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.
You do know what Diablo means? doncha?
You said:
"I have no problem with artificially extending the life of someone who isn't in pain and/or wants to live, but to force life on someone in agonizing pain and no prospect of ever living with dignity seems crueler and more sadistic than helping that person on to the next world."
There are two completely separate issues - one is to keep someone alive artifially with machinery - heart machine, lung machine, etc. The other is to kill the person with drugs, machinery, or starvation.
Why are you equating the two? If someone is terminally ill, nature will take its course soon enough. Why are people so eager to kill someone if he is going to die anyway?
BTW, when talking about extreme pain, I personally have had times under extreme pain. I learned valuable life lessons at such times, and am grateful that no one thought to put me "out of my misery".
My view is the opposite... go for an inexpensive state school, and make the most of your education on your own, then go to a "name school" for graduate studies.
"You do know what Diablo means? doncha?"
Yep. A well-designed PC game involving hours of pixelated violence and mayhem. Loads of fun!
I don't believe in the other definition and find it has been a convenient excuse for millions of people to do horrible, awful things to their fellow man, even though they knew all along what they were doing. "The devil made me do it" is the lamest, sorriest excuse of all time.
"There are two completely separate issues - one is to keep someone alive artifially with machinery - heart machine, lung machine, etc. The other is to kill the person with drugs, machinery, or starvation."
Right. As for pain, it would not take much research to create more powerful pain killers.
"Soon enough" for whom?!? Not for everyone. Spend some time with people who are terminally ill, and you'll find they are not clones. They are individuals, each with their own needs and desires and tolerances and views.
BTW, when talking about extreme pain, I personally have had times under extreme pain. I learned valuable life lessons at such times, and am grateful that no one thought to put me "out of my misery".
That's fine for you, and it's easy to say after the pain is gone, but would you deny relief to someone who wants it? What about someone who will never recover from it?
I know someone who ended her life when she'd finally recovered enough to get out of the hospital and take matters into her own hands. Unfortunately, she had to choose a very painful method, since she was stopped the first time. Does her experience merit any less consideration than yours?
There are many different aspects, as you point out, whether active or passive deliverance, or terminally ill or not, and whether the patient can give consent at that moment or not. I consider it an evil imprisonment, though, to force someone to live against his will, and we should have more civilized means available than dehydration, should a person wish it.
"Thou shalt not kill."
I've heard people talk about Diablo. Never played it, myself. But I did enjoy, oh no! ... D&D. I don't particularly like the pagan god part of D&D, and the complete lack of my Savior, but the general concept can be pretty fun, so I made my own version. FReegards....
"That's fine for you, and it's easy to say after the pain is gone, but would you deny relief to someone who wants it? What about someone who will never recover from it?"
Pain killers. Sedation. Why kill? To save money?
But they are not. My parents were told I would be mentally retarded and/or be on life support. The doctors WERE WRONG. I am glad your children are healthy. I live with the chance that my children (when I have some) will have the same birth defects I do. My husband and I have decided we will give up EVERYTHING so they live as long and as comfortably as possible. There are also charities that help families in these situations.
I do not believe in a nanny state, I believe that private charities should help these families, and I support them.
Bet your hubby/kids are glad too. :) There are reasons I don't trust doctors. I'm afraid that we are already at that point where life means nothing unless you are a 'perfect baby'. Ironically, my father was one of Hitler's perfect babies but was later sent to a concentration camp briefly.
That's a good point. Expense is an issue these days. If you live somewhere with a good state school system (such as MI, VA or CA) it's tough to justify spending a ton of money for private schools, unless you can get in somewhere really good, like Harvard, Yale, MIT etc.
Thanks for response.
I don't have all the answers, just the questions! But seriously, I enjoyed your post.
"My husband and I have decided we will give up EVERYTHING so they live as long and as comfortably as possible. There are also charities that help families in these situations. "
I've been surprised that you are the first (and only, to my knowledge) person to mention 'charities' as a source of aid.
"I do not believe in a nanny state, I believe that private charities should help these families, and I support them."
Thanks for sharing your opinion and experiences, of which your experience is far more 'real' than anyone else's in this thread, in relation to the topic.
Yes, downcast, discouraged, but trying to remember: "Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say rejoice."
More sickness coming from the so-called enlightened EU.
Miracles and challenges to our lives come in all forms of puzzles.
A tiny baby with "no free will" and no brain will die on its own certain time. Another tiny baby with not such dire "defects" might live months or years and provide Doctors, nurses and parents with new insight into the defects, illnesses and the endless love of human kind...I know this can happen.
One such premature baby lived 70 days and died after a specific procedure. During the post-mortem review of the protocol by the hospital, they determined their actions were not good enough and ended their procedures, upgraded them and wound up saving other premies later one...all because one baby lived 70 days...
The Hollandaise are devoid of any humanity if they continue this practice against the "no will community"...
G
They disgust me
In countries with fully nationalized, no-alternatives health care, kids with autism and other handicapped-challenged diseases are being denied treatment (a Canadian court in one of the western provinces just denied autism treatment in the past week or so).
Obviously, parents who learn that their kids have these conditions in the womb or shortly after birth have a powerful incentive to abort or euthanize in Canada.
Massive denial of treatment and ultimately euthanasia is an inevitable result of a fully nationalized health care system. A country with such a system inevitably loses the moral will to protect life.
GREAT point. I will surely remember it.
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.