Killing babies? What do you think?

James · #1 12-07-2004, 02:22 PM

Dutch ponder 'mercy killing' rules

Thursday, December 2, 2004 Posted: 1:28 AM EST (0628 GMT)

The Netherlands has already legalized euthanasia.

(CNN) -- Dutch health officials are considering guidelines doctors could follow for euthanizing terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and patients in irreversible comas.

Netherlands was the first country to legalize euthanasia -- ending the life of someone suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, with their approval.

In recent years there also have been reports of mercy killings of terminally ill babies, and officials at one hospital say a number have been carried out there.

The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) has asked the Netherlands Ministry of Health to create an independent board to evaluate euthanasia cases for each category of people "with no free will."

Doctors now follow legal standards regarding euthanasia, or assisted suicide, for patients who are able to make such a decision on their own.

Under the rules established by KNMG and the Dutch courts, the patient's decision must be freely made, well-considered and persistent; there must be unbearable suffering; and the attending physician should consult with a colleague.

There are no official guidelines for ending the lives of those who are unable to make their own decision, such as in the case of a baby, but Groningen Academic Hospital has conducted such procedures under its own, internal guidelines.

Dr. Eduard Verhagen, clinical director of the hospital's pediatric clinic, told NPR in an interview that the babies who had been euthanized were born with incurable conditions that were so serious "(we) felt that the most humane course would be to allow the child to die and even actively assist them with their death."

"They are very rare cases of extreme suffering. In these cases, the diagnosis was extreme spina bifada."

That disorder is marked by incomplete development of the brain, spinal cord and/or their protective coverings.

Because the procedure was not legal, Verhagen said, the hospital preferred that cases be assessed by a committee of experts. The Dutch parliament legalized euthanasia for adults in 2002.

"What we would like to happen here in Holland is that we put the spotlight on these decisions because they need to be extremely secure, and instead of taking these positions in a kind of gray area, we want them to be in the spotlight," the doctor said.

Eric Van Yijlick, project manager for SCEN (Support and Consultation on Euthanasia in the Netherlands), said the Groningen cases involving newborns should be referred to as "life ending without request" rather than euthanasia, because that term indicates the dying party has requested the procedure.

Van Yijlick said that to his knowledge, the killing of newborns is not common -- just a few cases yearly. No official statistics exist on terminally ill children's lives being terminated, he said.

New York Medica

valkyrie · #2 12-07-2004, 02:27 PM

Makes perfect sense to me.

IowaStatePhiPsi · #3 12-07-2004, 03:27 PM

I think in the cases of childre born without parts of their brain.. (google searches for the correct term).. anencephaly or other fatal non-cureable conditions, that euthenasia should be discussedd between the mother/parents and the doctors, taking into account the religious and moral beliefs of the parent(s) and the outlook of the child's life in regards to health and pain/suffering.

No matter what your position on this issue is- you have to admit that this has to be extremely emotional and stressful on the parents and to some extent the doctors of these children.

Munchkin03 · #4 12-07-2004, 06:07 PM

There are also chromosomal abnormalities that will result in a baby's dying within months or weeks of birth. Their lives appear to be very painful---they do not grow at all between birth and death, their organs do not fully develop, they can barely keep up food, and have no muscle control. In situations like this, I totally agree with euthanasia.

#5 12-07-2004, 06:24 PM

I agree with you Munchkin03. I would also support euthanasia with someone who was in an irreversible coma, severe Multiple Sclerosis (i.e. bedridden/inability to communicate), untreatable cancer (be it with the patient's approval and lots of emotional therapy for patient and family), etc. I hate to see people suffer.

Corsulian · #6 12-07-2004, 06:44 PM

I just wrote an essay about this in one of my govt classes--I absolutely support legalized euthanasia though I think it'll be a while till we would ever dream of seeing it here in the states outside of Oregon.

#7 12-08-2004, 10:28 PM

Yea it'll be a while for legalized euthanasia, just like gay marriage (but that's a whole new topic/thread).

IowaStatePhiPsi · #8 12-08-2004, 11:31 PM

But wait!
According to this classic bible-thumper ending their suffering with compassion is evil and letting them suffer in pain until they die is what God intends!

This comment shows she has no grasp on the issue of euthanasia:

Quote:

It is incredible to me that in the day and age in which diversity and uniqueness are crowned king and intolerance are crowned the worst kind of sin that a hospital would be so intolerant of a newborn simply because he or she was different. Individuality is held in such high esteem because every person has infinite value and worth simply by nature of being human.
How can we then, in the same breath, become the arbiters and judges about whether a baby has the right to live or die just because his or her situation seems hopeless?

That has nothing to do with showing compassion to a child born with such conditions that he/she will die a slow and painful death within days or weeks.

RACooper · #9 12-09-2004, 12:03 AM

While I support this particular instance I can't help but worry about the ethical implications that it sets as a precedence.... it could be a very steep and slippery slope that this could lead down - a slope that shouldn't be taken again. I hope that we (as in the public) guard carefully that we don't start down the slope that moves from ending suffering to ending "unworthy".

Pike1483 · #10 12-09-2004, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper
I can't help but worry about the ethical implications that it sets as a precedence.... it could be a very steep and slippery slope that this could lead down - a slope that shouldn't be taken again. I hope that we (as in the public) guard carefully that we don't start down the slope that moves from ending suffering to ending "unworthy".

I agree about the slippery-slope implications this could have. I'm completely against euthanasia and so-called "mercy killings" of infants. Who decides who gets to live and who doesn't? Who defines quality-of-life?

RACooper · #11 12-09-2004, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pike1483
I agree about the slippery-slope implications this could have. I'm completely against euthanasia and so-called "mercy killings" of infants. Who decides who gets to live and who doesn't? Who defines quality-of-life?

See thats just it... the Netherlands has defined it pretty exactly in legal and medical terms... the problem is when someone challenges the established terms to expand them.

As it stands now, in layman's terms, the baby has to have no hope of survival (off of support); there is really no discussion of quality of life (the current babies euthanized lives were projected in hours and days)

Hopefully no-one will try to expand it to include "quality of life", because of the subjective nature of that concept inside and outside the medical science field - while it's within the bounds of the medical science field everything is relatively cool... but once the decision making process is opened up you know that religion, politics, philosophy, and personal agendas are going to crop-up and creep-in.