![](http://i47.tinypic.com/15mn2hx.jpg";;)
Posted on 12/05/2014 11:53:53 AM PST by wagglebee
Udo Schuklenk, who was the chair of the one-sided Royal Society of Canada: End of Life Decision Making panel, is now proselytizing his philosophy (or Peter Singer's philosophy) promoting euthanasia for newborns and infanticide. Schuklenk uses quality-of-life arguments to support his eugenic philosophy to encourage the killing of newborns with disabilities.
In an article published in The Journal of Thoracie and Cardiovascular Surgery, titled: Physicians can justifiably euthanize certain severely impaired neonates, Schuklenk argues that some lives are not worth living and that parents should have the right to decide to end the lives of newborns with disabilities. Schuklenk states:
A quality-of-life ethic requires us to focus on a neonate's current and future quality of life as relevant decision-making criteria. We would ask questions such as: Does this baby have capacity for development to an extent that will allow him or her to have a life and not merely be alive? If we reach the conclusion that it would not, we would have reason to conclude that his life is not worth living.
Schuklenk argues that based on a Quality-of-Life Ethic euthanasia of newborns or infanticide is a moral option and in some cases it should be demanded. Schuklenk states:
A quality-of-life proponent could just as well argue that respect for human dignity demands that the infant's life be terminated on compassionate grounds.
Schuklenk argues that there is no moral difference between killing an infant and letting the infant die a natural death, except that killing an infant is quick and causes less suffering for the parents. Schuklenk argues:
Once we have concluded that death is what is in the best interest of the infant, it is unreasonable not to bring about this death as painlessly and as much controlled in terms of timing by the parents as is feasible.
If his prolonged dying is harmful to them (the parents) a further quality-of-life based argument in favor of terminating the infant's life is established.
There is a difference between killing and letting die. If treatment is withdrawn and care is provided, if the child dies, the death will be from the medical condition, which is a natural death. Sometimes the child does not have a lethal condition, and if care is provided, the child will continue to live.
If the child is given a lethal injection, the child is intentionally killed, whether the child had a lethal condition or not.
Schuklenk considers newborns to have the same status as the child in the womb. Similar to Peter Singer, Schuklenk argues that parents should be able to freely decide to end the life of their newborn, otherwise known as infanticide. Schukelenk states:
In morally important ways his developmental state is closer to that of a fetus than to that of a person like you or me. The parents should be able to freely decide on what would amount to postnatal abortion.
Paradoxically, in his November 18, 2014 Globe and Mail article concerning the court decision giving parents of a native girl the right to withdraw their daughter from medical treatment, Schuklenk stated:
There is no parental right to harm your children. Since when has the life of a child become so cheap that we leave it to misguided parents who wish to do as they see fit, evidence be damned?
Schuklenk then defends his position by referring to the euthanasia of newborns in the Netherlands, a practice that was first approved by the Dutch courts in the 1990's and was later approved by the Dutch Medical Association with the acceptance of the Groningen protocol. Schuklenk states:
Prenatal testing renders the need for infanticide exceedingly rare. ...Of about 200,000 children born in The Netherlands on an annual basis only very few newborns saw their lives ended by this means.
Schuklenk claims that only 4 infants were euthanized between 1995 and 2005 and none were euthanized between 2005 - 10. The Groningen Protocol states that it is based on 22 infants who were born with Spina Bifida who died by euthanasia. Schuklenk continues:
Withdrawing treatment almost always entails the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration. These cases still number below 300, decreasing from 299 in 1995 to 177 in 2010.
Even though his statistics are questionable, Schuklenk argues that the small number of newborn euthanasia deaths indicates that a slippery slope does not exist. The statistics do indicate that the Netherlands are dehydrating to death a high percentage of newborns with disabilities instead of lethally injecting them.
Ideas have consequences.
Philosophers, like Schuklenk, Singer and Downie are being given a significant amount of ink on paper where they can promote their eugenic ideology to end the lives of people with disabilities under the guise of ending suffering.
The concept that the lives of some people are not worth living leads to the death of newborns with disabilities and infanticide. This concept also leads to the continued devaluation of the lives of people with disabilities and people with chronic and other vulnerable conditions.
"Morally important"? What does this monster know about morality?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The last days are upon us and Jesus is coming very soon.
Those who refuse Christ’s forgiveness will be forced to drink blood as a judgment for their bloody deeds (Rev 16:6).
That argument might work for putting down sociopaths.
Since dignity is another word for self-respect, this ‘ethicist’ is saying the disabled have no right to self-respect, because their appearance makes them unattractive. But that reveals his own shallow values, judging a human being on the basis of their physical appearance alone.
He’s the one with a problem.
Mark my word, the day will come when the government can and will refuse healthcare for disabled babies based on the liberal’s definition of desirability.
He believes he is God, as all morally corrupt people do.
Woe to those who call good evil and evil good.
Not all sociopaths become violent criminals. Some of them become socialized just fine and function perfectly well in society.
You can't look at *any* baby and make any kind of prognostication about his/her future.
That sounds like one of Uncle Adolf H’s utterance’s.
I once read a science fiction novel in which a disabled man was moving around in public, and a young woman walked by him, eating ice cream. She kept commenting how his appearance disturbed her and that it was ruining her enjoyment of the ice cream.
Not long after, she complained to her boss that none of the suicide precipitation techniques was working, and sought advice on what she should do.
Apparently, her job was to find non-perfect people and try to encourage them to commit suicide by making disparaging remarks.
I don't remember what the book was, although I seem to recall that it was something by Larry Niven--I could be wrong.
I long for the days when this monster would be labeled as such and shunned by all good men and women of conscience.
It is the height of hubris for any human being to say that human dignity demands the death of an innocent person. What is to keep someone else from turning the tables on a person who says something like that?
There are times when justice would seem to demand a death of a guilty person. There are times that self-defense or defense of another would seem to demand a death of the threatening person. I struggle to imagine any other situation that demands a death of another human being which would be justifiable much less proclaimed a public good.
God help us.
The “Master Race” was all about this brand of “human dignity”.
“Don’t make me have to look at people who make me uncomfortable.”
“That sounds like one of Uncle Adolf H’s utterance’s.”
http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/nazieuth.htm
The first known case of the application of this now-acceptable proposal concerned “Baby Knauer.” The child’s father requested of Adolph Hitler himself that his son be allowed death because he was blind, retarded, and missing an arm and a leg. Surely, in his condition, he would be better off dead. Hitler turned the case over to his personal physician, Karl Brandt, and in 1938 the request was granted.
Over the next few months, a committee set out to establish practical means by which such “mercy deaths” could be granted to other children who had no prospect for meaningful life. The hospital at Eglfing-Haar, under the direction of Hermann Pfannmuller, M.D., slowly starved many of the disabled children in its care until they died of “natural causes.” Other institutions followed suit, some depriving its small patients of heat rather than food. Medical personnel who were uncomfortable with what they were asked to do were told this was not killing: they were simply withholding treatment and “letting nature take its course.”
Over time Pfannmuller set up Hungerhauser (starvation houses) for the elderly. By the end of 1941, euthanasia was simply “normal hospital routine.”
In the meantime, no law had been passed permitting euthanasia. Rather, at the end of 1939, Hitler signed this letter:
“Reichleader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are responsibly commissioned to extend the authority of physicians to be designated by name so that a mercy death may be granted to patients who, according to human judgment, are incurably ill according to the most critical evaluation of the state of their disease.”
Peter Kreeft once said that “a sexualized society is a cruel society.”
It is what he "feels" it is...as most sociopaths believe.
I've had the honor of caring for these "useless eaters" (as some of my colleagues called them) and I can say it was the most rewarding time of my life.
IMHO, every human being has been given a purpose, even if only to make us search our souls as to how willing we are to care for or treat the most vulnerable among us.
A sexualized society prioritizes the young and beautiful over everyone else - the sexy are thus the most important and valuable.
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.