Allowing Euthanasia and Mercy Killing Is Wrong

Posted by:
eMaxHealth (http://www.emaxhealth.com/cms/?m=search&opt=search_proceed&nnet_author=1&nnet_catid=-&search_conjunction=AND&keywords=ZU1heEhlYWx0aA==&page=1)

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...?

I definately need more information - for starters, sources.

:O

I definitely need more info

Killing Innocent Babiesis wrong.

Need to make it more to the point.

Killing is wrong.

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

This is from The Independant:

Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge (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."

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.

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?

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.

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?

much better than i could say...thanks

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

I'm not comparing babies to Saddam! I just don't think anyone who supports the death penalty can say that 'killing is wrong' without sounding a tad hypocritical.

As for the original topic, I'd need to know what exactly 'severly disabled' constitutes. How do the Drs know which babies to euthanise?

I can't believe, in this civilized society, that the euthanization of babies is even up for discussion.

Under no circumstances would I ever support such a policy.

:no No words can describe how this makes me feel

Here's (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=55885)the argument put forward by the medical profession:

Allow Debate On Euthanasia For Seriously Disabled Infants Say Experts

As medical science progresses the number of seriously disabled babies that survive is growing - we should therefore consider having a debate on allowing active euthanasia, for the good of families, says the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology. The College explains families who have the most severely disabled babies, babies who until recently would not have survived, are suffering enormously, both emotionally and financially.

The college explains that if obstetricians were allowed to carry out active euthanasia, some patients would be more inclined to wait till birth, rather than carrying out late abortions.

It seems there is some support for this proposal by several parents of severely disabled babies, medical ethicists and geneticists. However, many express concern that this could be the first step in the slippery slope of social engineering.

In a submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the College explained "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."

Euthanasia of newborns, no matter how sick and/or disabled they are, is illegal in the United Kingdom. In the Netherlands, there are cases where active euthanasia of newborns is allowed, such as when a baby has severe spina bifida.

The college says it is not asking for euthanasia of severely disabled newborns - rather, it would like to see a debate on it.

It is not unheard of for UK doctors to privately admit that mercy killings of newborns do take place.

Opinion of Editor of Medical News Today

I am not the parent of a severely disabled and/or sick baby. I am not a severely disabled and/or sick baby. I am neither for nor against active euthanasia of severely disabled and/or sick newborns. I believe the subject should be debated.

:unlove

I guess debate or no debate it is still heartbreaking to know that we, as a world, are coming to this...yes, I know that it may never happen, it still breaks my heart that someone even thought about it

I dont know how I feel about it. I've never been in the kind of situation that would put me in a better position to form an opinion. I personally couldn't imagine taking care of a severely disabled baby. I've been a carer before, to someone I loved very much. She was terminally ill, and it was heartbreaking to see her deteriorate slowly, day after day, in so much pain she could barely move. She was at the end of her life. I couldn't imagine caring for a baby - someone at the very beginning of their life - who is in the same situation. It's very very easy to say that it's wrong, but I think there's always another side to the story. I'm not advocating the euthanasia of babies, but I don't think it's wrong to debate it. You never know, they might remember why the law was made in the first place... :dunno

Here's my take.

If God gives me a baby, I am truly blessed.
If God gives me a baby with severe problems, I am truly blessed.

Who are we to tell our babies "You're broken, I don't want you. I don't want to take care of you, my heart cant take watching you suffer. I sentence you to die."

And furthermore, what kind of society would allow it? And on top of that - to call it mercy? Mercy defined is "an act of kindness, compassion, or favor"... so then we say what? "Rather than suffer - or rather than making your poor family suffer to take care of you for your life, however long it may be, you small helpless innocent child, deserve to die."

I just don't get it. I really just don't get it.

The thought alone is heartless, and even moreso to say it would be for ones own good.

I have seen parents pray for one of those "accidental" overdoses for thier dying children. There was nothing that them or the dr's could do to make them comfortable. They just wanted to end the suffering of their child. Honestly I cant say that I blame them. Watching Gabe go through chemo, radiation and surgeries, I dont know how many times I prayed to take his place. So he wouldnt have to suffer through treatment and now the side effects.

But like I said, if this is just so that parents, insurance companies and dr's arent "burdened" with caring for disabled children, no i am not for it. But if the child has no chance for survival and will suffer till the end. I can honestly say that I would consider it.

Does that make me evil, no I dont think so. You euthnize a pet when it's dying and suffering right? Why would you make a child suffer till the end?

Here's my take.

If God gives me a baby, I am truly blessed.
If God gives me a baby with severe problems, I am truly blessed.

Who are we to tell our babies "You're broken, I don't want you. I don't want to take care of you, my heart cant take watching you suffer. I sentence you to die."

And furthermore, what kind of society would allow it? And on top of that - to call it mercy? Mercy defined is "an act of kindness, compassion, or favor"... so then we say what? "Rather than suffer - or rather than making your poor family suffer to take care of you for your life, however long it may be, you small helpless innocent child, deserve to die."

I just don't get it. I really just don't get it.

The thought alone is heartless, and even moreso to say it would be for ones own good.

Have you ever cared for anyone who is terminally ill?

Please explain how the two are related. (The answer to the question is yes, but I fail to see the relevance).

(for those wondering the source -- google news)

that was the only information provided in the article

Have you ever cared for anyone who is terminally ill?

I have...my aunt and my granny...yes, I felt much pain for their suffering and wished everyday that there was something I could do to help take it way....to make it all better, but I still don't think that I personally could do something like to anyone, let alone a child. I am one of those people though that believe the choice is not mine to make...so it would be very hard to change my mind I guess...kwim

You know what? Don't even bother explaining the relevance Sonia. I'm not going to spend any more time allowing anyone to justify killing innocent newborn babies. I'm sooooooo out of this thread :wavey

Please explain how the two are related. (The answer to the question is yes, but I fail to see the relevance).

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cause offence. I was just curious to see if you'd had the same perspective as Donna. As I said earlier, I'm not arguing for or against, but I can see both sides of the argument.

Fair enough...... :dunno

It's a slippery slope. Cerebral palsy is a severe AND moderate disability. so because I'm in pain every day, I should be offed. you cant even tell I have CP until you see me and are around me for awhile. I just think it could cause more problems. Since when did we become God. 24 years ago, there were virtually no therapies, now there is more hope for kids with CP than even, I, will ever have. Please excuse typos once again.

Not sure how I feel about this. Here's a question.....would it be possible for these babies to be organ donors?

If you were the mother a child who was dying and "euthanizing" one of these infants would save your child's life, who would then go on to live a normal, healthy life, would you feel differently?

That being said, there are angels among us who would happily adopt these children and care for them. If the parents don't want them, someone will.

I feel about this the way I feel about abortion- my morals that I hold myself to would never, never, allow me to do this, and I find it reprehensible. But I can't take away the choice of someone whose shoes I've never walked in.

i think is one of those debates similar to stem cell research...its a slippery slope but there could be alot said on both sides.

Speaking from experience here, this is disgusting. My brother was born with Werdnig-Hoffman's and my parents were told that he would die as an infant. He lived to be two years old. Sure it was emotionally draining for my parents at times but he was given to us for a reason. I can't imagine if they would have killed him at birth when they found out he was terminally ill.

I don't think anyone in my family has ever though of Nathan as a burden, he was a blessing, even with all the care he required.

I think there is big difference in caring for an older person at the end of their life and a baby at the beginning.

just a thought to ponder. when i had some testing done while i was pregnant we were worried about Trent being born with some brain issues. When i talked to God i told him that i would take a baby that was not 100% healthy or "normal". i knew that if it came down to it, i would love that child with all my heart no matter what. the thought of someone else making a terrible decision because the baby is not normal broke my heart.

I think there is big difference in caring for an older person at the end of their life and a baby at the beginning.

just a thought to ponder. when i had some testing done while i was pregnant we were worried about Trent being born with some brain issues. When i talked to God i told him that i would take a baby that was not 100% healthy or "normal". i knew that if it came down to it, i would love that child with all my heart no matter what. the thought of someone else making a terrible decision because the baby is not normal broke my heart.

But they're not discussing babies who are moderately disabled, or babies who could live without being in constant and severe pain for the rest of their lives. They're talking about babies who are so severely disabled that it's classed as a terminal illness. Babies who are at the end of their life right at the start. In that I don't think there is a big difference.

But once they start the terminal..it could slide into well this one isnt healthy so it would be a shame for him/her to suffer. How would you regulate such a thing.

But once they start the terminal..it could slide into well this one isnt healthy so it would be a shame for him/her to suffer. How would you regulate such a thing.

I agree - I think I made the same point earlier

Sorry Sonia. I'm doing good to remember my name most days.

No problem :)

In theory, I am supporting of euthanasia for anyone who is at the end of their life and severely suffering, regardless of age. How it would be regulated and determined, I don't know, which is why I say in theory.

If the babies are just disabled and not about to die, I think it's horrible. I work with children who have special needs, and a large portion of them have medical needs. I can't imagine parents ending their lives just to avoid having a child who will have a lot of needs. These children are so wonderful and they deserve a chance to have a life.