speak or say a word, otherwise that child would have cried out... Let me live! I don't want to die. Don't kill me! Is this article becoming too emotional? We want the reader see the reality of what may happen because we don't experience it. Many doctors oppose to Euthanasia and mercy killing. Independent quotes John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College Hospital, as saying: "Intentional killing is not part of medical care... once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It becomes a subjective decision of whose life is worthwhile." Strongly opposing to the proposal of Euthanasia and Mercy Killing of severely disabled and sick babies, we conclude by asking, if the societies take this road how far will they go, who is next: the severely ill adults, the weak elderly? What if one day there not enough food and resources to support the world population? What do we do in this age of relativism, liberalism and lack of principles: do we start actively practice Euthanasia toward those who are not productive or efficient...?

[Becca]

I definately need more information - for starters, sources.

[USMC ISSUED]

:O

[Sophie*]

I definitely need more info

[Jill]

Killing Innocent Babiesis wrong.

Need to make it more to the point.

[Sophie*]

Originally Posted by Jill Killing is wrong.

I tried making that point during the "Saddam gets death penalty" thread.....

[Sophie*]

This is from The Independant:

Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge

Doctors are urging health regulators to consider allowing the "active euthanasia" of severely disabled newborn babies.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has put forward the option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of medical ethics.

It says "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall benefit of families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial suffering.

Deliberate action to end infants' lives may also reduce the number of late abortions, since it would allow women the chance to decide whether their disabled child should live.

"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making," the college writes in a submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

"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."

Such mercy killings are already allowed in the Netherlands for incurable conditions such as severe spina bifida. John Harris, a member of the official Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University, welcomed the college's submission. "We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term, but cannot kill a newborn," he told The Sunday Times. "What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not the other?"

Dr Pieter Sauer, co-author of the Groningen Protocol, the guidelines governing infant euthanasia in the Netherlands, said British medics already carry out mercy killings and should be allowed to do so in the open. "English neonatologists gave me the indication that this is happening."

But the paper quoted John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College Hospital, as saying: "Intentional killing is not part of medical care... once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It becomes a subjective decision of whose life is worthwhile."

Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People said: "Euthanasia for disabled newborns tells society that being born disabled is a bad thing. If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions, it would tell adults with those conditions that they are worth less than other members of society."

[harrisonsdream]

killing is wrong in justified situations...THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM imo. the sadaam thing i say hang him. i think this euthanasia thing should be left to the parents. if they want to do it then let them..i personally never would.

i know that sounds harsh and cold-hearted.

[Donna]

I can honestly say i would be for it in certain cases. I have seen many, many kids suffer from cancer till their death. no amount of pain meds in safe doses were enough to make them comfortable. there was nothing that our level of medicine could do for them for a cure or make them comfortable in thier last days.

But I dont think I would be for this for a baby that can still live and not be in pain for all of its life. Yes, they may be disabled, but they CAN still live. Yes, the parents may need to care for this child for the rest of thier life. but dont you make that choice when you decide to have a baby?

[Jill]

Originally Posted by zelda780 I tried making that point during the "Saddam gets death penalty" thread.....

i edited my post. i think babies can not be compared to Saddam.