Abortion not enough... let's euthanise born infants

Remove all ads!

Here's some news from the Netherlands.

From MSNBC: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588/

From BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4093965.stm

And something about underreported euthanasia of infants already taking place:

From: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031102.html

This is the link to the so called Doctor Death (Dr Verhagen) who is one of the chief murderers, I mean, doctors who kill babies, I mean, doctors who euthanise infants: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/18/news/doctor.html.

More:

From Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp

It seems abortion is not enough. Let's just kill babies after they are born if we don't make it in time. Sick old people are already in, so who's next? Mentally ill people? People in custody?

The next big step after deciding for those who can't decide logically seems to be proceeding without the consent of unwilling subjects.

 

As I was aware, this has already been going on for several years in the Neatherlands. What I'm saying is this isn't news...

 

What can I say....

*applauding*

It still amazes me that people seem to be shocked with dutch laws that IMO are perfectly sound. We're talking about babies who have absolutely no chance on any kind of normal life. If it was my kid that had to suffer everyday, lie in a hospital bed, hooked to a machine...................I'm just very glad I live in holland.

I don't have to live as ****ing vegetable when I'm eighty.

Some here should open their eyes to the world instead of following dead old morals which do not make any sense any more.

Jeez.....that last article sure were pure facts and certainly no personal opinion of the writer

Same can be said of the creater of the thread :deadserious:

 

@ Apeman

Agreed. At least until medical science gets to a stage where something can actually be done.

 

Gee chev, you like to let children suffer without any chance of them making the end of the year and no way to reduce the pain?


The articles fail to mention that, the original guidelines never changed, euthanesia is only for those who can not be saved by normal medical means.
We can't follow the morals of the bible and the church, because isn't there such a thing as separation of church and state?

I can almost visualize that:

Doctor: Here is your newborn son. It seems that, even though he was born 5 months too early there is still a slim chance of him making it.
Parents: Doctor, why is he screaming so much?
Doctor: Well, because he was born way too early, he is severly handicapped and he will spend the rest of his life in horrible pain, medications won't help against that.
Parents: Rest of his live in horrible pain? Well, at least that is better than getting murdered without our consent, we are pro-life you know.
*child dies*
Doctor: Well at least I didn't murder him to stop the pain.


With Christmas, my grandmother had an heartattack, she turned into a plant, nihil chance of restoration, 50% of her brain was dead tissue, if she lived in some uptight moralistic state, she was held alive until the day the rest of her brain died as well, I'm sure doctors would try to 'save her' even then.


Well chev, you got us, it is our way to deal with the immigrant problem, actually the Groningen hospital is not an hospital, it's just a hole of genocide, the only people returning are the doctors

 

Once again, despite the rampant sarcasm in this thread, this is a topic that has no easy answers. I agree that there are some situations where the right decision seems obvious. That is, the really extreme situations. But it must be really tough to know where exactly you draw the line between life and death. What exactly constitutes acceptable quality of life? I, for one, am glad that I have not had to make that decision.

 

Despite my upbringing and beliefs I have to agree with you HB. Just to clarify - I am pro-life, that said let's talk about this controversial subject matter shall we? There are some cases where it can be so extreme that the only option, whether you agree with it or not, is clear.

I, for one, don't see why this sarcasm in regards to such a serious matter is warranted. It's a touchy subject matter. As I said though, in some cases it's the only option.

Despite my opinion though I'm quite certain that there will be people who will euthanize a child just because they don't feel like taking care of it. That's another subject matter altogether though... I just think euthanasia should be used as a last resort if there is nothing more that can be done. Some might think of me as a hypocrite in what I believe because of this opinion - but I believe that God gives us a way out of any situation if we can't endure them (trials, conflicts, and other such things that everyone inevitably encounters during their life) and that some are simply a necessary evil.

On a last note I'll say that I think instead of aborting children women should simply use the alternative - adoption.

 

I'm not entirely sure about the weekly standard article numbers. I did some digging and the lancet journal study the author references is about a decade old now. There are more recent studies since them with substantially smaller numbers (75% lower for example). I don't know why the author relied on the older study.

I was initially appalled at some of the suggested uses of the infant euthenasia (the severely retarded for example - but then, what's that mean?) I went looking and stumbled across an article with an interview with the doctor who is behind the proposal. In fairness, I thought I'd link it:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/18/news/doctor.html

That case was reportedly the driving force. To me, it's a question of line drawing. Like dmc, if I had a kid with Tay-Sachs, I'd be in favor of euthenasia. The line drawing is tough, but then that's the whole purpose of having laws in the first place.

 

I see the value of medicine as its ability to alleviate suffering. In the end, I believe that a life without quality or anything more than a fool's hope for improvement is one that is not worth living. In that respect, I can see the value in allowing such practice to continue. It should never be "standard practice", but I do not believe that Dutch physicians are committed to eugenic principles or anything so monstrous. The Hippocratic Oath demands that doctors vow to do no harm, but the meaning of "harm" is so fluid that clinging to principle without consideration of the consequences is a less humane course of action.

IMO, dmc has struck at the heart of the issue: this decision isn't as frivolous as picking a burger at McDonalds, and it will undoubtedly have long-term ramifications. I shudder to think of the person who could walk away from or euthanise a healthy newborn without good reason; that's nothing less than murder. I am more concerned that it will be misused by some parents than doctors.

I think that as a matter of principle, preventing a life from entering an existence of torment is a lesser evil, and that abortion is a much less ethically-fraught issue. This isn't an easy issue; however, I feel we are better for having the provisions and laws in place. At least there will be an option in place for people, who will have to make their own, unenviable decisions.

@ Cryo:

I respect your position on this, but I can't agree with you. Prevention is better than cure, in my opinion, and if it's going to be two or more lives ruined (note: not inconvenienced, ruined), then I think early abortion is preferable. Of course, I believe that contraception is preferable to abortion as well.

EDIT:

Laches, I couldn't agree more.

 

I actualy agree to this kind of things. If a child is born with defections and such, which are uncureable, and will torment this child for the rest of his/her life, then the parents should be able to decide the babys fate. I mean they will be the ones taking care of the infant for the rest of their lives and because of that, they should have an option to choose.

You have to think about the childs life too... How fun could it be being afflicted in that way?

 

You can imagine why this sort of starting posts can start some sarcastic replies.

@harbourboy and DMC

I think it is clear that the cases where this kind of Euthanisie is followed are the cases described in the first article. I can imagine the choice of these parent. What is easier, watching your child suffer or actually feeling the suffering.

I get the feeling that some of you think that Euthanie is followed in less serious cases and that Holland is described as a childkiller country. I mean look at the first article which is just stating the plain facts pure and simple. They describe what deseases lead to this kind of Euthanesie and who are against it, without making judgement themselves. Now the last article is a pure country bashing article, bases solely on his own opinion.

 

I'm with the 'in extreme and rare cases where the outcome is certain (death with loads of pain)' camp on this. Yes I would consider this an acceptable practice.

Now I'd like to comment to Chev as the original poster here:

1) What on earth does this have to do with abortion as implied by the header? It is clearly not the same in any way shape or form, and from nowhere in your post do I get any impression that this is being proposed as a method of getting rid of unwanted babies. It appears to be a way of humanely terminating a sadly short life that would otherwise be about pure pain and suffering?

2) Since you clearly do not agree with any form of euthenasia, what is your opinion as to our collective medical responsibility to keep infants artificially alive for as long as possible - 1 week, 1 month, 3 months etc, in pain with no hope of anything but pain and an early death. Should we really keep them alive just because we have the technology to do so? Or would you consider withdrawing treatment as a valid option?

Just curious.

 

Viking, you've got the right of it:

As I asked in the Terri Schiavo topic, how do we know that applying our "advanced medical technology" in the first place isn't exactly the type of interference with God's plan that many protestors claim withdrawing said technology to be? Who gets to make that choice - the patient (or legal representative), the doctor, the court, the Church (even for non-members?), the media, or some other over-interested but non-involved third party?

Sometimes Hollywood actually has a cogent thought:

Medical ethics is a young field on a very slippery slope. Neither the offensively inflammatory title of this thread nor the heavy sarcasm of early posts do this very serious and sad topic justice. I pray that I'm never put into a position where I have to make such a decision in regard to my own precious children.

 

If people don't make it in time before birth, euthanasia is carried out after it. If 33% doctors polled have done it, do you really believe it's just children who would have died anyway or lived brain-dead otherwise?

And yes, this is a method of getting rid of unwanted babies.

I don't believe there's any set period of time same for all cases. If there's hope of recovery, it should be pursued. If there's no hope of recovery, it may be acceptable to withdraw artificial life support from patients who are going to die anyway, such as in some cases of cancer where artificial support only prolongs life in suffering but won't save it from eventual termination. To answer Rally's Terri Schiavo analogy, starving someone to death isn't withdrawing artificial life support.

I don't believe there's anything inflammatory in pointing out that killing people is wrong.

 

Uhm, can you give us any information on those 33% doctors polled?
The guy said that 31% of the pediatricians and 45% of the neo-natologists who responded to the poll, killed infants.
He didn't say:
- How many doctors actuall responded to the poll.
- Where the poll took place.
- How many doctors actually mercy-killed infants.
- How many infants were actually mercy-killed.

Does that mean that 38% of the Dutch doctors actually killed infants? No.
Does that mean that 38% of the Dutch doctors who are specialized in euthanasia actually killed infants? No.
Does that mean that 38% of the infants are "mercy-killed". No.
Does that mean that unwanted children get "mercy-killed" by means of post-natal abortion. No.
What does it mean? I'm not sure, but I'd like to read the 8 year old document myself before I skip and jump to the "obvious conclusion".


Hey, he is a journalist! Then why is this only source a 7 year old document nobody can access?
Why can't he use his "investigative skills" to whip up some more recent stories, quite easy that is nowadays with the Induhnet, but he just takes the most shocking story he can access, who cares that it is outdated?
Does that say something of the credibility of this story?

Euthanasia an way of getting rid of unwanted children? Where on earth did you get that from?
Oh wait, you draw the conclusion from the fact that 33% of the polled doctors mercy-killed.

There is something inflammatory in attacking the mercy-killers, only because they kill.

 

I wouldn't mind the topic of Euthenasia if it could be kept quiet. It should be legal to do what you must to keep someone comfortable at the end, even if it's a litte too much pain killers or sedatives. If this is done however, it must be kept confidential. JUst the doctor(s) involved, the Parents, clergy if desired, and the patient (if applicable). If the decision is to do so, then do it, get it over with and let the family get on with their lives.

[Sciavo content removed] - dmc

[ March 31, 2005, 20:57: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

I do not see why ANYONE here is coming down on the "sarcastic replies" considering the nonsense Chev' posted in the OP!?

It is one thing to link to credible(and hopefully not too biased) sources of information and tossing out a question, then stating your own position. It is quite another to do what Chev does...over and over and over and over and over and over again!

Are Roman Catholics not happy unless there is suffering(and they are able to cause it?)? None of the doctors listed in the initial articles were advocating killing children with a realitic chance of recovery(and by "realistic" I mean anything approaching a .001%. "Only by a miracle" is another way of saying "No chance in HELL!").

[Schiavo content removed, as well as end-of-life/right to death concepts. This is about infant euthanasia/] - dmc

[ March 31, 2005, 21:05: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

Roman Catholics are not happy when people are being killed.

I don't see how my dogma of sanctity of human life is vile. I don't see in what way this is a political scheme if I want euthanasia banned and not a specific party or person put in power.

[Schiavo stuff removed] - dmc

[ March 31, 2005, 21:07: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

Actually that is EXACTLY what the argument is for euthenasia is, and you have not demonstrated anything otherwise.

Please provide some solid evidence that euthenasia is being used as 'post birth abortion'. Not even the most biased of the quotes you provided goes anywhere near asserting that this is the case.

There really is little to chose between this approach and euthenasia in most cases. Assistance with the dying process only shortens the life and hence the pain for a marginal amount of time, though of course that time could be an hour, a week, a month or even more. In terrible pain.

[Schiavo content removed] - dmc

Your dogma of sanctity of human life is not vile. It's your belief and you are perfectly entitled to it. I find this all too black and white. Humanity is not governed by black and white, it's all various shades of gray. Thus I cannot concur.

[ March 31, 2005, 21:12: Message edited by: dmc ]