Maral Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives. The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives - a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates. In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident. The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said. Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief. The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities. The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best. Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness. The hospital revealed last month it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital or the doctors. Roman Catholic organizations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to the announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass. "The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into a vertical cliff," said Wesley J. Smith, a prominent California-based critic, in an e-mail to The Associated Press. Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution. "As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting." According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen, but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals. Groningen estimated the protocol would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country of 16 million people. Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge. However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden. "Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do." More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harut Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 weren't such "immoral" actions (abortion, euthanasia of infants, etc...) long in practice in countries such as Armenia? of course, without any legal bindings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Makes my stomach turn but I think it is perfectly acceptable, except then I can't be too sure that it is eu-thanasia... It's not like they're killing perfectly or marginally normal/healthy babies. In the end it should ease suffering and maybe grief somewhat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Makes my stomach turn but I think it is perfectly acceptable, except then I can't be too sure that it is eu-thanasia... It's not like they're killing perfectly or marginally normal/healthy babies. In the end it should ease suffering and maybe grief somewhat. style_images/master/snapback.png You cannot justify the killing of anyone, it is like war. The means defeats the purpose. In my opinion, it is morally wrong to kill the babies, even if they are terminally ill. where is love in this sense? this is infact a selfish act, dont kid yourelf with the arguement "but it will save them years and years of agony." It is the parents who will have it the worst and go through hell, thus their choice of killing a terminally ill baby, who otherwise is still alive, is a selfish act. perhas not 100% selfish, but in this case that hardly matter. I dont believe legalizing this will hold for too long, some human rights activist group will oppose it eventually. I hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Stormig - for once, I completely disagree with you. I don't have time to elaborate really, but I will just leave you with a question: 'Where do you draw the line?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 How come nobody made a fuss when the Spartans practiced selective euthanasia? It is ironic that the word is composed of "eu"=good" and "thanatos"=death. Huh!! It is reported that the Spartans, being a "spartan" cociety practiced both active and passive euthanasia by either passively terminating potential births of "defective" infants, considering girls defiicient based on physical and physiological anatomy, or actively by placing handicapped babies beyond Mt. Olympus at the mercy of the gods. We don't raise a stink about the euthanasia, active and passive that is still practiced in many cultures today most obviously in China and other backward Asian and Middle Eastern societies, mostly towards infants who are considered to be handicapped, i.e. girls. Speaking of passive euthanaisia, have you noticed that most infants offered for adoption, be it from China or Korea are girls? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 This is really sick. Who the hell are doctors, parents or the society to decide a newborn baby's life? It is disgusting (and clearly immoral). Maybe the baby would not mind suffering but would very much want to live as long as possible. Killing is criminal, and doctors who are killing instead of saving lives (as they are sworn to do) should be put to jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 I agree with those who are against. They are not killing the babies out of mercy towards the child. They are killing them out of mercy towards themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Wasn’t this a normal practice in USSR - if the baby was born with a defect – missing body parts or – anbujeli ill it was not given to the parent’s ?? Most of the time taken away – don’t know if all of them war killed but I know it was taken away Not every parent is ready for this – first many/most would like to have / save his/her kid but after so many years of “torture” many of them gave them to orphanages / or wish that it was never born ……. So many families fell a part Who decides if the kid is ok or not so much ill ? or if the kid is not ok ? - don’t know – but acting like a GOD - it's wrong in my book Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Wasn’t this a normal practice in USSR - if the baby was born with a defect – missing body parts or – anbujeli ill it was not given to the parent’s ? ====== Who decides if the kid is ok or not so much ill ? or if the kid is not ok ? - don’t know – but acting like a GOD - it's wrong in my book style_images/master/snapback.png Yes MosJan, by any means. You don't act as God and neither do I. But it goes both ways. We don't want to act as Gods in a positive way either. When nature/God has seen fit that certain infants should not live and become a burden on themselves and those around them, then so be it. Modern medicine has become so omnipotent that they think they can go against nature/God. Some of the lives they "save" are no lives at all. This is a true story and the names are real. Nick was over 70 years old. He had never married. His sister Lucy also over 70 was married. Their mother Minnie, close to 100 years old had been bedridden for the last 30 years. Both Nick and Lucy had devoted their entire lives caring for her. One day Nick came in. He was fuming. He was so angry he could not speak. After a few deep breaths he said that they had taken their mother to the hospital because she could not breathe well. They stabiliazed her over the night and in the morning the doctor came to Nick and told him that they had discovered a lump in his mother's breast and asked him to authorize and excision. Nick says; "Breast? My mother? But my mother has no breast!" And he tells the doctor to keeps his hands off or else he would cut them off. Nick is of Italian heritage and he is well aquianted with removing hands and feet. "If that lump should cause my mothers's deliverance, so be it!" At this point it is neither humanism nor good medicine, it is simply cynical medical business. A five minute operation, $1000,00 in the doctor's pocket. Who is acting as God?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 -= medical business =- if you have HMO you go to "Doctor" it's just like you go to fix your car - Preventive maintenance - only a medical business – like the mechanic working on your car – ser you need to change your struts or this holes - it might gave you problems. Doctors will perform – to gat pied - saving a life or killing one doctor will get paid -= medical business =- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wh00t Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 The Netherlands should be commended for their progessive views on euthanasia, drug control, prostitution, and abortion. The quality of life of society increases immeasurably once it is able to break free from the intolerent stranglehold of social policy by religious zealots. It is no wonder why Holland is the most developed nation in the world alongside a few more left-leaning nations. I support this endeavor, perhaps not wholeheartedly but with the reassurance that the process is heavily monitored and that the decision to proceed with the euthanization is truely last-resort and has the blessing of all involved. Contrary to what the Vatican may have you believe, keeping the suffering, terminally-ill alive to wither away in agony during their final days is a sick and selfish enterprise. I am encouraged by recent developments in regards to euthanasia in Canada and I hope that my great nation will soon follow suit in passing laws which will make it legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Holy Cow! wHoot!! Nice to see you back again! How are you doing? Hopefully we'll get to see more of you as the slush turns to snow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Nice to see you here wh00t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 I support this endeavor, perhaps not wholeheartedly but with the reassurance that the process is heavily monitored and that the decision to proceed with the euthanization is truely last-resort and has the blessing of all involved. So whose blessing should be asked to kill an individual, let's say for the sake of argument you are that individual and we have everyone's blessing who is "involved". And who and how decides what is last-resort? We are facing a situation where not only these poor individuals suffer from illness but also are regarded sub-human to not be allowed to live by certain irresponsible people who do not know their limits. Contrary to what the Vatican may have you believe, keeping the suffering, terminally-ill alive to wither away in agony during their final days is a sick and selfish enterprise. style_images/master/snapback.png Why ask Vatican? Ask you conscience if you are allowed to kill a newborn baby. There is nothing selfish in maintaining life. It is the basis of humanism. Life, once taken cannot be given back, but there have been instances were terminally ill people have been miraculously cured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 (edited) The Netherlands should be commended for their progessive views on euthanasia, drug control, prostitution, and abortion. The quality of life of society increases immeasurably once it is able to break free from the intolerent stranglehold of social policy by religious zealots. It is no wonder why Holland is the most developed nation in the world alongside a few more left-leaning nations. I support this endeavor, perhaps not wholeheartedly but with the reassurance that the process is heavily monitored and that the decision to proceed with the euthanization is truely last-resort and has the blessing of all involved. Contrary to what the Vatican may have you believe, keeping the suffering, terminally-ill alive to wither away in agony during their final days is a sick and selfish enterprise. I am encouraged by recent developments in regards to euthanasia in Canada and I hope that my great nation will soon follow suit in passing laws which will make it legal. style_images/master/snapback.png I think there is a distinction to be made between stopping treatments that permit to maintain life, and someone die from it, and the injection of a substance to kill someone. As I have said in the past, I agree with the first option, but I have problem accepting the second. Here in Canada, they are making the distinction as well, probably if there are any devloppements in Canada, it'll be in that direction. Edited December 2, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 The Netherlands should be commended for their progessive views on euthanasia, drug control, prostitution, and abortion. The quality of life of society increases immeasurably once it is able to break free from the intolerent stranglehold of social policy by religious zealots. It is no wonder why Holland is the most developed nation in the world alongside a few more left-leaning nations. style_images/master/snapback.png If not for immigration the Netherland would be a country of old gay and lesbian narcomans by now. Is that progressive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Where do we draw the line? Surely there is a line to be drawn with this as with abortions. It can be determined. Disputed, but determined. Wake up, people. They're not doing this to kids with Down Syndrome. There are some really nasty situations out there. It is expected that they'll die. And I'm sure the grand majority do. And the baby does suffer. It cries, can't keep anything down and throws up constantly, wastes away. Obviously a lot here think that living a long life or living it at all is a feat. It is not. It is not, especially if you're wasted and a burden and old-age senile nuisance for others. I have a lot of relatives who've lived close to their centennials, and their children are heart-broken to see them doing crazy/stupid things or suffering pain or pooping in their pants, wishing they'd pass away peacefully. It does matter for others and it matters out of love. Love is not unselfish, either. Don't fool yourselves. Drawing the line - where do you "draw the line" when trying to decide on whether to pull the plug on someone on life support, when maybe years later they'd wake up? It's the family that decides. OK, one is unconscious and the other can't tell you what they want. I don't think it's that different. If anything, pulling the plug is something I wouldn't dare do. But if a mother can find the heart to end the life of a mangled baby that can't even breast-feed and isn't expected to live more than 10 days, and all that in pain and with requirement of constant maintenance, I'll wholeheartedly support her. I've always said that I don't count abortions as murder. I'm fine with it as long as it doesn't endanger the life of the mother. That's where I drew the line. Now there's an exception. And the line here is clear enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 (edited) Stormig no one told you to wipe your parents behind if they come to that state eventually. They don't have nursing homes for no reason. You can pull their plug if "they" wish for it. (Note (!) the distinction between they and others) There is a difference between sick infants, old-age, senility and terminally-ill people. It matters for these so-called "others", because let's face it they have become an embarrassment, a mere nuisance to be dispensed with. They have become a burden that doesn't fit with our lifestyle expectations. Afterall we all want to be part of the hip crowd, don't we? We can call this anything we like, but not love. People like that are not capable of love. I think I understand that people are judged for their utilitarian value nowadays and are seen as a commodity. In today's society, it's just a fact of life. Edited December 2, 2004 by Nakharar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Nursing homes... That's another thing, another source of indignation for the old school. I merely brought up the issue of elders because that itself is difficult enough and is very hard, emotionally and otherwise, for the children. Now imagine having to devote your 24/7 to someone terminally ill. And imagine this being a baby that you are the parent of and can't give away elsewhere and just ignore. Now that would have been cruel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Well, I can't think of a better alternative for those who are not able to care for their elders. Those elderly know that they don't have any other choice. I don't think it's anyone's choice to become terminally-ill and be taken care of. What do you propose we should do to those "terminally-ill" who desperately cling to life? Though their offsping hate fact that they have to deal with this "mental stress" <_<. Even this term is insufficient, because you aren't terminally ill unless you are dead, however remote the chance of survival seems to be. How terrible a fate it must be for those mothers who can't abandon their sick babies and have to take care of them. But then they can leave them to the wolves. I guess that's the practice in backward, aspiring EU-applicant countries. They probably have the worth of litter anyway. But then who are we to know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 I think you're really simplifying the issue Nakharar. I don't think the legality of euthanasia in Holland means that you can prick just about anyone who's a bit "terminally ill". We're talking about very extreme cases, as Stormy pointed out. The question is: what is extreme and where do you draw a line? I'm sure doctors in Holland thoroughly discussed this issue before coming to a conclusion. Not that I'm saying they're right or wrong, but I do think this should be kept in mind when discussing this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 Now imagine having to devote your 24/7 to someone terminally ill. style_images/master/snapback.png Why not? Who said life is easy? One should think before having a child, that it is not her choice that the child is healthy or sick or terribly sick. So if one choses to have a child then having a terminally ill child is one of the possibilities. Thinking ahead is useful. And imagine this being a baby that you are the parent of and can't give away elsewhere and just ignore. Now that would have been cruel. Sometimes life can be tough, but that should not be a reason to end another person's life. That would be more cruel, I mean killing for a selfish reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 I think you're really simplifying the issue Nakharar. I don't think the legality of euthanasia in Holland means that you can prick just about anyone who's a bit "terminally ill". We're talking about very extreme cases, as Stormy pointed out. The question is: what is extreme and where do you draw a line? I'm sure doctors in Holland thoroughly discussed this issue before coming to a conclusion. Not that I'm saying they're right or wrong, but I do think this should be kept in mind when discussing this issue. style_images/master/snapback.png Nairi, drawing a line means this person's life is important but that other person's life is not that important, we can do away with it. So then maintaining life becomes a question of convenience. I do not believe a bit that a parent killing his own child cares about the child, they are deceiving themselves and others. They care about themselves only. And doctor's who would assist a killing are nothing more than butchers. Butchers are better than such doctors because they don't call themselves doctors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakharar Posted December 2, 2004 Report Share Posted December 2, 2004 I think you're really simplifying the issue Nakharar. I don't think the legality of euthanasia in Holland means that you can prick just about anyone who's a bit "terminally ill". We're talking about very extreme cases, as Stormy pointed out. The question is: what is extreme and where do you draw a line? I'm sure doctors in Holland thoroughly discussed this issue before coming to a conclusion. Not that I'm saying they're right or wrong, but I do think this should be kept in mind when discussing this issue. style_images/master/snapback.png That concept itself goes into semantics so there is no such thing being a bit "terminally ill". Anyone who succumbs to an illness with a low rate of survival falls into this category so we are talking about percentages here. If someone is in the lower percentiles then tough luck. It's not as easy as that. Free will should be the self-evident criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.