| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Doctors: let us kill disabled babies | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 8 2008, 04:45 AM (161 Views) | |
| я Sister *) | Nov 8 2008, 04:45 AM Post #1 |
*Leb-Muslima*
|
Doctors: let us kill disabled 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.” Initially, the inquiry did not address euthanasia of newborns as this is illegal in Britain. The college has succeeded in having it considered. Although it says it is not formally calling for active euthanasia to be introduced, it wants the mercy killing of newborn babies to be debated by society. The report does not spell out which conditions might justify euthanasia, but in the Netherlands mercy killing is permitted for a range of incurable conditions, including severe spina bifida and the painful skin condition called epidermolysis bullosa. Dr Pieter Sauer, co-author of the Groningen Protocol, the Dutch national guidelines on euthanasia of newborns, claims British paediatricians perform mercy killings, and says the practice should be open. Sauer, head of the department of paediatrics at the University Medical Centre Groningen, said: “In England they have exactly the same type of patients as we have here. English neonatologists gave me the indication that this is happening.” Although euthanasia for severely handicapped newborn babies would prove contentious, some British doctors and ethicists are now in favour. Joy Delhanty, professor of human genetics at University College London, said: “I would support these views. I think it is morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are then going to suffer many months or years of very ill health.” Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, who has admitted hastening the death of two severely handicapped newborn babies when he was a junior doctor in the 1970s, said: “I wouldn’t argue against this.” He spoke of the “pain, distress and discomfort” of severely handicapped babies. The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?” he said. Edna Kennedy of Newcastle upon Tyne, whose son suffered epidermolysis bullosa, said: “In extremely controlled circumstances, where the baby is really suffering, it should be an option for the mother.” However, John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College London hospital, said: “Intentional killing is not part of medical care.” He added: “The majority of doctors and health professionals believe that once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It immediately becomes a subjective decision as to whose life is worthwhile.” If a doctor can decide whether a life is worth living, “it changes medicine into a form of social engineering where the aim is to maximise the benefit for society and minimise those who are perceived as worthless”. Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People said: “If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions it would tell adults with those conditions that they were worth less than other members of society.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article625477.ece |
 |
 
|
| Mad_Hatter | Nov 8 2008, 03:24 PM Post #2 |
Queen of the Tea Party
|
From the title, this sounds horrible and disgusting, but it actually makes a lot of sense. And, I don't think this is the first time I've heard this argument or something similar. But it's really a hard choice to make: Kill you child now or let it suffer for the rest of it's very short life. But it should be up to the family in the end. After all, when doctors swear the Hippocratic Oath, don't they swear to save everyone to the best of their abilities? Aborting and euthanizing disabled babies that, though they are disabled, could be saved seems like a conflict with the Oath. |
|
|
|
| Pre Teen McCarthyist | Nov 9 2008, 10:16 AM Post #3 |
|
This is exactly what they did in Nazi Germany. |
|
|
|
| blue | Nov 9 2008, 07:01 PM Post #4 |
|
Though I believe the family should have the decision I don't think it should happen - the baby should live. Who are you to say that he/she will have a miserable life and ultimately make the family miserable? |
|
|
| sabre | Nov 9 2008, 07:14 PM Post #5 |
Super Spok to the rescue!
|
its a very bad title not representative of the subject at all |
|
|
|
| Mad_Hatter | Nov 10 2008, 03:14 AM Post #6 |
|
Queen of the Tea Party
|
I sort of feel the same about us not knowing what the future holds, but I think the biggest argument for it would be: 50 years ago, these children would have died anyway because the technology was not there to save them. You could say it was nature working out the whole "natural selection" thing. Now that we can save them we do, but their quality of life is generally so bad, it may have been better if we hadn't saved them, Technology giveth and technology taketh away. |
|
|
|
| blue | Nov 10 2008, 03:59 AM Post #7 |
|
Maybe we should find people who do have such conditions and ask them if they would have preferred not to be given a chance at life at all. |
|
|
|
| Mad_Hatter | Nov 10 2008, 04:58 AM Post #8 |
|
Queen of the Tea Party
|
We could. But it was my understanding that the babies they're talking about are the ones who are so sick that they generally only live for a few years? But I get what you're saying. That sounds like a good idea to me. |
|
|
|
| Sayf Udeen Ismael | Nov 10 2008, 06:47 AM Post #9 |
|
Key word: 'generally' You'd be amazed at just how many people 'beat the odds'. |
|
|
|
| Mad_Hatter | Nov 10 2008, 02:42 PM Post #10 |
|
Queen of the Tea Party
|
^ Not too terribly many. But I get what you're saying. There's no telling how many of these babies could be an exception. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Current Issues in Society · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 6:54 PM Jan 7
|
Theme by Sith of Outline