Posted on 11/30/2004 11:17:14 AM PST by Pyro7480
Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - Raising the stakes in an excruciating ethical debate, 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 in a handful of cases and reporting them to the government.
The announcement last month 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 to the request, a spokesman said, and it may come as soon as December.
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 great pain 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's 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 spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a blistering illness.
The hospital said it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors — but there have been no legal proceedings taken against them.
Catholic organizations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to Groningen's announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend that the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.
"The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into a vertical cliff," said Wesley J. Smith, a prominent California-based critic, in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside of Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.
"As things are, 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. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen, but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals.
Groningen estimated the protocol would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country with 16 million people.
Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge.
However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States but that such practice is hidden.
"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in the United States. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."
More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said.
I agree, there is no justification of killing anyone for any reason, exspecially the innocent child. This has got to be stopped!
Getting admitted was the hardest part - staying in was no problem, so a lot of people did a lot of partying. Puritans were few and far between. I had a roommate my freshman year who NEVER did any work and hardly ever went to class - spent her time drinking and catting around. I lost track of her (you might say our attitudes towards school were . . . different) but as of our junior year she had not flunked out YET . . .
I'm not much of a drinker 'cause I have a hollow leg and it's too expensive - and I did know kids who were serious students (I would call myself semi-serious - wish now I'd worked harder then).
Good Pro Life Anti-Euthanasia group with legal documents you can order.
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/
Only a matter of time folks, only a matter of time. Thank God we have a conservative man in office who would never dream of such barbaric behavior!
Just spent Thanksgiving in Ithaca, and it seems to me that Cornell is even more Red than when I was there, so be careful on which Ivy! Of course the countryside around Ithaca is poor and loaded with Bush signs, but the city itself is rich, granola, and leftist (more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry).
W&L is beautiful, but I can confirm that it's known as a party school. My brother got his degree at VMI (before it was watered down) and I heard the stories. :-) Still, it has a good student body and a good reputation, and it just illustrates that nearly ANY (secular?) school requires vigilance these days.
Moral Absolutes Ping. There's a lot to cover in this article. (Sorry my comments are so long - this is a very important topic and a scarey one... Soylent green...skin lampshades...)
1. They use interchangeably the phrase "doctor assisted suicide" and the word "euthanasia" as though the practices were legally and practically the same, when it benefits the death agenda. But when it doesn't benefit them, they recoil with horror when told that the assisted suicide leads to euthanasia.
They are liars.
Euthanasia - it says in my Webster's Collegiate: "The painless PUTTING TO DEATH of persons suffering from incurable diseases."
Doctor assisted suicide: (not in my dictionary) But I've read the Oregon statute, basically a person suffering from terminal illness (I believe they have to have 6 months or less to live, according to doctors) has to request, more than once, the wish to terminate his own life. A doctor then prescribes a lethal dose of something (don't know what) and the patient has to be able to administer it himself.
See what the death afficiandos are trying to to? Blur the line between doctor assisted suicide and actual unasked for murder. But when we protest that assisted suicde LEADS to unasked for murder, they cry out "Never! It'll NEVER happen!"
The problem in dealing with leftists is they are as slippery as a greased snake.
They can try to blur as much as they like, but doctor assisted suicide will without doubt lead to outright murder. They already support murder - as in the case of Terri Schiavo, or people with terminal or incurable illness.
2. Note this statement: [By an ethicist - wonder if he is an admirer of the noted ethicist Peter Singer?]
"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy..."
There are two very important points to the above comment by the "ethicist". Do you see where he is equating with holding medical procedures that PROLONG LIFE with "medical" procedures that TERMINATE LIFE? Do you see what this POS is doing? He's saying that just by with holding unnecessary medical procedures because the patient will likely die anyway, it's the same as shooting the patient in the head. This is incredible.
The second point is that he is saying, in effect:
"Everyone's already doing it, might as well make it legal and then there won't be hypocrisy and misuse."
One could make the same argument - "A lot of people already (beat their wives, cheat on their husbands, steal from work, murder, etc etc) so might as well make (fill in blank) legal so people won't be hypocritical liars."
A good question to ask is: Why are these people (primarily leftists and secularists) in love with Death with a capital D? What is it that attracts them so?
I believe there are several reasons. They are envious, and can't create life, no matter how hard they try. But they can kill!
They see the purpose of human life to be nothing more than the same things animals do (eating, sex, security, sleeping, and getting the stuff to do those things better), with no transcendent purpose. So if a human being can't "enjoy" life to the fullest, better off be dead.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
"Don't assume all of these children would die."
I'm not. I'm assuming severe mental retardation or a physical handicap that would require life support. I'm also assuming that the parents can't pay for a lifetime of this type of treatment.
I am a parent of 2 children. Personally, I don't see how a parent could make that decision, but again, I haven't been in their shoes, so to speak. My babies were healthy at birth.
"There are some things more important than money."
That's true, but there are also people who can be productive and live normal lifestyles if they had this kind of funding too.
When I was 5 years old the doctor's told me parents I would never be able to read, write, function in society as normal person. If my mom and dad had believed them and gave up what would have happend? Well, they didn't and here I am today a 32 year old stay at home mom, who did graduate from high school and went to college for 3 years. Sooner or later we will get to the point that we should just get rid of children who can't even function or basically are told they can't function normally in society. What a bunch of horse crap!
That happened back in 1924, when they passed that law that allowed people over 65 years of age to spend their own money on retirement instead of giving it to their kids.
IOW, all our rights have pressures one way or another... does the First Amendment lead to pressure to "express myself" and say stupid stuff? Well, sure...if I watched MTV...but that doesn't mean I want it repealed. Does the Second Amendment lead to people pushing for a Citizen's Duty to be armed, for the public peace? Well, some folks think that's what should be done, but the vast majority don't...and I doubt it's the Second Amendment pushing people to feel one way or the other on it.
I have a nephew who is now 17 years old.
He was born in 1987 with Downs Syndrome.
He was first able to walk when he was 8.
He cannot speak.
He is profoundly retarded.
He will, in all likelihood, never "contribute to soceity" in the sense that I think you mean when you use that phrase.
I also have a cousin who is now 59 years old. When she was six months old, she contracted spiral menigitis which left her paralyzed on her right side, unable to walk, deaf, and unable to speak.
Another "non-contributor" to society.
I think I hear you saying that the parents of my nephew and the parents of my cousin should have had the opportunity to kill their own children and thereby save themselves the expense of raising such children.
And I think I also hear you saying that society should nothave to bear the costs of raising such defective children who will, after all, never ever contribute to society.
I would oppose any legal regime that gives parents the right to kill their own children.
And I would likewise oppose any legal system that attempts to put a value -- based on someone's "contribution" to society -- on a person's (even a person with profound disabilities) life.
Here's where you're making your mistake.
When a person is terminally ill, approaching death within, say some months or weeks, there is a natural withdrawal from active involvement in life. Gradually one loses appetite and the desire to eat or even drink. When those desires are gone, a person quietly and within a few days slips into a semi-conscious state (to the external vision) and dies within a short time. It is the natural way for many people to die. It is quite painless (aside from pains caused by the illness itself) but nurses and doctors who know what they're doing medicate such patients with painkillers.
This is entirely different from purposely with holding nutrition and water from someone who has an appetite and is not ready to die.
I am a hospice volunteer, have been well trained, and have been around death on several occasions. I have seen it happen several times like this, it is common. You should really read Wesley Smith's "Forced Exit". He is an expert in the field.
A lot of the townies in Ithaca are left-over hippies and left-wing professors. The student body is pretty middle of the road. There's a strong CR chapter, too. The law school faculty was left of center, but they weren't radicals and there was a sizeable contingent of profs with conservative/libertarian leanings.
My opinion is that kids should go to the best school they get into, unless they really don't like the place. If they're looking to get some type of post-grad degree, the quality of the school they went to undergrad goes a long way.
And those girls on the buses were often going for MRS degrees, right?
Probably. W&L grads either come from money or they do well in life, so I guess they're pretty good catches.
From the perspective of the guys at W&L, the girls on the buses served another purpose. They called the buses **** Trucks (the first word rhymes with truck, in case you were wondering).
"Question: Since we don't allow these people to be euthanized in America, doesn't that mean we're already subsidizing it? "
Yes, I think so. I'd be curious to see just how much health care costs are spent on people in vegetative & life-support states of health...meanwhile, healthy people in lower economic classes can't get flu shots for their kids.
"I guess you're coming at it from an angle of the growing cost of healthcare. In which case, there will be a reckoning across the board, one day. This is why if we give ground on these people today, it will be much easier in the future to go down the pecking line (CP, MS, Lupus, MD, CF) and just "weed" out sufferers in order to relieve the healthcare system in general... It's not a future we want."
It's difficult for me to find fault with your points here. I may have less of an issue with financially assistance here if I knew that healthy, able-bodied and able-minded people had the same access to these health care funds. Currently, they do not. Also, for the record, if someone can afford any amount of health care they choose or need, by all means they should be able to do so. I do NOT support the gov't making this choice for me.
Basically, you're saying that if a person is handicapped and can't care for themself, they should have been killed at or after birth.
Have you ever heard of "families"? Or non-profit organizations who help those who need help? Are you so hard hearted that you think those who can't earn their keep should be killed?
Yeah that got me too. See my post #118 for why.
"Your "choice" of a site name does not bode well for disagreement between "moral" people."
Well, "Mark in the Old South" was already taken! (I too am a 'Mark' living in the Old South)
Relax - it's both the shortened form of an old rock band album and a character name from a PC game called 'Diablo'. It's also usually a unique handle on websites (no Mark67453 for me, please!).
But it's JUST a handle.
"What are the tenets of atheism?"
An atheist's faith is that there is no Supreme Being. He believes that he doesn't believe. A faith in existentialism.
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.