Posted on 11/04/2006 5:15:44 PM PST by Pokey78
ONE of Britains 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 childrens 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 colleges 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 wouldnt argue against this. He spoke of the pain, distress and discomfort of severely handicapped babies.
The colleges submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a member of the governments 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.
I thought of Hawking first, too!
When Gianna Jessen was first born they said she would never walk, or talk, or sit up. She walks, she sings, she plays guitar, she runs, she dances!
http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/gianna.html
http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp
This is the right question. Too bad these Satanists have the wrong answer to it.
Monsters. Nothing more needs to be said.
I am SO glad that our Founding Fathers fled Europe.
Okay, but what if the disablity is a painful one for the child.
An ethicist is not a doctor. Are these doctors medical doctors or philosophy doctors? Once again we see the value the left puts on human life.
yitbos
Wow.
God bless you and your daughter. She is a living testimony to the idiocy of these death cultists.
I had the opportunity to hear her speak recently. Amazing.
Huh. I thought the Germans lost the Battle of Britain...
terminate a foetus but kill a newborn?
freudian slip there. Semantics notwithstanding, killing and terminating are one and the same. These people make me sick.
Step 1. Corrupt the language...
It's a very good question.
I believe Nazi did the same for the sick and disabled, regardless of race.
Thank you for the post.
How can you ask this question and miss the point so completely?
Perhaps sterilization of drug addicts, hippies and nitwits would be a better option. However that might affect a large part of the population including many MP's.
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.