(I must admit that I did not read through the entire article of the OP.)
I understand a hospital is doing this against the law and customs of their country. That they are doing this without lots and lots of input from society. That they are doing this behind closed doors.
This situation could lead to serious abuses. It (as you said) needs lots of transparency.
Originally posted by Paul in Saudi
Absolutely.
Like it needs transparency in all countries, instead of hyprocrisy.
No, Malodorous. No we don’t. So many people have said so in this thread it might seem that way, but it’s just not true. There are links to exactly two news stories or other direct reporting in this thread. One was the Fox News story from the OP (which is in fact an AP story, and is thus the one being carried in most media). It made no reference to the cause of death of the babies. The other was the CNN story cited by Gum and me. That’s it. Everything else is just a wishful fantasy by the pro-euthanasia posters, apparently hoping beyond hope that the first instance of infant euthanasia was not the terrible abuse that is so apparently is.
Many of the people arguing against this program are less moderate than me – the condition of the children is not relevant to them, as they would oppose baby euthanasia in all cases and under all circumstances. I’m ready to be persuaded that a properly thought-out and administered policy is in some extremely rare instances the right way to go. But I’ll tell you what – I’m becoming less persuaded by the post in this thread as I see the pro-euthansia people just wave off any concerns.
Right. At least some of the concerns about baby euthanasia are about concern over abuse of the program. And I have demonstrated at the very least a strong possibility that that’s exactly what happened here. Even if I turn out to be in error, it will be because of a lack of transparency and candor from the doctors who killed the babies in violation of Dutch law. I have also demonstrated, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the protocol under which the children were killed is much more expansive than the pro-euthanasia forces initially believed. Not a single material fact I’ve presented has been refuted. Not one.
You and the other pro-euthanasia people wave off the concerns with a reference to non-existent citations or cheap-shot insults about my good faith, but I’m the one without a reasonable case.
If I’ve stepped on any toes, I apologize. It’s hard to think of a more emotional topic.
I don’t know, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the question at hand. Obviously if a child with extreme Spina Bifida has any prospect of living a satisfactory life, I don’t think that euthanasia should remotely be a consideration. And if medical science advances to the point that this is the case, then I would condemn in the strongest terms anyone that euthanized an infant suffering from a curable (or at least treatable) condition.
My understanding is that these physicians are saying these children do NOT have treatable conditions, that their imminent death is as guaranteed as the sunrise, and that the only question is whether they continue to live in agony for a few days, or have their immenent death hastened as the only way to ease their pain.
What I’m NOT seeing is a clear discussion of whether the physicians’ diagnoses are correct or plausible. The articles we’re looking at are necessarily vague; I’d really like to hear from a physician whether such diagnoses are plausible.
Daniel
I don’t feel you have demonstrated that, but I’m willing to be convinced. I’ve seen you introduce some doubt into the idea that the babies were all immediately terminal cases of spina bifida, but that isn’t a demonstration beyond any doubt. Have I missed something?
Just, apparently, my poor writing skills. Sorry.
What I demonstrated beyond any doubt was simply that the protocol covered a broader spectrum of potential cases than some people in this thread seemed to think. Specifically, that the protocol covers children up to 12 and that therefore it applies in a lot more cases than the simple case of an infant being born with an untreatable, extremely painful, certainly terminal condition.
As I said and you agreed (though with less emphasis 
), I merely introduced doubt about the actual workings of the protocol itself in the cases so far presented.
What does euthanasia achieve in these cases that is not already governed by ethical medical care?
Painkilling medication and sedatives to relieve suffering.
An agreement not to resuscitate or give certain medications.
Withdrawal of life support.
With-holding of nutrition.
All of those are legal, ethical and acceptable ways of allowing nature to take it’s course, without causing undue suffering. If the children really are terminal, what the problem with existing legal options?.
The objections I have to this are twofold:
Daniel
The third was the one I linked to back in the last page that said that the details of the cases hadn’t been released. We also had someone (LHoD I think) who had actually heard the interview referenced in the CNN aritlce you quoted who said that the doctor had indeed mentioned other causes then spina b. Finally, and most convincingly, there is the fact that the Dutch Justice Dept. and independent medical authorities are looking into this and have access to far more facts then one out of context CNN quote and none of them have apparently mentioned that anything is out of the ordinary in the doctors diagnosis.
Your proof of an abuse is one ambiguous quote by a man talking quickly in his second language on a morning radio show and some rather questionable statistics!! I don’t feel that I’m hoping beyond hope here. My wishful fantasy is the accepted version of events. Your claim of an abuse is so tenuous that I really don’t think its worth discussing. There are many interesting arguements to be made against euthanasia, but saying that the doctors are making up the problem is not one of them.
I agree. But I think what the Dutch doctors in this case are doing is trying to increase the transparency and oversight of this program, not conceal it as is done in other countries.
[cheap shot] probably not what you meant to say, but I agree [/cheap shot]
The NPR story is available online, if anyone wants to confirm what I remember from the interview.
Daniel
irishgirl, the things you suggest are whats usually done, but as LHoD says they can be rather slow and cruel in and of themselves. Also in some cases the amount of sedative necessary to stop the pain is lethal (I would imagine this is especially true in newborns). Finally, if we’re going to allow the withdrawing of life support and feeding, which is in fact what is usually done in these extreme cases, the question becomes why not just directly euthanize the baby and get it done quickly. We’re extending the suffering of the child just so that in one extremely technical sense we’re not killing it, just allowing it to starve/dehydrate to death.
Also, to play the statistics game for a bit, according to the CDC the number of spinal bifia cases that die in infancy is about 33%. Using jsgodess’s numbers thats 33 cases of lethal spina b. in the neatherlands a year. That four of these happend in one hospital, especially if it were a large urban hospital or specialized in difficult births or was in the center of a cluster or epidemic or some such, and were immediatley recognizable as lethal does not seem like such an extreme statistical fluctuation to me, especially given the extreme unlikeliness of any other explanation.
From Canada.Com | Homepage | Canada.Com
[underlining mine]
The last sentence is a fallacy.
From Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport | Rijksoverheid.nl [I’m sorry. It’s in Dutch]
It says that the Groningen protocol is not accepted and the Justice Department will see to it that the doctors are prosecuted.
I personnaly think that’s a shame.
Back to the sneaky mercy deaths. Like the rest of the world.
You seem to have the impression that parents who chose to end the life of their suffering infant are acting selfishly to “stop their own pain.” I highly doubt that someone’s pain is going to stop after they have to make the very difficult decision to spare their child of a lifetime of inevitable, debilitating suffering.
gum: [I’m sorry. It’s in Dutch]
This sounds like a job for…TULIPGIRL!!! (Secret ignorance-fighting identity of the mild-mannered (well, except in the Pit) Kimstu, who is always looking for opportunities to practice her Dutch.) 
Okay, this is a communique to (I think) the office of the Leader of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament, from the State Secretary of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport. (Sport?) It says here, it says:
I’m not going to debate, just add a few facts to the discussion, as these appear to be sorely lacking.
With respect to the number of hospitals, the NVZ (dutch society of hospitals) mentions in its 2003 report (p. 21) 149 members, of which 90 were regular hospitals (4 on the Antilles), and 38 specialized ‘hospitals’ (cancer centers, dialysis etc.). The Ministry of Health’s data mentions over 2002 89 regular hospitals, 8 academic hospitals, and 10 categorial. So it depends on what you count as a hospital.
If you are actually interested to read about the Dutch euthanasia law instead of throwing around misconceptions or unwarranted extrapolations, you might consult the Dutch euthanasia society which provides a fair overview of the current state of affairs. For cross-reference you can consult the official Euthanasia-file of the Ministry of Health, which however is only in Dutch, but may possibly be accessible with the help of an Internet translator.
The press release on the groningen protocol is to be found at the hospital’s website, again in Dutch.
It mentions as cumulative criteria
This means that a lot of the hypotheticals in this thread are entirely baseless (except if you believe they are not going to apply those criteria, but then we have another discussion). The whole discussion about whether certain diseases are open for improvement is entirely baseless, as is the suggestion that you could provide anaesthetics. For such cases the protocol would not apply.
Finally, the status of such a protocol is not a matter of law indeed. It is only an internal guideline of the hospital, drawn up to regulate a practice to which people felt obliged anyway, as doctors and parents found themselves into a horrible dilemma to see a child suffer without any hope of improvement. This follows the development of euthanasia law, which was done by prosecuting doctors who openly did euthanize, in order to find if a specific case should be allowed or not. Those doctors do this openly and report their acts to Department of Justice, who decides whether to prosecute or not. People who hold it against the doctors that they ‘violate the law’ are unfortunately lacking sufficient understanding of the system of Dutch law.
Of course, a lot of the debate here is either about the slippery slope, or about the absolute immorality of euthanasia. For those positions those facts are irrelevant, as that amounts to saying that euthanasia is never allowed. I would suggest those people find themselves another thread. The debate here should be on the limits of euthanasia, for example about whether the Groningen protocol should be accepted or not, and what that protocol involves.
Forgot to add: that’s a fair translation by Kimstu. To clear up the few open points:
I missed your link, even when I had specifically looking for a Knight-Ridder story on this. I apologize. That said, it didn’t say that details hadn’t been released, it said that “few” details had been released. To hear one of those details, listen to LHoD’s link. There the doctor says that these were cases of extreme spina bifida. He says it unambiguously in English that is better than mine.
Oh, right, the government said it’s OK! Well, it must be OK then.
You are of course free to feel that way. What I’m saying is that one legitimate objection to state-sanctioned baby-killing is concern that the state may end up sanctioning far more than is first imagined and that in this case it may already have happened.
And here you wonder why people are concerned about a slippery slope. As soon as it becomes apparent just how unlikely it was that these all were cases of myeloschisis or similar, you’re backing up to include all cases which don’t survive infancy as the eligible population. What’s next, those unlikely to make it to adulthood? Those who might need a lot of surgeries?
You personally are making a terrific case against state-sanctioned baby euthanasia.
Well, no, it’s not another discussion. I am arguing that without proper controls it is inevitable that the criteria will be expanded, either officially or otherwise. I am arguing that indeed, these euthansia cases in violation of the law are a direct and predictible consequence of the existing Dutch euthanasia law.
Bull. Dr. Kevorkian killed dozens of people and reported them before Michigan finally got that murderous creep.
manhattan, Post #135:
Do you prefer to stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn’t happening everywhere?
Do you prefer lying about it?