I am not really sure what to think of this. What are your thoughts on euthanizing babies? Do you see a chance that this policy could be abused? I am disturbed that the severally mentally retarded can be euthanized under this policy. How retarded do they have to be?
I’m very bothered by it, and the fact that this was going on in secret is even more troubling. I support euthanasia 100% as long as it’s voluntary. That’s not what this is. Since euthanasia for the mentally retarded is also discussed (are they talking about adults as well as children? that’s not made clear at all), I suppose some Godwinizing is inevitable here…
“Severely.” I’m actually not bothered by euthanasia for people in irreversible comas. People who are unquestionably alive is a problem.
But was does severally retarded mean? I have met people who are severally retarded that seem to be very happy in their lives. The may not be able to care for themselves, but should that mean they should have been euthanized when they were babies (or even now) if their parents wanted it and a doctor approved?
I don’t see aproblem with euthanizing a baby that is going to die in a matter of days or hours, but this policy seem to allow too discretion.
Just looking at the header, the report says “terminally ill” not “gravely ill”. Isn’t it the case that they are taling about 5-7 cases a year of terribly compromised infants? Anyway, I’m of the opinion that the decision should be kept private between the Doctors and the families involved.
I have no idea either, obviously. Think of it as a wry response instead of a straight answer. You can tell what severe vs. mild means, but what and where is the line? Beats me. Perhaps there are some medical criteria. It still does sound like a watery distinction.
I’m becoming convinced the Dutch are the most sensible society on this earth.
I can put my miserable, pain-wracked terminally ill cat out of it’s mysery in a swift and humane manner, but in the US I must watch my infant, in the same situation (with, by the way, probably less awareness or cognitive power than said cat) die a slow death.
I am, and always have been, deeply disturbed and offended by the general american sentiment that assisted suicide and euthanasia are wrong. It’s incredibly cruel to allow another human being to suffer needlessly to satisfy someone else’s moral code. When all that is left for someone is hopeless pain, I don’t understand how any decent person can justify not ending that life.
About the severely mentally retarted, I think if you have no hope of ever being able to care for yourself or live outside an institution, I think your parents should be able to make that decision. I know I’m going to get fried for this, but we are not an endagered species. I see no reason to bankrupt families or burden taxpayers (long term care of this sort is unspeakably expensive) just because ‘all human life is precious’. No, it’s not.
It sounds like your asking if retarded people should be killed if they can’t take care of themselves, but thats certainly not whats being discussed in the article. They are discussing killing people too mentally handicapped to understand their choices if they are both terminally ill and in extreme pain. Given this last qualification, I doubt many of the possible cases are “very happy in their lives”.
And for the record, I agree. If the parents choose, it should be legal for a Doctor to euthanize an infant that is both terminally ill and in extreme pain. If a retarded person who is incapable of making his own decision in this matter is in the same situation, then his guardian and doctor should be able to choose for him.
I used to have a job taking care of people who were never going to be able to care for themselves. They were always going to be in some sort of institutionalized care. Maybe they couldn’t talk, and maybe they couldn’t feed themselves or bathe themselves, but they still were aware of what was around them and were capable of enjoying themselves. I think that a lot of us who took care of them learned a lot from them. And sometimes, someone who was deemed a “lost cause” when they were born ended up having a little more in them than anyone anticipated.
I’m assuming you don’t mean these sort of people. I mean, I’m sure that there are people who are so severely retarded, and so hopelessly messed up . . . but I don’t know where you’d draw the line and decide who is “too far gone” and who isn’t. Then of course, I haven’t seen some of the sad cases that these doctors have seen.
Had I been born in Holland today, same situation, I guess I’d be dead. I was terminal when I was born. I wasn’t expected to live and, if I did, was “supposed” to be profoundly retarded. Why are people so willing to believe a doctor’s prognosis when they are so often proved wrong? I can’t fathom the moral depravity of people who have no problem with executing babies simply on the word of a doctor. And people who would sooner kill their child rather than fight tooth and nail to keep them alive and get them healed? Monsters.
The Netherlands can no longer brag that they don’t have the death penalty. They do, they just prefer to execute innocents. Their only “crime” is being an inconvenience.
So to answer you, OP, I’m horrified, naturally. Horrified that they’d do it and horrified that people don’t seem to have a problem with it.
Not surprised that it’s the Dutch leading the way, though. Most sensible people on earth my ass. Why the hell are good people in Holland sitting idly by while evil is running rampant? Are there ANY good people left in Holland? Where is the outrage?
Next will be babies born with HIV, I bet. They’re gonna die of AIDS eventually anyway, may as well relieve “society” of the “burden” of taking care of them. It’s for the “greater good.” :rolleyes:
As a dog returns to its vomit, so does a fool return to its folly. I guess the Dutch learned nothing from Hitler.
Terminally ill, incapable of communicating or understanding their condition, in extreme pain, with parents’ consent—yup, in that case I think euthanasia is a perfectly sensible solution, in fact, the most humane solution. If I’m ever in such a condition I hope somebody will have the compassion to euthanize me.
It’s possible this could be abused (although geez, what kind of plausible excuse could anybody come up with for killing a healthy baby? No, sorry, abortion opponents, that was not an invitation to debate abortion). But I think the best protection against abuse in this case is transparency. I’m concerned to hear that a hospital was carrying out such procedures in secret, and I’m glad they decided to come into the open about it. And I think they should abstain from continuing the practice until and unless legislation specifically permits it, even if it is very hard on the parents of terminally ill and suffering infants.
My brother, when he was born, had no muscle tone, no reflexes at all, twisted legs, had to be given food and air through a tube, and was declared blind and profoundly retarded by doctors. Today, at the age of 17, although still in a wheelchair, he is self-mobile, takes care of himself, is extremely intelligent (his current project is teaching himself various web scripting languages), goes deer hunting every year, has an active and fulfilling life, and the best vision of anyone in my family. And this is why I am supremely opposed to euthanasia policies like this.
By the way, Abbie, did you read the article itself in the OP’s link?
I really don’t think anybody’s arguing in favor of euthanasia where the infant might have a chance of improvement and isn’t severely suffering. We’re talking the hopelessly condemned here, not just the handicapped and inconvenient.
Glad to hear you overcame your own bad birth prognosis, but no, I doubt that your condition would have made you a candidate for infant euthanasia here in Holland. If you think otherwise, you’re welcome to give us more medical details of your neonatal situation. (And btw, I really don’t understand your outrage at parents who permit this procedure. If I were so heartless as to call any agonized and grieving parents of a doomed and suffering infant “monsters”, it would be the ones who keep the child suffering even though it’s going to die anyway.)
yBeayf and Abbie, I repeat that this policy, AFAICT, is not being proposed for just any infant with a bad birth prognosis. Many newborns do very badly in the beginning of infancy who are not suffering from a painful and terminal illness. Lots of babies have to be “given food and air through a tube” early in their lives; some have to be kept in incubators, for heaven’s sake. The Dutch doctors are not running amok and suggesting they all be killed. Calm down.
Anybody who thinks that a doctor can’t tell the difference between a baby in real bad shape with only a slim chance of getting better, and one that is hopelessly condemned to permanent suffering and early death from a known irreversible injury or illness, is really overreacting, IMO.
Well, of course they should be sure the baby is acutally terminally ill before they do anything. If you have statistics that show that they are often wrong on this, I’d be interested, but otherwise I think I’ll assume the doctors know what they’re doing. Certainly in some cases anyways, as in birthdefects where the baby is born without an essential organ, the outcome must be pretty much beyond doubt.
You’re minimizing what must be a horrible ordeal for parents, I’m sure its a very hard decision and they are far from having “no problem” with it. But with the knowledge that their infant is in pain and has no hope for the future, they should be allowed to make what decision they wish.
They’re not being killed because of the expense of keeping them alive in inconveniant. I’m sure the Dutch hospitals go to great lengths to preserve the life oof many “inconveniant” people such as the handicapped and eldarly, but in these cases the infants are killed because they have no hope of living and to keep them alive for a few more days only prolongs thier misery. Again, I think your mischaracterizing the suffering that the parents must go through here, I doubt that any of them happily offs thier children just to be free of the inconveniance, I’m sure its an agonizing experience that they undertake with great sadness in order to spare their child. You might disagree, but calling them heartless is wrong.
Babies born with HIV are not in pain, so they would not be covered by this law. Making horrible stuff up that your “sure” they’ll do next isn’t really productive.
Hitler was from Holland???
I very much doubt that’s what’s being discussed here, but if they had killed you, it’s probably worth noting they wouldn’t be killing the person that is you now.
While I can see how that might apply in your case, there’s not much chance that a doctor is going to be wrong about a baby being terminally ill when it is born without most of it’s brain and the skull open to the air.
Can you understand that I feel people who would keep their terminal, suffering child alive are monsters?
Fighting to get them healed and fighting to keep them alive are VASTLY different things.
I don’t think we should categorically euthanise anyone. The state should never do it. Ever. I think parents should be able to make that decision. It’s an awful, gruesome choice, but it should be there. No one loves that baby the way it’s parents do, and who gave you the right to step in and take over?
Also, doctors are extremely hesitant to pronounce someone terminal. Did they really tell your parents there was not even a .01% chance you’d survive?
Abbie, I can appreciate that this is very personal to you, but come on.
Apos said:
And if I killed you when you were 25, I wouldn’t be killing the person that you would have been when you were 45.
Do you think it be wrong if the expense was a factor in making euthanasia decisions?
No, Holland was invaded and occupied by the Nazis.
Abbie, I suggest you read as many articles about this as you can. I’ve been following this story for the past couple of months. It’s certainly morally debatable, but the condemnation you’re giving it is way beyond the debate it prompts.