Posted on 11/03/2021 8:28:58 PM PDT by Morgana
It is well-known that eligibility for euthanasia in Belgium is elastic. However, there are limits. The law only permits the euthanasia of minors who are capable of discernment and who are conscious.
But, according to a recent brief report in the Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal edition, Flemish doctors euthanise 10% of newborns for whom there is “no hope of a bearable future”.
This statistic is taken from a study based on 24 babies who died in Flanders between September 2016 and December 2017. The numbers are small, admittedly, but the proportion of new-borns who died after a deliberate injection of a lethal drug seems to have increased from 7% to 10% since a survey conducted in 1999-2000 (before any euthanasia was legal). An article in the European Institute of Bioethics observes that “the term euthanasia does not appear anywhere in the article”. It goes on to say:
Doctors who euthanized new-borns with lethal injection indicated in 91% of the cases that the main reason for their action was that there was no hope of a “bearable future” for the child. In other words, these children had a real chance of survival, but the medical team — no doubt in agreement with their parents — considered that their lives were not worth living to the end.
Why do practitioners deviate from the legal framework when it comes to children who are unable to express themselves?
The authors suggest that Belgium needs a Groningen Protocol (the Dutch model for treating critically ill newborns), as the Dutch percentage of euthanasia deaths is much lower. However, they point out that while official monitoring of the practice could be helpful, “it could limit neonatologists in making decisions they think are justified and in the best interest of the child”. In other words, doctors would feel more comfortable without oversight.
Using the same data, the same Belgian researchers also reported the incidence of continuous deep sedation until death amongst critically ill newborns in the journal Neonatology. In nearly 2 out of 5 deceased newborns and infants, death was preceded by CDS. In 92% of the cases, the doctors continued to provide nutrition and hydration – which seldom happens in CDS for adults. As in the cases of euthanasia by lethal injection, there was an explicit intention to hasten death in 11% of cases.
The ethics and legality of CDS for infants is very fraught. There are no guidelines at all, the authors point out. H/T to Alex Schadenberg.
Just plain evil.
It’s like Hitler never left.
Just more Godless people doing the devils work.
its sad the bastion of christianity has turned into such a secular sh1thole
pretty much all of europe
and america not far behind
One of the most notorious Nazis was a Belgian, Leon Degrelle. He fled to Spain after the war and lived the rest of his life there, into his 80s.
Belgians weren’t exactly saints before that. Just look at what they did in The Congo.
“Doctors who euthanized” do a lot more than is recorded and more than people realize. Giving permission to a doctor to do active euthanasia (there are four kinds of euthanasia) is not good. “Give them an inch and they will take a mile.”
Four kinds of euthanasia?
Possible to elaborate?
This contious sedation has been normalized as the preferred end of life measure in the United States. Everyone who is actively dying is considered to be in pain if they move are restless or make any sound and are sedated to depress respirations and build up co2 hastening death.
The criteria always expand. See also my sig line.
What is CDS?
continuous deep sedation
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.