Dutch Hospital Euthanizing Gravely Ill Babies

[manhattan]

Yes, gum, that’s exactly it. I like to stick my head in the sand and lie. I’m not motivated at all by any legitimate concerns about how the State, which many people here don’t trust to look at people’s luggage before they get on a plane, might institute a planned policy of baby-killing.

I’m out of this thread. Go insult someone else.

[gum]

You are insulted? Someone compared the Dutch with nazi’s and you are insulted?

Grow up. Euthanasia on incurable baby’s in terrible pain happens everywhere.

Thank the drol for that.

[Tusculan]

@manhattan

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.

Fair point with your first remark, I’ll grant you that.

With the second I can’t say as I don’t know anything about dr. Kevorkian’s case. However, unlike the U.S., in the Netherlands the accepted practice is that doctors are supposed to publicly apply euthanasia, then let the courts decide whether this is in violation of the law. The Dutch interpretation of such actions (hence the legal qualification of it) is not the same one as in the U.S. system. You may be against the Dutch practice if you want, but you should at least get your facts straight.

It is funny to see how people are suddenly scared to debate once the real facts surface.

[Malodorous]

@manhattan

Oh, right, the government said it’s OK! Well, it must be OK then.

The government, the involved hospital and independent doctors. At somepoint we have to trust the people on the ground, unless you want to book a flight to Holland and open your own investigation.

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.

I agree, which is why I think we need very heavy oversight from multiple groups and not give the go-ahead unless all groups agree the outcome is as close to certain as conceivalble.

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.

I never mentiond anything about myeloschisis, I was making an argument that the leathal cases of spina b. are within an order of magnitude of the number of euthanized infants, and so your suspicions are unwarranted, given the huge amount of evidence against foul play.

What’s next, those unlikely to make it to adulthood? Those who might need a lot of surgeries?

This is my problem with this slippry slope argument. This “what’s next, those that won’t make it to adulthood, those who have occasional stomic pains, every one that will end up bald” is rudiculous. We’re talking about a specific set of cases, those that are undebatably terminally ill and in unrelivably agony. There isn’t any reason that we’ll just keep going along your chain of steps until we wiped out half the population of Europe. If someday they want kill everyone who might die in the next quarter century against their will, I’ll join you in arguing against it as will just about everyone else, which should make it a short debate.