Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

[Sasun]

So wrong. "Life is tough, deal with it" is a classic.

For me or you or anyone else it is easy enough to argue either way. But for a parent with a sick child the easy way out is exactly what you and others are suggesting, and the hard way is to go through the physical, financial and psychological difficulties and try to save the child as best as they can.

There won't be any psychological effect? What are they, vegetables?

I explained it to Anoushik what I meant. Psychological difficulty should not neccessarily produce a psychological disorder. At least that's what I understand by psychological toll.

For the record, I'm not approving of the practice, thinking of the parents. That dwarves in comparison with the pain of the child itself, but I think they have a right to include this in their considerations when making their choices. The parents' pain part is in empathy for their own kid's suffering.

Maybe taking a child's life dwarves in comparison to pain. How do you know that the child would prefer to die? It is not your life, so be kind not to assume anything.

Are you judging the baby for crying from its pain? Just what are you trying to say, other than some euphemism?

I am not judgint the baby. I am judging people who assume things about somebody elses feelings and wrongfully make their choices of life and death.

"If you care about the parents" - I don't really.

So you don't care about the parents (though you worry about the "psychological toll"), you care about the child and would like to take its life. To me killing is not caring, it is that simple. Had it been the case there would be a lot of "compassionate" killings.

And moreover you make it sound like a parent has a very ill baby and I come along, wrench it away, and give it to the doctor to kill when he should be pumping morphine into the veins of the "evil" baby which is as problematic as "evil Iraq" which is and was not evil in the way your administration put it and on top of that praise the act, Good boy, good doctor. Get a grip and stop putting people in the "wrong camp"... We are not.

style_images/master/snapback.png

though

You don't understand. I was highlighting the point that killing is not help.

[Sasun]

So then by your take a parent shouldn't be given the authority to decide on whether to give in their child, who is currently healthy but is likely to have problems later on in life (say, incomplete septum or any other heart problem) if they do not undergo a risky operation, into that risky operation?

That's a different issue, you can't compare that to outright killing.

The question here is that parents try to make the best choices for their children, not just fold their arms and recite lines they heard off of the media.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Killing is the worst choice ever.

[Sip]

Killing is the worst choice ever.

 

That's pretty much where we disagree.

[Anileve]

Most of you speak of euthanizing infants as such a relief without a “psychological toll” as if the parents wash off their hands and go on their marry way. As much as I know ending a life can be extremely tormenting on the psyche of a parent, something that’s forever a dark burden in their life. Except in case of euthanasia, there is only one side which would suffer, the parents not the child. As far as I am concerned, if you can reduce the suffering that would be classified as an ethical solution, not saving a life for the sake of saving it.

[Sasun]

That's pretty much where we disagree.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Yeah, and if you also claimed to be a humanist then we would disagree even more.

[ED]

Although this topic of discussion is very taboo in some circles of sociality, nevertheless it’s very important to understand ones stand and circumstances, as a religious person one may reject such a notion or practice, from a parent point of view and from the society at large, what good does it do to keep the poor thing alive medically? Argument is, if God all mighty has powers not to permit such births, why does he? And if it is being born why not care and show compassion to the unfortunate soul, maybe it’s a test or just an accident?

But one thing is for sure you can go on a lifetime debating what’s right or wrong, meanwhile the only parties suffering will be parents and the child.

 

As a parent, I would not hesitate to put my child to sleep if he/she has no hope of surviving, that’s the most human thing to do, at list there will be only one party suffering for the rest of his life instead of two.

[Sip]

Christianity says "thou shalt not kill" ... it does NOT say "thou shalt use medical technology or excessive resources to force one to stay alive."

 

After all, to the religious, terminal sickness is God's will and just a test for us mortals, ain't it? I understand the religious may be against euthanasia. But I don't see how they can possibly be against "pulling the plug" as in stopping human interference with the will of God (aka course of nature).

[Sasun]

I don't understand the distinction between religious and non-religious. As if religious people are programmed to act and say the same things.

 

Sip, if you pull the plug and call that God's will, somebody else may not pull the plug and call that God's will. Everything happens by God's will - murders, all sorts of crime, good things, bad things, ... But God's will can also mean that God is against certain things but nonetheless tolerates them. On the other hand, there are things that religions explicitly say.

Pulling the plug is an act that causes death, so it is actually killing. If you knowingly do that it is pretty much a premeditated murder. You may honestly believe that you are helping, but nonetheless you are killing a person and that is nothing else than murder.

Using medicine is a way of helping, which again religions advise us to do. Excessive or non-excessive is really subjective. So I think that God wishes us to help a sick child. If God didn't wish the child to be born then it would not have been born. Does God want the child to live or not? We don't know that, and it is not our business. Our business is to help the child to the best of our ability and not judge about God's will when it is convenient for us.

About God's will in Christianity - were there sick people by God's will? Yes. Did Jesus heal them by God's will? Yes. Mind you, most if not all of the sicknesses healed by Jesus were uncurable by other means. So how is one to figure out - is a sick person supposed to be sick, or are we supposed to help? Since nothing can happen without God's will then both sickness and healing are God's will. Christianity clearly answers that helping/healing is the right action. And being that in Christianity Jesus is God then God's will is certainly to cure even uncurable sicknesses. This is pretty much the same in all religions.

And by the way, only very major points are said in commandments. So there is no commandment to say "thou shalt build a house and live in it", or "thou shalt build an automobile and ride in it". These are not that hard to figure out (though Amish people might disagree) if one understands the major points and the Spirit of Christianity.

 

Edward, I guess it would be redundant to say, but I am quite convinced that what you are saying would be wrong, and if God forbid you had that situation, I am not really sure that you would do that. You might hesitate at the last moment and change your mind.

Maybe, as you are suggesting, that child were born as a test for you, and maybe this is your best opportunity to be a better person with a bigger heart. I am sure that is not something a materialist would care about, but if you are talking about religion then a truly religious person would not be too unhappy about that child. I mean, there are some people who volunteer to help other peoples sick children, and they do it quite happily. Certainly they are not stupid, its just that they are not selfish or materialist people. By the way, they have no psychological disorders.

[Sip]

I don't understand the distinction between religious and non-religious. As if religious people are programmed to act and say the same things.

 

Isn't that exactly what "religious" means? As in programmed to do and act a certain way. I have agreed with you before that spiritual is different but religious is just that ... "programmed" to think and act a certain way.

 

I am not ignoring the rest of your post ... I just don't have anything new to say. I still think that a terminally ill child is intended to die and for us trying to stubbornly fight it in vein is nothing but a feeble attempt to satisfy our inner guilt and selfish wish to think of ourselves as somehow "morally superior".

 

By the way, I'm not saying we shouldn't try or we shouldn't expand our knowledge of medicine and technology ... but what I am saying is sometimes we have to realize what to call it quits and not desparately hope for miracles at unacceptable costs (not just talking economic costs).

[Sasun]

Isn't that exactly what "religious" means? As in programmed to do and act a certain way. I have agreed with you before that spiritual is different but religious is just that ... "programmed" to think and act a certain way.

Well, the line between spirituality and religion are often blurred. I consider myself mostly spiritual but also religious since I consider myself Christian. But I don't need or follow any organized church. Other Christians will have serious disagreements with me (some may even think I am Satan's agent). So it all depends, I act and speak quite differently from a regular church going Christian.

 

I still think that a terminally ill child is intended to die and for us trying to stubbornly fight it in vein is nothing but a feeble attempt to satisfy our inner guilt and selfish wish to think of ourselves as somehow "morally superior". 

 

I don't mean to keep arguing It just becomes more clear to me that on some questions that seemed self-evident we have very different understandings. It never occurred to me that a person who goes to great lengths to save a sick child with all the difficulties involved can be considered selfish. I don't know, perhaps some may be motivated by the wish to be morally superior although I doubt it. It is not at all obvious. It is also possible that such a person does not even think about his/her moral position but acts solely according to his/her conscience. In other words, this person is listening only to his/her heart's dictates of what is right and what to do, and decides to try to save the child. To me this is the right thing to do, and if you ask me, yes, compared to others who would get rid of the problem by euthenasia, such a person would be definitely morally superior. But come to see that this person never thought about gaining a moral superiority or anything, but was simply doing his/her duty as a parent.

[Anoushik]

To me this is the right thing to do, and if you ask me, yes, compared to others who would get rid of the problem by euthenasia, such a person would be definitely morally superior.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Sasun, there is no morally right or wrong answer in this case. The question is just whether to keep the child on life support and see how long he will survive artificially or stop giving him treatment. In both cases he'll still die. And yes, I do believe these babies feel pain and great discomfort and their situation is so bad that their parents cannot even hold them and rock them to sleep. What kind of life is that? I remember seeing a movie "Lorenzoe's Oil" in which the child suddenly develops an illness (I don't remember what) but he loses his ability to talk and he loses his ability to walk and move around and eventually his body begins to shut down, even though I think mentally he remains healthy. So he spends his years lying in the bed and being fed through his nose. By the time the movie ends he is already a teenager. His situation is not the same as of those premature babies - he gets sick later in life but still it's a horrific life to have.

[Stormig]

That's a different issue, you can't compare that to outright killing.

style_images/master/snapback.png

It is not a different issue. Legally and otherwise, parents have the right to make choices which their children cannot, for what they think is best.

[Stormig]

I guess it would be redundant to say, but I am quite convinced that what you are saying would be wrong, and if God forbid you had that situation, I am not really sure that you would do that. You might hesitate at the last moment and change your mind.

Maybe, as you are suggesting, that child were born as a test for you, and maybe this is your best opportunity to be a better person with a bigger heart. I am sure that is not something a materialist would care about, but if you are talking about religion then a truly religious person would not be too unhappy about that child. I mean, there are some people who volunteer to help other peoples sick children, and they do it quite happily. Certainly they are not stupid, its just that they are not selfish or materialist people. By the way, they have no psychological disorders.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Psychological toll doesn't mean psychological disorder. When they say that a parent shouldn't bury a child, it means something.

Moreover, I have never claimed that it is an easy decision. And it does have its toll either way, but imagine seeing your baby vomitting and crying for a week - well, what about a month? Not only does the baby suffer longer (and for what?) but it affects the parent as much.

Caring for the parents - I don't indeed. But they have a right to take this into consideration for themselves. It is parallel with the suffering of the child.

As for the parents - they can always decide to see through to the end. I wouldn't if things were as grave as I described. And, given the eventual outcome, assuming there is no chance of a miraculous medical innovation within a week to ten-day period, I would feel I had done the right thing. There are no "tests" out of other persons' suffering for me.

[Nakharar]

Sasun, there is no morally right or wrong answer in this case. The question is just whether to keep the child on life support and see how long he will survive artificially or stop giving him treatment. In both cases he'll still die. And yes, I do believe these babies feel pain and great discomfort and their situation is so bad that their parents cannot even hold them and rock them to sleep. What kind of life is that? I remember seeing a movie "Lorenzoe's Oil" in which the child suddenly develops an illness (I don't remember what) but he loses his ability to talk and he loses his ability to walk and move around and eventually his body begins to shut down, even though I think mentally he remains healthy. So he spends his years lying in the bed and being fed through his nose. By the time the movie ends he is already a teenager. His situation is not the same as of those premature babies - he gets sick later in life but still it's a horrific life to have.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You could be in that situation too. Whatever someone thinks of his life's worth is solely dependent on that person. Outsiders like you and I have no business to pontificate who is worthy to be alive or not.

[Nakharar]

As for the parents - they can always decide to see through to the end. I wouldn't if things were as grave as I described. And, given the eventual outcome, assuming there is no chance of a miraculous medical innovation within a week to ten-day period, I would feel I had done the right thing. There are no "tests" out of other persons' suffering for me.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

It must be very easy to speak like that if one hasn't even experienced such a thing.

[Sip]

It must be very easy to speak like that if one hasn't even experienced such a thing.

 

This thing keeps being repeated in this thread about how difficult it is for the parents etc. But obviously some do make the choice to Euthanize otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Sip]

You could be in that situation too. Whatever someone thinks of his life's worth is solely dependent on that person. Outsiders like you and I have no business to pontificate who is worthy to be alive or not.

 

Again, I disagree with this. I don't think too many would choose the death penalty but in many cases it is very justified. At some point a life becomes so worthless and actually even dangerous to others that ending it becomes the best alternative.

 

And let me extend this even more if you are going to come back and say "well I don't believe in death penalty" ... what if the life of someone in your family is in imminent danger by a crazy attacker? Would you kill to save them? If yes, you made an implicit choice that the attacker is worth less to be alive. If No, then again you made an implicit choice that your morals are more important and your family is less important to be alive. Either way, you pontificated who is worth to be alive or not. There is no way around it.

Edited December 8, 2004 by Seapahn

[Nakharar]

This thing keeps being repeated in this thread about how difficult it is for the parents etc. But obviously some do make the choice to Euthanize otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Euthanize? You can only euthanize yourself.

[Nakharar]

Again, I disagree with this. I don't think too many would choose the death penalty but in many cases it is very justified. At some point a life becomes so worthless and actually even dangerous to others that ending it becomes the best alternative. 

 

And let me extend this even more if you are going to come back and say "well I don't believe in death penalty" ... what if the life of someone in your family is in imminent danger by a crazy attacker? Would you kill to save them?  If yes, you made an implicit choice that the attacker is worth less to be alive. If No, then again you made an implicit choice that your morals are more important and your family is less important to be alive.  Either way, you pontificated who is worth to be alive or not. There is no way around it.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I would immediately act to save my family whatever the consequences if there is an imminent threat. Now not doing anything would be immoral and hypocritical. But I wouldn't go out my way to kill someone "preemptively" even if I would suspect him. Vigilante justice is no justice. That's why I am not in favor of the death penalty not for moral reasons but for practical ones. You cannot undo the death penalty if there is a miscarriage of justice. Either way you are saving lives.

[DominO123]

And let me extend this even more if you are going to come back and say "well I don't believe in death penalty" ... what if the life of someone in your family is in imminent danger by a crazy attacker? Would you kill to save them?  If yes, you made an implicit choice that the attacker is worth less to be alive. If No, then again you made an implicit choice that your morals are more important and your family is less important to be alive.  Either way, you pontificated who is worth to be alive or not. There is no way around it.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Irrelevent, all this thread has gone into an emotional crap... this doesn't surprises me, what surprises me is that you Sip entered in this game too.

 

If a member of someones family is in danger by a crazy attacker, this someones position is not the one of an independent observer, but rather of a biased individual. This is why when selecting a Jury, cares are taken to not select someone involved in anyway to the causes.

 

Death penality is about the premedited killing of someone... this is what it is... the claims that not killing someone will put in danger the life of others is not valid, because the system can adapt as to isolate such criminals.

 

Again, the example of a lion that lives in the jungle... lions are dangerous for humans, this is not a reason to kill them. Lions should live away from humans, like dangerous criminals should be sent in prisons. It's as simple as that. Death penality has no logical fundation.

[Sip]

Death penality has no logical fundation.

 

God damnit I'm starting to get emotional on this. :box:

 

And Nakharar ... I am not sure what you mean about you can only euthanize yourself but by definition of "euthanize", it applies to others:

 

Euthanize: To subject to euthanasia.

Euthanasia: The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

 

The act of "euthanizing one's self" is more appropriate to be reffered to as "suicide".

[Sip]

By the way, here's my notice: If I ever become terminally sick, turn into a vegetable, and can't think for myself, talk or convey to you my decision on whether to stay alive or not, with a less than obvious chance for recovery, please don't hesitate a second before pulling the plug on me.

 

Thank you.

[Harut]

The act of "euthanizing one's self" is more appropriate to be reffered to as "suicide".

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

then "euthanizing others" is more appropriate to be reffered to as "homicide"

 

i don't know...

[Sip]

It can be justifiable homicide ... just like there is justifiable suicide.

[Nakharar]

By the way, here's my notice: If I ever become terminally sick, turn into a vegetable, and can't think for myself, talk or convey to you my decision on whether to stay alive or not, with a less than obvious chance for recovery, please don't hesitate a second before pulling the plug on me.

 

Thank you.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

No way man. I'd rather watch and admire you as a still life portrait.

Edited December 8, 2004 by Nakharar