Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth

Daily Mail ^ | 12 Nov 06 | Neil Sears

[xzins]

The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.

Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.

And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.

The shock new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.

A spokeswoman for the UK Disabled People's Council, which represents tens of thousands of members in 140 different organisations, said: "How can the Church of England say that Christian compassion includes killing of disabled babies either through the withdrawing or withholding of treatment or by active euthanasia?

"It is not for doctors or indeed anyone else to determine whether a baby’s life is worthwhile simply on the grounds of impairment or health condition."

The church's surprise call comes just a week after the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology sparked fury by calling for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled infants.

But it has been made in a carefully thought out official Church of England paper written by Bishop Butler for a public inquiry into the ethical issues surrounding the care of long premature or desperately ill newborn babies.

The inquiry, by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, began two years ago and its findings are due to be published in London - but the church's contribution to the debate has been leaked in advance.

The Nuffield Council, an independent body which issues ethical guidelines for doctors, began the inquiry to take account of scientific advances which mean increasingly disabled and premature babies can technically be kept alive.

In practice, doing so can be controversial - with the three months premature Charlotte Wyatt a case in point.

The Portsmouth baby weighed just 1lb at birth, and had severe brain and lung damage. Doctors wanted to be allowed to leave her to die, but her parents successfully campaigned through the courts against them.

Now that the child is three, however, and could be cared for at home, her parents have separated and are considered unsuitable to look after. In future cases doctors may work to guidelines proposed by the Nuffield inquiry.

In the Church of England's contribution to the inquiry, Bishop Butler wrote: "It may in some circumstances be right to choose to withold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death."

The church stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained".

The bishop's submission continued: "There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved.

"Disproportionate treatment for the sake of prolonging life is an example of this.

The church said it would support the potentially fatal withdrawal of treatment only if all alternatives had been considered, "so that the possibly lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance."

Yet the Revd Butler's submission makes clear that there are a wide range of acceptable reasons to withdraw care from a child - with the cost of the care among the considerations.

"Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided," he wrote.

"The principle of justice inevitably means that the potential cost of treatment itself, the longer term costs of health care and education and opportunity cost to the NHS in terms of saving other lives have to be considered."

The church also urges all the parties involved in care for critically ill babies should be realistic in their expectations, demands, and claims.

The submission says: "The principle of humility asks that members of the medical profession restrain themselves from claiming greater powers to heal than they can deliver.

"It asks that parents restrain themselves from demanding the impossible.":

UK Disabled Peoples Council spokeswoman Simone Aspis said the group's members were appalled that the Church was joining doctors in calling for disabled babies to be left to die.

"It appears that the whole debate on whether disabled babies are worth keeping alive is being dominated by professionals and religious people without any consultation with disabled people," she said.

Out of babies born at just 22 weeks of pregnancy or less, 98 per cent currently die. In Holland babies born before 25 weeks are not given medial treatment.

[Candor7]

Well , you know , this just goes to show you that some prelates just thnk they ARE God. Thats the problem. And they deserve a severe spanking by the hand of GOD.

[SevenofNine]

Come think of it real reason why Henry VIII founded Church of England because Pope didn't want grant divorce from his wife of 20 years Catherine of Aragon he has good reason Pope was in custory of her nephew Holy Emperor Charles

Boy talk about family connections LOL!

[vox_freedom]

Stating the truth is not "bashing." BTW, I am a Catholic, and defend the Faith and its doctrines and dogma here and elsewhere.

There was even a parish in London, earlier this year (2006), that fought a Cardinal to "continue abortion" referrals. Rome has clamped down on many of these practices that were commonplace in the recent past, but they still continue...

[cookcounty]

I'm all for letting sick churches die.

The only remaining questiion is will the funeral for the Church of England be held at Westminster, or will they have it at the Captain Hook Mosque?

[VeritatisSplendor]

how mighty Church that Henry VIII founded has fallen

Well, I'd disagree, it was rotten at the beginning because Henry VII was a bad man and a bad king. The crimes involved in confiscating property of Catholics and banning Catholicism and executing many of those who would not renounce it taint the C of E to this day.

[SevenofNine]

OH OKAY but originally that what Henry want second marriage with some floozie named Ann Bolyen LOL!

[SaltyJoe]

What would they have done with the man born blind in the Gospel of John?

According the Church of England, the following are not worthy of love and deserving of death:



"Uh, Lance...since you are no longer, uhm..."whole", we've decided that your life is no longer worth living. Yep, you're a loser."



















http://www.marine969.com/2004_mcl_national_convention.htm

Some go above and beyond the call for loving all children and especially to those who need more attention than the rest. The US Marine Corps gives training to special needs children.



Now the ACLU may cry foul, "How can you put a gun in that poor child's hand? (boo hoo, sniff sniff)" and the Marine would reply, "Stow it you non-hacker. It was the only "training" I know how to give. But at least I gave!"

[chiefqc]

As soon as they find out how much money can be made like it's made here in America.

[Atchafalaya]

Why shouldn't it, it was founded for personal convienience.

[Salvation]

And if you visit Auschwitz like I did this last summer, you will see a room full of prostheses, of course, after the articial arms, legs, etc. were removed, then the people were shot because they could no longer work.

Welcome back, freeper Salvation! (Vanity)

[NutCrackerBoy]

At the extreme, it is certainly unwise for the doctor and family to deploy wildly expensive desperate measures to prolong some hours of life when prognosis is overwhelmingly bleak.

Codifying this wisdom formally is dicy.

[SmoothTalker]

"Maybe I'm just reading this wrong but it almost sounds to me like they're saying that there are times that using every available method to extend life is not always the best decision. Sometimes it is better to let nature take its course."

I agree with you. Thats how I read it. I don't see it being that different from taking an elderly person who is in profound pain and who doesn't have any hope of recovery off of life support. I think in many cases it is the compassionate thing to do.

[traviskicks]

"And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions."
----

The cost should belong to the family, not the state, where this problem stems.

[traviskicks]

moral absolute ping?
(socialized medicine alert)

[Dustbunny]

A girl we used to work with had a baby the hospital fought to keep alive. She was in the hospital 6 months. She is blind, deaf and they believe retarded due to lack of oxygen. When I last saw her she was 18 mos., could not walk, sit up or crawl. She just laid there. Heart breaking.

[mirado]

On the other hand, many  so called Christians recognize that there are things more important than life.

There, fixed this sentence for ya.

[highlander_UW]

Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.

I can't, but if I did agree with him I'd say it's a shame his mother didn't apply this standard to him...he is clearly morally disabled.

[mother22wife21]

It would appear 1 pound is not enough.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.

Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.

What the hell is this? The rebirth of the Third Reich?

[BureaucratusMaximus]

"Maybe I'm just reading this wrong but it almost sounds to me like they're saying that there are times that using every available method to extend life is not always the best decision. Sometimes it is better to let nature take its course."

I agree with you. Thats how I read it. I don't see it being that different from taking an elderly person who is in profound pain and who doesn't have any hope of recovery off of life support. I think in many cases it is the compassionate thing to do.

Ah yes...roads paven with good intentions. Problem is, who set the standards and decides exactly WHAT is compassionate.

I don't want a white coated state employee or a black-robed judge or even a collared "minister" given the power to make that distinction for me.

This is a classical slippery slope. Where does "compassion" start and end?