Posted on 12/01/2004 7:17:28 AM PST by missyme
AMSTERDAM - A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.
The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives - a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.
In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia 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.
The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said.
Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering with no hope of relief.
The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.
The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it is best.
Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.
The hospital revealed it has carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital.
Roman Catholic organizations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to the announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.
Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.
"People are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting."
According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003.
The Nazis did win after all.
True. Bizarre that the Left is the real instrument of such evil after half a century of trying to portray the Right as the heirs of Nazi ethics. I always say: Once a Socialist, always a National Socialist.
This is a slippery slope and we should be very careful how we deal with it. Too much government control over family and medical decisions does not characterize a free society and irresponsible, impulsive and emotional decisions regarding life and death serve no one well. Trying to compassionately alleviate pain with the possibility of premature death can be a very tricky dilemma. We do, however, sometimes seem to be more concerned about the suffering of our pets than with the suffering of our fellow human beings. Everyone passes from this earthly environment - how that occurs is an important part of the whole experience. For me, quantity of human life is not necessarily equivalent to the quality of that life. I have no desire to be kept around as a family vegetable, enduring the suffering of seriously deteriorating quality of life. And, I don't want the government dictating that requirement.
wasnt this posted already?
Don't know didn't see it?
The next step will be to dispense with parental approval.
I thought so. Important subject though.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291710/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291752/posts
"The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it is best."
The socialist believes in political power being exercised by the whole community and not the individual - the government knows best. In this case the government is just allowing those most involved and responsible (the family) to make the decision guided by independent doctors. That is the opposite of socialism.
Muslimes multiplying like mad in the Netherlands and they kill their children? Sheesh
Look to the "father" of these cultures.
Wrong. Socialism is slavery. Slavery believes that one person belongs to another as disposable property. That's precisely what this is.
As far as the decision being made by the family, not by the state, that's an oversight that will be taken care of shortly, as families are told that it is their "duty" to "society" to kill, and then are simply told that their child will be killed whether they agree or not. Watch and see: this is how tyranny starts, or rather how it propagates.
This "oversight" will be dealt with, also.
"for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.
The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives"
The Nazis did not give people a choice either.
At some point, the somnambulus effect will wear off, the wake up alarm will sound but it will be too late. The same is happening in France and Italy.
They're not really human* so it's more efficient to dispose of the problem.
- A.H. 1939
*subhuman
The socialist ideally espouses the community involvement in the administration of government, but the reality is a narrow range of the powerful elites excercising power on 'behalf' of the masses.
In this particular subject of euthanization, the 'moral responsibility' buck is being passed onto the individuals (not 'the' individual that is being euthanized, of course) to make the decision for purposes of legal theatrics only. Only in this way can a 'legitimate' government catapult foward the idea of permissable killing outside of legal punishment or justified self-defense. In fact, the 'state' has already made its inroads in that this form of killing is legal at all. The 'caregivers' are only window-dressing participants in what already amounts to socially sanctioned killing.
In the end, the state will merely take the 'consent' element away from individuals and begin it's own pogroms of deciding who will live and die. Think that's too far off the mark? What will happen when further budget constraints hamper medical care far worse than their overburdened socialist medical system already is? What kind of legal case will be made for a man needing a kidney transplant and the family across the street is seeking the same procedure for a retarded child that needs the same procedure?
It will all come down to dollars and cents since moral sense is no longer involved. After that, mob rule will triumph since the rights of the individual went out the door with the first victim of socially sanctioned killing.
And that will happen soon since a huge percentage of Medicare payments (about 70%) are made to individuals in their last few months on this earth. Since medical care is getting more expensive and people are living longer the result is obvious: difficult moral/value decisions will have to be made in increasing numbers.
What kind of legal case will be made for a man needing a kidney transplant and the family across the street is seeking the same procedure for a retarded child that needs the same procedure?
There are a few more facts needed here to make a good decision (legal or moral) but if virtually all things were equal and the man had a family depending upon him for support, both morally and economically it would make sense for him to receive the transplant.
It will all come down to dollars and cents since moral sense is no longer involved.
I don't believe so. These decisions must involve both elements. Medical care is not unlimited and/or free. You seem to be saying that to be totally fair and moral, everyone should receive the medical care they need no matter what the circumstances. But since everyone cannot receive the medical care they need, to be fair no one should get it. That won't happen so the process will be necessarily unfair. Difficult value decisions must be made in this life and it is very important who makes those decisions. I am in favor of those most closely involved to make the decisions - like the family along with the treating physician. You seem to want a particular religious view (your interpretation of "sanctity of life") to dictate what medical decisions are made for others. That is not what our constitution prescribes.
In scenario one, you agree with me that the economics rule the day.
In scenario two, you agree with me that the economics rule the day.
Then, you follow up by postulating that morality MUST enter the equation. Too late, my friend. You've already purchased the critter in question - now you must live with it.
I am NOT saying that all people should receive the care they want. Not at all. I am saying that if the state decides, ALL decisions, ultimately, will be economic decisions and to hell with humanity.
You argue that the family unit should make decisions. Too bad, friend. The family will be the last to be consulted. The state will make it's choice base on the the economic value of the patient at hand.
A case in point...
My sister-in-law is British. Her father retired from the Clark shoe factory about a decade ago. He began experiencing chest pains and in 1997 he had a doozy just before Thanksgiving (our holiday). He goes into the hospital. They send him home with a handfull of anti-biotics assuming that he has some sort of thoracic infection. Even though they knew his mother and brother died of cardiac failure, they don't hook him up to an EKG.
He dies within 24 hours.
Point is, he dies in spite of blanket care. Fact is, health care under socialized medicine is palliative care for the 'ECONOMICALLY WORTHLESS' element (i.e., retired).
You say "Difficult value decisions must be made in this life and it is very important who makes those decisions."
I agree.
Where we disagree is at the point where the ability of the individual still has the right to make that decision. Looking at Europe, we see that right eroding. Looking at the mechanics of ethical rights, we also see the same kind of erosion.
As far as I am concerned, religion has NOTHING to do with the sanctity of life. Economics and distorted politics has everything to do with it. For these reasons, I continue to stand against this entire bloody mess.
Economics will, however, influence what options are available to whomever makes medical decisions.
I don't understand why you seem to believe that economics must be devoid of morality. Morality may have an influence on whatever we want and the more the better. The less moral an economic activity, the more likely it will ultimately fail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.