Posted on 11/12/2006 6:06:35 AM PST by NYer
The Church of England believes doctors should be given the right to withhold treatment from some seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances, The Observer reported.
The view comes in a submission from the church to a British medical ethics committee looking at the implications of keeping severely premature babies alive through technological advances, the weekly newspaper said.
The Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, was said to have written that "it may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death".
Last week, Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists called for a debate on whether deliberate medical intervention to cause the death of severely disabled new-born babies should be legalised.
The college said it did not necessarily favour the move -- which prompted accusations of "social engineering" from disabled groups -- but felt the issue should be discussed.
Its views were expressed in a similar submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which was set up two years ago and which is due to publish its finding later this week.
The Observer reported that the church, led by the head of the world's Anglicans Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, could not accept the view that the life of any baby is not worth living.
But it added there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained", the weekly added.
The high price of keeping very premature and sick babies alive with invasive medical treatments as well as the consequences for parents should also be taken into consideration, the bishop reportedly says.
"There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved," the south London bishop is said to have written.
"Disproportionate treatment for the sake of prolonging life is an example of this."
The church reportedly said it would only back withholding or withdrawing treatment if all reasonable alternatives had been fully considered "so that the possibly lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance".
The elderly have a right to be comfortable and happy. People need wills stating they want their money used to pay someone to come in , so they can continue to live in their home if that is they want. Decide now or someone else may be deciding for you later.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
This is dangerous. It will lead to the Power of the State to make the determination.
Instead of retirement the elderly need to say they are "on vacation" That's something our self centered generation can relate to.
These things used to be handled in quiet conversations between the family and the doctor. No more. Now the Anglican church wants such extremely delicate matters brought out into the open. It isn't enough that you or I grant other people the freedom to make decisions we might not agree with within the context of their own family - decisions we consider ourselves fortunate not to have to face. As long as they remain private they are between you and God - and He is distressingly silent on questions of social justice, progressive taxation, globalization, the war in Iraq and so on. No, God isn't much help these days. So it must no longer be a matter between you and God, it must become a matter between you and the medical profession and/or the state. God is thus removed from the question.
People, particularly young people, crave absolutes. If they don't find them in the Anglican church - and there's no question of that happening any more - they will look for them elsewhere. Such as in shari'a.
Murder implies the taking of a human life. Does someone who has no brain have life? A soul? Would God put a soul into a brainless, mindless vessel? These questions are not easy, at least not for an honest person.
This seems to have been taken out of context and over-emphazed by both the Peter Singer ethics crowd and the most vigilent on the pro-life side. Those familiar with Anglican-speak understand that it is entirely unreasonable to expect any sort of unqualified remark to come out of the Church of England. (Truman's joke about the one-handed economist comes to mind.)
However, we must agree that while there may be cases such as the brain stem example cited above where there may be no reasonable expectation of sustainable life, this is a terribly slippery slope and we must always err on the side of life.
By generation I meant every one alive right now. I read an interesting comment the other day. Someone posted Republicans are blaming everyone but that the Democrats know how to reach people. They just let them have something they want and the people let the Democrats do what they want as long as their special interest is addressed. They even reached out to the pro lifers by putting a few tokens in.
See previous post on this subject
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737110/posts
The doctors group (probably a fairly secular one) called for euthanasia. The Bishop did not, but has had his statements linked to the doctors group to make it seem that he supports their viewpoint.
Good point. There is a tendency to react to innuendo and insinuation. The left often plants these half-truths to distract and divide us.
I'm just floored.
In fact, it's already dead.
It's just that nobody has yet had the honesty and courage to give it a decent burial.
The "protest" never ends!
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Church of England? Apparently that was the church Herod attended.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
There is a difference between euthanasia and not using extraordinary measures to keep an infant alive. As a pediatric nurse, I have taken care of many children who are kept alive only through extensive, invasive treatment. Most of those children will never even be capable of forming thoughts. The vast majority of us would not want to be kept alive if we were in a situation where there was no hope of ever being conscious and thinking. Why should be always assume that it is right to do keep an infant alive in these circumstances?
I respect your view of things as a prolife doctor, and these are good points. It's true that some medical technologies are a waste of time and effort (and, yes, money), especially for a tiny preemie who is already close to death. There is no moral obligation whatsoever to employ futile, expensive technologies to prolong the dying process. Ventilators, dialysis, surgery -- there can be a point where they are truly too burdensome, and the baby's parents have the right to say, "No more. Take away the wires and pumps, let us baptize him, let us hold our little baby in our arms: "living or dying, he is the Lord's."
That is NOT the same as withdrawing "ordinary care," which includes nutrition and hydration, hygienic and comfort care, antibiotics and pain management. It is not the same as medical abandonment. And it is emphatically not the same as active euthanasia.
This is the 21st century. There is no need to hasten death, and there is no need for the baby to be in pain. Pain management for the dying is something we really do know how to do: isn't that true, doc? A wise MD, Dr. Jose Espinosa, once told me, "In all my 40 years of practicing medicine, I have never seen intractable pain. But I have seen intractable doctors and nurses."
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.