Posted on 11/12/2006 5:21:18 PM PST by 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.
Does "sick newborn babies" include those who have a genetic tendency to become liberals or Islamic death cult members?
Note to self... take a deep breath and grammer/spell check posts, especially when responding to threads where you want to choke the living daylights out of the articles targets...
Government is now capitalized but God is not. That is the message between the lines. It is now considered quaint and old fashioned to defend life. The government is accepted by all to be the final arbiter in this decision.
The secularists will eventually win all disputes because government gives ordinary citizens benefits and laws while God just promises eternal life. Benefits and laws are tangible while religious mores, morals and promises are intangible. The "golden calf" remains an object of worship only it is not called that.
I'm guessing that insurance companies would pay parents to allow the disabled to die. They just haven't had the societal cover to step forward yet with their offers of blood money.
The same with the elderly, severely ill, and infirm.
"Hi, Mr. Smith, I'm with Met Health Insurance and we need to talk about how your NOT receiving care for cancer could result in your heirs receiving benefits that would insure their financial security long after your passing. That would be some wonderful gift for you to leave for them, wouldn't it, Mr. Smith?"
I know if I had a child who was born with some type of defect that was going to kill them very quickly, I would not want that child to be hooked up to every machine possible to keep him/her alive for a few days or weeks. I would put it into God's hands and trust him to do what he knows is best. If the child dies, then they would be in heaven. If God decided to heal the child, then I would be grateful beyond words.
That said, I would not advocate killing a child because they're blind, deaf, missing an arm or leg, or something along those lines. That would be murder.
I would like for him to imagine Jesus, Himself standing right next to him, and then saying that out loud!
Response: Pretty scary!
A multi-media presentation on "Useless Eaters: Disability as a Genocidal Marker in Nazi Germany":
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schedu/uselesseaters/
The rest of us may then struggle on as best we can unhindered with their anguished cries.
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
I agree with you.
OMG, a terrible developement in the Anglican Church.
I don't think so. The example they used was of a child that is now THREE years old.
But, it wouldn't matter.
God is the only one who decides between life and death. If we do the right thing and try to help, that baby will not live one second longer nor one second less than God will decide.
Our job is to respond to the "good works that God has prepared ahead of time for us to do."
The Times of London's article was vague about the authority of this submission, making it appear that this bishop might have written it on his own hook. But this article makes it appear that the bishop's submission has considerable authority as being the Church of England's position.
Utterly damnable.
I'd change my will so fast it'd make your head spin!
"This is for Brit and Aussie Freepers how mighty Church that Henry VIII founded has fallen"
It needs to fall a little more before Prince Charles will be a worthy king and defender of the faith....
Doublespeak for on the wrong side of the cost-benefit ratio.
The cost-benefit ratio is all that the so-called medical ethics people are talking about these days.
see #33
That is one of the funniest things I've read/thought about in a while. Prince Charles being 'THE' Defender of the Faith. What's next Bozo The Clown being elevated to be the Pope?
As Terri Shrivo would say if she could, if you're disabled they'll pull your life support plug to kill you and if you don't die then they'll figure out some other way to kill you,( in my case it was starvation ) !!!
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.