So, if the gates of hell are seen to be prevailing against it, we can conclude that it is not the Church.
Q.E.D.
well maybe not but it's something to be on the watch for.
Posted on 11/14/2006 4:13:10 AM PST by Phil Magnan
Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth By NEIL SEARS
Last updated at 22:00pm on 12th November 2006
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.
BUDAPEST, HUNGARY- Biblical Family Advocates is condemning the declaration that children born with severe disabilities should be left to die. “This indeed should send chills down the spines of all disabled people, as well as those compassionate care givers who truly want to extend loving medical care to those in need, especially when these little one’s have just entered our world.” So says Phil Magnan, director for Biblical Family Advocates, a Christian pro family organization.
The statements by Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark are sure to cause outrage among the faithful in the Church of England as well. Bishop Butler is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416003&in_page_id=1770
The faithful will have to consider whether it is more prudent to pay attention to one of their Bishops or to consider the compassionate and self sacrificing vision of the Holy Scriptures.
Magnan went on to say,“So if we are to believe that it is compassionate to kill or allow to die those in need, can we throw out Jesus’ admonition about the Good Samaritan? It is stunning to me that the Church of England is losing its sense of right and wrong, based on economics. Using that reasoning, we could take the lives of all kinds of people we do not wish to financially burden ourselves with, like the mentally disabled, the homeless and those in coma’s. But why stop there? Will this end up being a slippery slope to justify the killing of the elderly or the infirmed? This is madness.”
Magnan continued, “How many stories do we have to hear about how disabled people have overcome incredible odds when the doctors themselves had lost hope? This policy is a commentary on how our society views those with disabilities and our sense of compassion. When the bottom line determines who lives or dies, society had better reconsider its priorities in health care. Once a child is killed for these reasons, we have opened a huge door for others to be at risk. Is it not better to err on the side of life rather than death, as we can do better than killing those in need.”
Debate and commentary are sure to be made regarding these extremely troubling statements by the Church of England. It is the hope of Biblical Family Advocates that the policy set forth by Bishop Butler will be challenged in the light of compassion and the Holy Scriptures that are meant to promote a more just and caring society for those who desperately need our help.
Another after death victory for Adolph Hitler. One of his programs being adopted by the descendants of those who were appalled by him and his ideas and fought him because of it.
Ping.
Peter Singer is smiling.
Another inflammatory headline--I don't know who is writing these.
I think that even many pro-life readers do not consider the "withholding or withdrawal" of treatment the act of "killing". This is NOT euthanasia, as I read it.
The only thing that the Episcopal church (whose policies I disagree with most of the time) is saying is that there are situations where artificial preservation of life is inappropriate. It's no different than a DNR order on grandma.
Yep. That's pretty much what the Romans said about unwanted children when they exposed them. Great analogy.
I'll reserve comment on this until Helen Keller and/or Fanny Crosby weighs in...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The same logic will allow me to take granny to the woods to die because she's wheelchair bound, can't eat by herself and is incontinent and inconvenient.
Its not euthanasia. Its like a dnr order.
Difference here is that "medical professionals" are making the call, not the families. "Medical professionals" who are not above watching the bottom line, playing God.
So, if the gates of hell are seen to be prevailing against it, we can conclude that it is not the Church.
Q.E.D.
well maybe not but it's something to be on the watch for.
I won't take granny to the woods, but I also won't jam a feeding tube in her 99 year old body. Sometimes we need to let God instead of medicine decide the future. In the case of both Granny and the poor baby, keep them warm, hold them close, and let nature take its course.
As a logical extension of this reasoning, Rush and MJ Fox should be scheduled for execution. Their "disabilities" certainly cannot be tolerated.
This is just the foot in the door. As with abortion in this country it was supposed to be introduced for medical reasons to protect the health of the mother in exceptional circumstances. In reality it was to set a precedent, so if it's ok in some circumstances to kill your baby all you have to do is expand the definition and you have abortion on demand for any spurious reason.
Now what this church of satan wants is to set precedent for killing children after birth. Hence opening the door to killing on demand after birth.
Must disagree. We sin by act and by omission. Witholding lifesaving treatment from a newborn is evil.
As an aside: don't forget that technology is begin to greatly improve the quality of life of disabled infants. Developing ways for the blind to see and the deaf to hear -- while these methodologies are only experimental now -- I expect blindness to go the way of Polio in the next 20-30 years.
With respect to severly mentally disabled individuals there is hope even for them -- while beyond our capabilities today there is hope that in the next 50 years we may be able to find ways to restore mental ability.
There is simply no excuse in this day in age for letting any infant die.
The Church of England long ago decided that Christianity would be much easier if God were removed from it.
The C of E is like a swimming team that's terrified of the water.
Its sad. My father (along with most of the congregation) completely abandoned the Episcopal Church (the Church of England here in the US) and changed to an African Anglican Church - the Africans (esp. Ugandans) are better practitioners of Christianity than the Authorities of the Church of England.
I agree.
But I disagree that it is a decision to be made by "medical professionals" and the implied force of that decision on the family.
Except that Grandma got authorize the DNR for herself - the hospital is deciding for the child.
I was raised an Epicopalian back when it was a religion. Built a wing on my home church. Now I won't even go into that paganistic, hedonistic, house of sin.
My mother had five children, and we were all born premature. I was born two months premature and weighed 3 lbs. My brother was a few weeks premature and weighed 2 lbs. 11 oz. I was born in 1970. He was born in 1960.
I was VERY ill and my prognosis was not very good. My lungs had not completed being formed. I needed life-sustaining oxygen for weeks. Both the pediatrician and the lung specialist gave up on me many times over. Luckily there was always, "ONE MORE CHANCE". I spent many, many weeks in an incubator.
All of us left the hospital when we weighed five pounds. We were ALL given a chance to grow and mature in the hospital.
There was NO long-term prognosis for my brother, because he was born with only one kidney and it was malformed. The plastic surgeons repaired it so that his kidney could drain properly. He is now 45, and his life is a miracle.
Under these standards advocating infanticide, none of us would be here.
I argue these very life-saving measures force the medical community to give it their all, and continuously come up with new techniques that help man-kind, NOT just the smallest among us. These types of research and practical hands-on attempts are invaluable. Everyone, no matter how small, deserves a chance.
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.