Doctors: let us kill disabled babies

[Stephanie]

Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Correspondent
Speechless!

SNIP:
ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.
The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.



“A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it 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.”

Geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal — as did the mother of a severely disabled child — but a prominent children’s doctor described it as “social engineering”.

The college called for “active euthanasia” of newborns to be considered as part of an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborn babies. The inquiry is being carried out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

The college’s submission to the inquiry states: “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.”
You can read the rest of this disturbing article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2437921,00.html

 

[dilloduck]

Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Correspondent
Speechless!

SNIP:
ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.
The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.



“A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it 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.”

Geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal — as did the mother of a severely disabled child — but a prominent children’s doctor described it as “social engineering”.

The college called for “active euthanasia” of newborns to be considered as part of an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborn babies. The inquiry is being carried out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

The college’s submission to the inquiry states: “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.”
You can read the rest of this disturbing article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2437921,00.html

Makes ya wonder whatever happened to "First-Do no harm "

 

[Hobbit]

Ya know, it really sucks to be right all the time, but what can I say? It's a gift and a curse.

 

[Gunny]

Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Correspondent
Speechless!

SNIP:
ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.
The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.



“A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it 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.”

Geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal — as did the mother of a severely disabled child — but a prominent children’s doctor described it as “social engineering”.

The college called for “active euthanasia” of newborns to be considered as part of an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborn babies. The inquiry is being carried out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

The college’s submission to the inquiry states: “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.”
You can read the rest of this disturbing article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2437921,00.html

Humanity taking a back seat to personal convenience. Who was it that was telling me there was no "slippery slope?" to ESR, abortion, and/or assisted suicide?

 

[Eightball]

How is it that the "left" can be so emotionally entangled in the throws of human life and it's travails, yet be so callous in arbitrarily choosing one life over another with such quick, and almost flippant speed?

Why is it medicine's realm to determine whether or not a family or couple will suffer more than their disabled baby, therefore the disabled baby is killed to relieve the future hardships of the couple/family who birthed the baby?

Mental, emotional suffering takes many shapes and forms. Christians see a disabled baby's life as still a "life". In fact, in the N.T., Roman's 8:28 says that God allows these travails to happen in lives for a grander purpose. The grander purpose is to encourage/push humanity into a position of dependence in their Creator. Man and medicine is now doing, or trying to cope with a realm that they are not designed or intended to cope with or handle.

However there are "cut and dry" areas, where a baby is developing in the womb and has massive physical mutations that will render it virtually dead at birth(Still birth). We have some close friends who just found out that their daughter's 4 month pregnancy will be ended in a few days, because the baby, literally has no brain, tumors on it's kidneys, no heart valves developed, a club foot and other major mutations. I.E. It will be born a still-born if it goes any longer. No brain.......No life......Something went wrong. Why? As a Christian......I again fall back on Romans 8:28 "God causes all things to work for good, according to His purpose......" I do know for a fact that this situation is and will draw both the prospective grandparents, and the prospective mother and father of the dead baby, very close to God, as they are all Christians. There will be much pain during this time of the year for them. This is a great loss, and a dashing of hopes, dreams, and future plans in a young marriage, and for an older couple who would be grandparents for the first time.

So many who think if God exists, He must be so "cold" and arbitrary, like the Greek Gods; throwing down lightning from the heavens in some game of chess. Oh, how much these folks miss out on the savory perfume of life that comes both in pleasant and unpleasant happenings that hit us from out of nowhere. Oh, how so many miss out in the aftermath of these temporary, yet devastating happenings of life that reveal to us that we are not captains of our lives, but co-journers or passengers with a Wise Pilot commanding the real controls.

Job suffered so terribly. He lost all of his children, his belongings, and was so terribly afflicted with bodily maladies. Not once did he turn away from his Creator, yet, even as great a man as Job was, he still had more to learn about Him. The book of Job ends with Job's health being restored, and the blessing of having more children, and restored material wealth, too. Yet, the real blessing to Job came at the end, when God told Job to not say a word, but to just "listen".........yes "listen" to Him/God. God asked Job......"Did you make the mountains, or the animals that graze upon them, or the creatures that inhabit the ocean.......and on and on.....God went.... At the end, Job was trully speechless, and humbled beyond anything.....He Job was brought to see and understand that he didn't really know much at all about life, and especially about God's wisdom that was worked out through the travails of human life. He realized that he/Job was special(loved) to God, and that his past sufferings were God's only way of shaping and making Job into a greater "vessel" to glorify God Himself. Job started out a righteous man in God's eyes, but ended up a man even more sanctified(holy and set apart) in his earthly life as a result of all that happened to him for a very important reason.

Please don't interpret, Eightball's words here as one who takes lightly the sufferings of others, as I have experienced my share as well. Nothing in my life can compare to so many others. I can't even predict how I will handle the next tribulation in my life that will inevitably come. I only hope that I may place my trust in my God to help me to understand, and to not become embittered with Him or myself in a way that robs me and those close to me from experiencing the fullness of joy that is the inheritance of all who are trully saved through Jesus Christ's attoning death for mine and all mankind's sins.

God does miraculous things through his creation called, "man". Man has discovered and invented medicines that alleviate pain, and suffering, and also bring healing. I'm just concerned that medicine is attempting to forge across a realm that isn't reserved for man's wisdom......namely, do families deserved to raise disabled children or do these families deserve to "suffer" through raising a handicapped child? Man is voluntarily placing himself in the position of determining the "importance" of one life over another again. We are not talking about brain-dead babies. We are talking about handicapped babies that will inevitably grow up to be handicapped humans. Is life fair? It never has been, and never will be. Is God fair......Yes!.......In fact He's more than fair.....His grace through His Son Jesus's sacrificed life for us, is a pardon that covers any perceived unfairness of life........right to the core.

I haven't raised a majorily handicapped child, but I have spent a good portion of my earlier married life in hospitals with an oldest son who was born with bad kidneys. I have spent countless hours in pediatric wards after many surgerys, and finally a kidney transplant when he was age, 14. I have sat in courtrooms with sons that did major wrongs in their lives and were reaping the weight of man's justice upon them. Myself and my wife have suffered, and I think at the time of the onset of those sufferings we would have pleaded for the scenarios to end right there, and all things be brought back to before the sky started to fall on us. In hindsight.....My wife and I can look back and see that these sufferings or unpleasant committments we had to take on in our lives actually made us wiser folks, and awfully thankful folks. We learned that prayer, perserverance, patience, dependence, trust, moved our eyes and souls off of ourselves(self-centeredness) and forced to turn to other's needs. All in all, we've found that it's how one receives these tidings from life.....that God inevitably allows.......Will we become embittered with life and our Creator, or will we attempt to find some "learning" in the aftermath of our travails of life?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Humanity taking a back seat to personal convenience. Who was it that was telling me there was no "slippery slope?" to ESR, abortion, and/or assisted suicide?

Exactly, Gunny. We will continue to see the dreadful consequences of the devaluation of life.

 

[glockmail]

Makes ya wonder whatever happened to "First-Do no harm "

Withholding life support is done every day in accordance with DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders. Any parent, or anyone with medical power of attorney, can sign a DNR for a patient that they are responsible for.

 

[Hobbit]

Withholding life support is done every day in accordance with DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders. Any parent, or anyone with medical power of attorney, can sign a DNR for a patient that they are responsible for.

We're talking actively killing babies, though. Oops, I forgot, feeding somebody who can't feed themselves is life support. I guess we can starve them and dodge the 'do no harm' rule.

 

[90K]

Withholding life support is done every day in accordance with DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders. Any parent, or anyone with medical power of attorney, can sign a DNR for a patient that they are responsible for.

I know all about that DNR deal and I support that when it's warranted, like a non positive out come from an illness or mental condition where no quality of life can ever be achieved. I'm not taking about Terry Schiavo either. But when parents have children using they wanted them in the first place, it is like accepting the total package good with bad and so on. So if we start looking for ways out of responsibility then what is next? Taking our old folk to the gas chamber because of the burden they are causing? I mean we are next in line if that is the case? How low will we go with regards to this subject? Kind of sounds like that fella in Germany about 60 years ago.

 

[glockmail]

We're talking actively killing babies, though. Oops, I forgot, feeding somebody who can't feed themselves is life support. I guess we can starve them and dodge the 'do no harm' rule.

Feeding someone with a spoon is not tye same as feeding them with a tube, pumping their heart with electrodes, etc.

 

[glockmail]

I know all about that DNR deal and I support that when it's warranted, like a non positive out come from an illness or mental condition where no quality of life can ever be achieved. I'm not taking about Terry Schiavo either. But when parents have children using they wanted them in the first place, it is like accepting the total package good with bad and so on. So if we start looking for ways out of responsibility then what is next? Taking our old folk to the gas chamber because of the burden they are causing? I mean we are next in line if that is the case? How low will we go with regards to this subject? Kind of sounds like that fella in Germany about 60 years ago.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not condoning this stuff. I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation. I have my idea where the line should be drawn, and it does not include kids with low IQs.

 

[90K]

Don't get me wrong- I'm not condoning this stuff. I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation. I have my idea where the line should be drawn, and it does not include kids with low IQs.

Oh I agree these topics are really kind of like until you've been there you ain't got a clue. But also there is a moral concern as well and really this is for the long haul and just think of what people would learn if they accepted responsibility. Again grey areas and positive quality of life are key points and interpretation of these cases.

 

[glockmail]

Oh I agree these topics are really kind of like until you've been there you ain't got a clue. But also there is a moral concern as well and really this is for the long haul and just think of what people would learn if they accepted responsibility. Again grey areas and positive quality of life are key points and interpretation of these cases.

It really depends on the individual where the line should be drawn. I know a guy who can't move his finger more than 1 inch, has to wear a diaper and a tube up his dick, has to be fed and all, but is otherwise cognizant, and he won't sign a DNR. I dunno what I’d do in that situation.

 

[90K]

It really depends on the individual where the line should be drawn. I know a guy who can't move his finger more than 1 inch, has to wear a diaper and a tube up his dick, has to be fed and all, but is otherwise cognizant, and he won't sign a DNR. I dunno what I’d do in that situation.

But he can add quality of life: if he was positive and you could over look the obvious and hold conversations. I'm sure there will come a time when his life will start failing and he may become mentally tired of the fight and release his signature for the DNR and allow hospice to give comfort for the remaining days or hours he is here on this earth. I will say it is a hard burden to be picked to do. So it is interpretation, and yes it is a costly thing to have to deal with on a daily basis. All one can do is show love and be positive with conversation and thoughts because you know he won’t get better and may God heal the inflicted hearts if there is any. Really out of the peoples control.

 

[glockmail]

But he can add quality of life: if he was positive and you could over look the obvious and hold conversations. I'm sure there will come a time when his life will start failing and he may become mentally tired of the fight and release his signature for the DNR and allow hospice to give comfort for the remaining days or hours he is here on this earth. I will say it is a hard burden to be picked to do. So it is interpretation, and yes it is a costly thing to have to deal with on a daily basis. All one can do is show love and be positive with conversation and thoughts because you know he won’t get better and may God heal the inflicted hearts if there is any. Really out of the peoples control.

I agree I can see it would be a life worth living, at least for a while. But someone who is used to being very physically active and such might not see it that way. I'm not sure where I'd draw the line for me.

 

[90K]

I agree I can see it would be a life worth living, at least for a while. But someone who is used to being very physically active and such might not see it that way. I'm not sure where I'd draw the line for me.

yeah but when is it my or your job to figure that out? No where in my contract of life does it state I'm to best figure out my loved ones needs on life and death. Now having said that I'll bring it home a little bit. My wife is in a coma and it is most likely on the upper percentage level she'll never recover. So if my paperwork is in order like wills/POA and such I may have to make that tough call. Or I could be like selfish and allow her to stay for my reasons. Those are 2 very real concerns, I had a DNR done for my mother, my father was like he wanted her to live. My mother told me in front of my father she didn't want to live and expeceted me to carry out her wishes. I did it very quickly because of the fear of the feeding tube. That opens a whole new can of worms. See the mind is a powerful organ and the body may say no but the mind could say yes for a long time.

 

[glockmail]

yeah but when is it my or your job to figure that out? No where in my contract of life does it state I'm to best figure out my loved ones needs on life and death. Now having said that I'll bring it home a little bit. My wife is in a coma and it is most likely on the upper percentage level she'll never recover. So if my paperwork is in order like wills/POA and such I may have to make that tough call. Or I could be like selfish and allow her to stay for my reasons. Those are 2 very real concerns, I had a DNR done for my mother, my father was like he wanted her to live. My mother told me in front of my father she didn't want to live and expeceted me to carry out her wishes. I did it very quickly because of the fear of the feeding tube. That opens a whole new can of worms. See the mind is a powerful organ and the body may say no but the mind could say yes for a long time.

Damn! that's awful, man. What happened?

 

[90K]

Damn! that's awful, man. What happened?

Oh shit no-no I used that as an example man.....sorry I'm extremely grateful my wonderful bride is not in any danger like that. I was hoping my point would be the effects of something like that and how the relationship could and would effect the decisions in that kind of situation. That is why you need a reasonable person who can use pure logic over emotion.

 

[glockmail]

Oh shit no-no I used that as an example man.....sorry I'm extremely grateful my wonderful bride is not in any danger like that. I was hoping my point would be the effects of something like that and how the relationship could and would effect the decisions in that kind of situation. That is why you need a reasonable person who can use pure logic over emotion.

How long you've been married? I've had my beautiful bride for 20 years.

 

[90K]

How long you've been married? I've had my beautiful bride for 20 years.

8 years March. I can only imagine 20 years. if we can walk we'll be doing great!