From the article: "euthanasia is acceptable when the child’s medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased "
So it is only done if the pain can’t be managed.
There are numerous cases where people have been found guilty, sentenced to death and then later proved innocent. The babys that we are talking about here have vital parts missing. I’m sure Ca#### would provide grusome details if we need them, but the fact is they’re only euthanized if their isn’t any chance of recovery.
Nobody is using this defense. Read rfgdxm’s post again, I think you misunderstood him.
I can cut off the slippery slope argument here by stating that the only time the parents should be given the decision is at birth. Once they give the child the thumbs up, that’s it.
The flaw in your logic above is that you seem to comparing cases where things go grotesquesly wrong during fetal developement and the parents handle it to ritual genital mutilation. Do you think parents in third world countries don’t care about their children?
Actually yes we are, because they’re already thinking of other cases to use it:
“In August, the main Dutch doctors’ association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia (search) 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.”
No. It’s. Not. There are 6 billion plus bodies on this planet.
Look, I can put periods after every word, too, and it won’t make you share my beliefs either. You think what I believe is cruel and wrong. I think what you believe is cruel and wrong. Let’s call this particular side of it a draw.
I will concede your very valid points on the slippery slope, or the posibility of misdiagnoses. It hasn’t changed my opinion as of yet, but I am chewing on it.
I’m curious your opinion about incurable pain. There is a level of pain that morphine can not address, so much as sufficient theraputic doses would in fact be fatal. Would you allow this (being, in reality, killing the patient with painkillers)? Or would you have them remain in pain?
When morphine doesn’t work there’s always heroin. No. It’s. Not. There are 6 billion plus bodies on this planet.
Yep. 6 billion. Your point?
Following your logic, human life would be more precious if the world only held, say, 1 billion people, and 150 years from now will be, say, half as precious as it is today if the population hits 12 billion or so.
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.
I wouldn’t let my baby suffer extremely. That would make me a monster, imho.
Despite that, and even though the cases were assessed by a committee [and the parents, ofcourse] I would have prefered if they had waited for legalisation.
I’m pretty sure that heroin isn’t used as an anesthetic, but in any case, I’d say that if the doctors say that the pain can’t be managed, its silly to doubt them unless you have evidence otherwise. Regardless of whether you agree with what they’re doing or not, I can’t imagine one would suppose they’re lying just so they can get to enjoy killing babies. If they say they can’t do anything for the pain, I’m sure they know what they’re talking about.
Really. It’s pretty sketchy to do it without the legal go ahead, but sitting there watching a suffering infant slowly die and not being able to do anything for it would be intolerable. I can see why they did this, and I’m sure it happens in hospitals across the world with about the same frequency. In some ways its quite admirable, to have risked the legal concequences to help alleviate the childs and parents suffering.
Don’t be difficult. I don’t want to have what is a pointless argument. But mathematically speaking, that is correct. The more rare something is, the more precious it is. The converse is true. Water is worth more in the desert than it is on the shore of a large lake.
Did you read the next sentance? About your beliefs and my beliefs? Because if you can provide me with some sort of logical or scientific reason that human life is precious, without citing your beliefs or a religious creed, I would be happy to go point for point with you. But I’m not going to shout about who’s personal morality is more correct.
Nature predates legalization. Do the most humane thing. Even if it requires actively assissting the death of the child. Sometimes births go bad, and that situation has to be dealt with.
This issue has important moral implications. Such a decision ought not to be made (only) by parents or doctors. Secrecy increases the chances of abuse. All of society needs to be involved in this issue.
No we’re talking about terminally ill severely mentally retarded who only have suffering left. Doctors and the parents make the decision for the poor unfortunate.
Oh, I know, ** rfgdxm** And I believe they did the right thing, ** Malodorous**, [the link says “mercy kill”] but we have a bad enough reputation as it is. I like things to be legal. Whether it’s soft drugs, euthanasia or prostitutes.
BUT: Bless the doctors who risk their jobs in order to free a human being of extreme pain.
I also wanted to add that this what I was talking about when I said the Dutch were the most sensible society. Much like things such as prostitution and drug use, they acknowledge what is already happening. People are going to do this anyway, so why not bring it out in the open where it can be safely regulated and watched. It’s a very sane and responsible way of governing, as opposed to just sticking our collective heads in the sand like we do in the US.
I tend to agree. It should not have been done until there has been a full and frank public debate after which if the laws are to be made they should have excellent checks and balances applied to the process. Not too much as to prolong suffering too much but sufficient that only the true ‘no hope for anything other than a painful death’ cases.
I like things to be legal. Whether it’s soft drugs, euthanasia or prostitutes.