Posted on 11/04/2006 5:15:44 PM PST by Pokey78
ONE of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn 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.”
Killing someone is a management option.
I really don't know what to say.
OH LORDY what about doctor motto do no harm does that exist in Brit medical board
"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."
It is also the case that a disabled child can (and frequently does!) greatly BLESS a family.
Obvious question: "Can we kill disabled doctors too?"
Getting pretty close to the Nazi idea of a perfect human. The only difference is the Nazis believed the ones who deserved to die were born to the wrong race.
Doctors should have no "disabilities" Those that are not perfect in body and mind should be put to sleep.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- CS Lewis
Indeed.
How do you get to the point where you look at a child and say "It's flawed, let's kill it."?
If we kill doctors, we will rid the world of the foremost cause of drug addiction.
“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.”
Sounds like a sick Fram filter commercial, "Kill me now, or kill me later..."
And herein lies the problem.
Clearly.
From the article " 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."
As disgusting and horrible as the above opinion is, at least it is honest. I have often argued that you can not argue in favor of abortion ( especially late abortions) without giving merit to arguments for infanticide.
I am sure the argument will be advanced that safe guards would be put in place and that killing disabled newborns would be strictly at the choice of parents after consulting with their physicians. If this passes how long do you suppose it will before killing of disabled infants becomes mandated by law if not by policy?
ping...
oh dear Lord, please protect our helpless unborn babies.
When the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC opened, it was accompanied by publication of a book of pictures from the museum.
The first picture in the book showed a young girl (about 13 IIRC) looking at the camera. She was a pretty little dark-haired thing with pleading eyes.
She was mentally retarded and may have had some other "imperfection." The caption noted that shortly after the picture was taken, the girl was "euthanized" by Nazi doctors during the first phase of the Holocaust.
I remember holding the book at the bookstore and staring at the picture for many minutes. I couldn't take my eyes away from the girl. I was a tough guy who had studied history and the Holocaust for over 20 years, but when my wife asked me why I couldn't put the book down, I couldn't respond. My eyes were filled with tears and if I tried to speak I would have wept openly, I am sure.
I put the book down and continued shopping with my wife. But, I will never, ever forget the look in that precious little angel's eyes.
I hate the Nazis and all they stood for and all they did with every fiber of my being. And I feel exactly the same about these contemptible demoniacs. They are the same people, down to their black, emaciated, empty souls.
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.