1/2 Of ALL Babies?

[Annie]

Perhaps ethanasia is here?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002036.htm

THE CULTURE OF DEATH IN BELGIUM
By Michelle Malkin · April 08, 2005 10:38 PM
There's a chilling new study in the medical journal Lancet on euthanasia's impact on babies in Belgium:

Nearly half the newborn babies who died in Flanders over a recent year-long period were helped to die by their doctors, a new study reported yesterday. Paediatricians in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium either discreetly stopped treating the babies or, in 17 cases, illegally killed them with lethal doses of painkillers.
The study, published in The Lancet, examined the deaths of every baby who died within a year of birth in Flanders between August 1999 and July 2000. The results of a survey on the causes of death were stark: paediatricians who responded to the survey admitted they had taken "end of life" decisions in more than half the cases. Most commonly, that involved withholding or withdrawing treatment because physicians believed the baby had no real chance of survival or the baby had no chance of a "bearable future".

In 40 cases, opiate pain killers were used in doses with a potentially life-shortening affect. In 17 cases, a lethal dose or lethal drugs were administered. Overall, the research yielded information on 253 out of the total of 298 infant deaths in the region over the period. The lethal doses of painkillers, which broke Belgian law, were mainly administered to babies less than a week old.

Most were premature babies with severe congenital malformations or handicaps and what was described as a poor quality of life, or very premature babies with severe brain damage. Four fifths of the doctors who completed an "attitudinal survey" agreed that "the task of the physician sometimes involves the prevention of unnecessary suffering by hastening death".

 

[Nienna]

Perhaps ethanasia is here?

Perhaps?!

 

[dilloduck]

Perhaps?!

"the task of the physician sometimes involves the prevention of unnecessary suffering by hastening death".

wow--do these docs have esp or does God just tell em what "necessary suffering" is??

 

[Mr. P]

Perhaps ethanasia is here?

It's here alright...

But it would be a mistake to simply dismiss the concerns of the "death with dignity" movement. Public opinion polls have consistently shown that a large majority of the American public favors legalized euthanasia.6

http://www.aafp.org/afp/970515ap/society.html

 

[dilloduck]

Perhaps ethanasia is here?

It's here alright...


http://www.aafp.org/afp/970515ap/society.html

The current debate about euthanasia and assisted suicide has the potential to polarize our society, but it can also have a positive effect if it helps us focus on the need to rehumanize medicine and the care of the dying. The danger and the temptation are that we will once again choose to ignore the real problem and instead substitute a pill--this time a suicide pill--that simply serves to conceal the symptoms of our disease. What is needed is not new laws to sanction assisted suicide, but rather a more fundamental and positive change in the way we meet the physical, psychological and spiritual needs of the dying patient.

Liked this part of the article

 

[Nienna]

Perhaps ethanasia is here?

It's here alright...


http://www.aafp.org/afp/970515ap/society.html

Public opinion is not the determinant of truth. I believe this is the core issue of the right-to die debate. If a person believes he can determine his own "truth," he believes he is the master of his fate, and thus has the RIGHT to end his life at his bidding. If a person recognizes truth as coming from a transcendent, objective source, that his life and his purpose are not determined, not OWNED by himself, then he will believe that people cannot choose which lives to end and for what reasons. Each person has a purpose, determined by a loving Creator, and that Creator has the RIGHT to determine when and how death should occur.

 

[dilloduck]

Public opinion is not the determinant of truth. I believe this is the core issue of the right-to die debate. If a person believes he can determine his own "truth," he believes he is the master of his fate, and thus has the RIGHT to end his life at his bidding. If a person recognizes truth as coming from a transcendent, objective source, that his life and his purpose are not determined, not OWNED by himself, then he will believe that people cannot choose which lives to end and for what reasons. Each person has a purpose, determined by a loving Creator, and that Creator has the RIGHT to determine when and how death should occur.

True---here we go with polls again---if they are so accurate, why don't we just let the people go ahead and vote these issues up or down !!!

Answer???-----it might settle something once and for all. God forbid--it's so much easier to debate with manufactured numbers

 

[Mr. P]

True---here we go with polls again---if they are so accurate, why don't we just let the people go ahead and vote these issues up or down !!!

Answer???-----it might settle something once and for all. God forbid--it's so much easier to debate with manufactured numbers

If I were interested in legalization I'd say go for the vote. Truth is, the law will not stop anyone that wants to end their own life from doing so.

 

[dilloduck]

If I were interested in legalization I'd say go for the vote. Truth is, the law will not stop anyone that wants to end their own life from doing so.

Legalization may certainly encourage more to do it though. I think it sends a lousy message.

 

[Mr. P]

Legalization may certainly encourage more to do it though. I think it sends a lousy message.

Maybe, but I think legalization would allow alternatives if asked for, other means, besides a 12 gauge to the head. That's so messy.

 

[dilloduck]

Maybe, but I think legalization would allow alternatives if asked for, other means, besides a 12 gauge to the head. That's so messy.

oh God---we must make the death a clean one--unless of course the "patient" WANTS to leave a mess--then that would be thier right!
:rotflmao:

 

[Mr. P]

oh God---we must make the death a clean one--unless of course the "patient" WANTS to leave a mess--then that would be thier right!
:rotflmao:

Yep..To think otherwise you would have to believe that what you think trumps any right they do have...In other words, telling them what they must or must not do because it's what YOU believe, regardless of what they believe..

 

[dilloduck]

Yep..To think otherwise you would have to believe that what you think trumps any right they do have...In other words, telling them what they must or must not do because it's what YOU believe, regardless of what they believe..

Sorry to burst your bubble Mr P but America is constantly operating on belief systems. Someones' belief system is ALWAYS losing out to another.

 

[Mr. P]

Sorry to burst your bubble Mr P but America is constantly operating on belief systems. Someones' belief system is ALWAYS losing out to another.

LOL...we're talkin rights here, arn't we? Cept you I guess. As hard as ya try, You can't sub the word "belief" for "rights".

 

[MissileMan]

Public opinion is not the determinant of truth. I believe this is the core issue of the right-to die debate. If a person believes he can determine his own "truth," he believes he is the master of his fate, and thus has the RIGHT to end his life at his bidding. If a person recognizes truth as coming from a transcendent, objective source, that his life and his purpose are not determined, not OWNED by himself, then he will believe that people cannot choose which lives to end and for what reasons. Each person has a purpose, determined by a loving Creator, and that Creator has the RIGHT to determine when and how death should occur.

And all this time, all I've heard is that man is given free will. Is this not so?

 

[Nienna]

Maybe, but I think legalization would allow alternatives if asked for, other means, besides a 12 gauge to the head. That's so messy.

Sounds dangerously like "safe, legal, rare."

 

[Nienna]

And all this time, all I've heard is that man is given free will. Is this not so?

Man is definitely given free will. ANd the reason he is given free will is so that he can choose whether or not to submit it to his Creators'. He CAN choose not to, however, this is not GOOD, as defined by the Creator.

 

[MissileMan]

Man is definitely given free will. ANd the reason he is given free will is so that he can choose whether or not to submit it to his Creators'. He CAN choose not to, however, this is not GOOD, as defined by the Creator.

If someone chooses to end their life, how do you know that it wasn't the Creator's will that he do so?

 

[Nienna]

If someone chooses to end their life, how do you know that it wasn't the Creator's will that he do so?

See, this is the convoluted thinking we get into. People do not own themselves. We were made by God for His purposes. If people are submitting themselves to God's will (which IS the definition of Goodness), they will not choose to end their own lives. As I posted in the Aunt Mae thread, if Jesus wanted Aunt Mae to come home, He would have called her Himself.

 

[MissileMan]

See, this is the convoluted thinking we get into. People do not own themselves. We were made by God for His purposes. If people are submitting themselves to God's will (which IS the definition of Goodness), they will not choose to end their own lives. As I posted in the Aunt Mae thread, if Jesus wanted Aunt Mae to come home, He would have called her Himself.

But how do YOU know that the Creator doesn't tell someone to end their life? What I find convoluted is the notion that we lowly humans could defy the will of a deity. If an omniscient, omnipotent being wanted something, it could not be denied.