Posted on 11/12/2006 5:21:18 PM PST by xzins
The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.
Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.
And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
The shock new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.
A spokeswoman for the UK Disabled People's Council, which represents tens of thousands of members in 140 different organisations, said: "How can the Church of England say that Christian compassion includes killing of disabled babies either through the withdrawing or withholding of treatment or by active euthanasia?
"It is not for doctors or indeed anyone else to determine whether a baby’s life is worthwhile simply on the grounds of impairment or health condition."
The church's surprise call comes just a week after the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology sparked fury by calling for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled infants.
But it has been made in a carefully thought out official Church of England paper written by Bishop Butler for a public inquiry into the ethical issues surrounding the care of long premature or desperately ill newborn babies.
The inquiry, by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, began two years ago and its findings are due to be published in London - but the church's contribution to the debate has been leaked in advance.
The Nuffield Council, an independent body which issues ethical guidelines for doctors, began the inquiry to take account of scientific advances which mean increasingly disabled and premature babies can technically be kept alive.
In practice, doing so can be controversial - with the three months premature Charlotte Wyatt a case in point.
The Portsmouth baby weighed just 1lb at birth, and had severe brain and lung damage. Doctors wanted to be allowed to leave her to die, but her parents successfully campaigned through the courts against them.
Now that the child is three, however, and could be cared for at home, her parents have separated and are considered unsuitable to look after. In future cases doctors may work to guidelines proposed by the Nuffield inquiry.
In the Church of England's contribution to the inquiry, Bishop Butler wrote: "It may in some circumstances be right to choose to withold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death."
The church stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained".
The bishop's submission continued: "There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved.
"Disproportionate treatment for the sake of prolonging life is an example of this.
The church said it would support the potentially fatal withdrawal of treatment only if all alternatives had been considered, "so that the possibly lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance."
Yet the Revd Butler's submission makes clear that there are a wide range of acceptable reasons to withdraw care from a child - with the cost of the care among the considerations.
"Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided," he wrote.
"The principle of justice inevitably means that the potential cost of treatment itself, the longer term costs of health care and education and opportunity cost to the NHS in terms of saving other lives have to be considered."
The church also urges all the parties involved in care for critically ill babies should be realistic in their expectations, demands, and claims.
The submission says: "The principle of humility asks that members of the medical profession restrain themselves from claiming greater powers to heal than they can deliver.
"It asks that parents restrain themselves from demanding the impossible.":
UK Disabled Peoples Council spokeswoman Simone Aspis said the group's members were appalled that the Church was joining doctors in calling for disabled babies to be left to die.
"It appears that the whole debate on whether disabled babies are worth keeping alive is being dominated by professionals and religious people without any consultation with disabled people," she said.
Out of babies born at just 22 weeks of pregnancy or less, 98 per cent currently die. In Holland babies born before 25 weeks are not given medial treatment.
Now take one more step....heart patients....then another,....diabetics....then another,....surgical patients over 58 years old....then... then.... then....the Rhinelands eutopia.
Capital punishment is a no no over there last I checked in 1994.
"...the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
Everything these days boils down to COST. Who can save them the most money, how they can cut costs so they can have more money to spend, how they can kill the unborn so they can go on living their lifestyles.
Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. YOU CANNOT SERVE BOTH GOD AND MONEY." Matthew 6:24
That was my point. Babies are too expensive to allow to live but murderers must be kept alive indefinitely. Very sick mindset at work there.
Hypocrisy about life, isn't it?
One of my best friends has cerebral palsy. I'm glad her parents didn't decide that it would be too much trouble to let her live.
Unbelievable.
Living souls. Lord have mercy!
The Church of England and Episcopalian Church in the USA have become the Church of Nothing. I have a friend who is a devout Episcopalian and not in good health - I am sure he will be thrilled to hear how little they care about him.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Community and individuality are not opposites. People cannot survive on their own. When the odds are stacked against you, you must rally with the oppressed and hated.
When a growing oppressive regime is taking hold, you must act, otherwise you will soon face your enemy alone and hopeless.
Strength of community is a strength as much as individualism, as long you are willing to face weaknesses in your own community. Ignoring slacking values will mean that you will be rallied against by those you oppress.
Niemöller affirms we must rally against unhealthy organized regimes. We must also stay vigilant with those that appear to be good natured, as all organisation attracts corruption. Niemöller also warns us that if it is you who are corrupt, then you will face a stronger combined force of foe!
Vexen Crabtree
I think you've nailed the issue. It isn't the quality of life of the disabled; it's the inconvenience to the able.
And those behind this evil decision don't even see the connection.
How long will it be before otherwise, normal conservative Christians, seeing no support for their beliefs and no other way to counter the march of immorality couched behind a Liberal political movement choose, willingly, to convert to the religion that promises morality?
It will be a damed if you do, damned if you don't situation, but many will choose the binding morality and ultra strict social rules over the anything goes for anyone anytime alternative.
Posting my nightmares tonight...
The moral outrage being expressed in this thread presupposes that we have the economic resources to provide unlimited medical care in all areas without having to make the difficult decisions about where else to cut back. If providing care to one premature baby with multiple birth defects means having to withhold asthma treatment to tens or hundreds of adolescents with asthma, then there is a difficult decision to be made, especially when one or more of the asthma patients could die of their disease.
"Unwerte Leben" -- lives that just were not worth anything. And now the Church of England is using the same argument the Nazis used.
**it's the inconvenience to the able.**
Christ was very able and very inconvenienced.
He carried not only his cross, but ours too!
See #33
The example of Christ is always worthy of consideration.
He did not consider equality with God something that He had to hold on to, but instead He lowered Himself to our level, taking on our form.
Compared to Him, everyone else was severely disabled. Yet, He healed them, fed them, loved them, gave His life for them.
Exactly. It makes me think about how much different my life would be if her parents had decided they couldn't take the trouble to care for their child. Fortunately, they're pro-life so it was never an issue for them.
If you haven't hear Prince Charley want Muslums take part in his coronation report is he doesn't want be Defender of Christaian Faith of all faiths OH BOY LOL!
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.