Newborn euthanasia often goes unreported

MSNBC ^ | March 9, 2005 | AP

[beaversmom]

Euthanizing terminally ill newborns, while still very rare, is more common in the Netherlands than was believed when the startling practice was reported a few months ago — and experts say it also occurs, quietly, in other countries.

Dutch doctors estimate that at least five newborn mercy killings occur for every one reported in that country, which has allowed euthanasia for competent adults since 1985.

In 2002, doctors at University Medical Center Groningen helped create the so-called Groningen protocol, a list of standards for performing and reporting euthanasia of newborns with serious, incurable deformities. The aim was to encourage more reporting and discussion.

Two pediatricians at the hospital, Drs. Pieter J.J. Sauer and Eduard Verhagen, report in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine that 22 mercy killings of newborns who otherwise would have lingered in intensive care for years were reported to authorities from 1997 to 2004, about three each year. But national surveys of Dutch doctors have found 15 to 20 such cases a year, out of about 200,000 births.

Verhagen, who supports such euthanasia, said in an interview the doctors were allowed to review district attorneys’ records on the 22 reported cases. None was prosecuted.

'Very extreme cases' “These were all very clear and very extreme cases,” he said, where the newborns were suffering from severe, untreatable spina bifida, with major brain and spinal cord deformities and sometimes other birth defects. “Do we have them continue life in suffering or do we end the life and end the suffering?”

Euthanasia opponents and others have been highly critical of that viewpoint.

“During the past few months, the international press has been full of blood-chilling accounts and misunderstandings concerning this protocol,” the doctors wrote in the journal.

[Iwo Jima]

It is common in the United States to tell parents of extremely premature newborns that the baby died at birth, then just put the baby aside in some isolated place until it dies. If you had a premature infant who, you were told, died at birth, but you didn't actually see it, you might want to get your medical records and see for your self.

[madprof98]

The campaign goes on and on. We'll have legalized (court-mandated) euthanasia within a few years. Think not? Well, just a short while ago, who would have believed it would be legal for gays to marry one another in the USA in 2005? When the death-culture sets its sites on a target, they usually hit the mark.

[Coleus]

Newborn euthanasia underreported

[Sun]

"It is common in the United States to tell parents of extremely premature newborns that the baby died at birth, then just put the baby aside in some isolated place until it dies. If you had a premature infant who, you were told, died at birth, but you didn't actually see it, you might want to get your medical records and see for your self."

Where did you hear about this?

[Salvation]

Some more holy innocents!

[Salvation]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

[Iwo Jima]

Personal experience. Knowledge of the industry. Discussion with numerous labor & delivery nurses and OB/GYNs. They see nothing at all wrong about it.

Do you?

[workerbee]

I think that that scenario is much less common than it used to be. Past consensus was that it was in the mother's best interest not to see the baby for fear it would traumatize her. The opposite is now true. My premature daughter died in my arms; the idea of someone keeping her from me was unthinkable. My mother-in-law, however, lost a child under similar circumstances in the mid-1960s -- the child was taken away and buried before she ever laid eyes on him.

[Sun]

"Personal experience. Knowledge of the industry. Discussion with numerous labor & delivery nurses and OB/GYNs. They see nothing at all wrong about it.

Do you?"

It is unspeakably evil, but we had better speak about it, by writing letters to editors, calling talk shows, posting, whatever it takes.

[Sun]

I'm very, very sorry for your loss.

What they did in the 60s seems cruel. The mother never had the chance to say goodbye.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.