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.
" Likewise, we must revere rights and compassion"
But without life, there can be neither compassion nor "rights". Further, the notion that a right to die is a right is hardly free from debate. In fact, it cannot be recognized by anyone who believes we were put here by a Creator. However for those who think we were not, then indeed one can die or whichever he so chooses at any time of his choosing. However, there are no "rights" under this system, so don't be fooled. You only have control over your person so long as someone more powerful deems it acceptable. That is the love-child of darwinism at its finest...
And, recognizing that these people have a view that is different from yours, you want to take away their rights and rule their lives for them? Hmmm... what if they feel that you stomping on their right-to-die is an affront to God-given ("endowed by our Creator") rights?
Most people I know in the right-to-die community get upset when euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are mixed up. You're also twisting the words of the Davidson ethicist--someone I think would have been on your side. I'm kinda confoosed about your stance.
Have you read Wesley Smith's "Forced Exit"? It is an excellent book about assisted suicide.
It turns out the the overriding reason people want assisted suicide (I don't know if "regular do it yourself" suicide is similar or not...) is because they want to maintain control over their lives. It's the issue of control, not pain, that causes most to want doctor assisted suicide. That is quite an eye opener.
From my study (and experience of others' deaths that were not hastened), the very end of life offers incredible opportunties for spiritual growth. It can also offer opportunities for reconciliation, forgiveness, unconditional love, and understanding ones' worth above and beyond externals such as strength, beauty, smarts, accomplishments, status, and so on.
If anyone understands even slightly that our identity is eternal soul or spirit which lives beyond the death of the body, artificially hastening death is not a good idea.
And this is just personal, aside from the slippery slope stuff.
"And, recognizing that these people have a view that is different from yours, you want to take away their rights and rule their lives for them? Hmmm... what if they feel that you stomping on their right-to-die is an affront to God-given ("endowed by our Creator") rights?"
And the problem with this line of thought is the pitfall of moral relativism. I mean, what if the terrorists believe they are freedom fighters?...
How am I twisting anyone's words? Maybe the writer of the article mixed and matched the words "euthanasia" and "doctor assisted suicide", I consider them two separate although related practices.
Right now, this very minute, people can commit suicide. There are guns, ropes, cars, exhaust pipes, various lethal combinations of chemicals and drugs either over the counter or easily obtainable by prescription. Death afficiandos even have books out about how to do-it-yourself.
There are several reasons why the "right to die" movement wants to involve doctors. I can think of a few - to legitimize suicide, which up until now has been considered either a sin or a failure. Second, to avoid responsibility. Doctors are authority figures, and if "Doctor" gave me the pills, it takes away from my own burden of responsibility.
But the most insidious is the social agenda such death dealers ascribe to. Read the stuff they write, and the other causes they espouse. Doctor assisted suicide is the first act, euthanasia is the second.
What?!?
Sez who?
There's nothing inherently "holy" in suffering.
There you go with your relativistic thinking. The very thing which eliminates the very notion of rights of any sort. You are on a dangerous slope my friend. Anytime a society thinks it is a law unto itself with no "controlling legal authority" (remember that one?) it is simply a matter of time before the popular morality deems some unspeakable horror, as history is our guide. They did teach you history, didn't they? ;)
IslamoCommunists
Human Secularism (godless) in bed with a satanic death cult, serving the anti-Christ...
Jeremiah is right. In every country where one has been introduced, the other has soon followed not extremely long thereafter.
We shouldn't be in denial of the very facts of history. Some folks may want a little utopian death camp where we can all feel the love via IV, but unfortunately as much as we want them to, birds cannot breathe water and pigs cannot fly.
What the deathers are calling for is reckless and ignorant of the most hideous examples of human catastrophes lining both sides of the road through the 20th century.
I believe that is a broad explanation for many human actions, including "regular do it yourself" suicides.
And that's a very relevant point. It's a shame that something as important as our deaths is left to chance for so many people. Only capital criminals know how they will go (and some even have some control over it) while we don't honor good honest citizens similarly. Wouldn't it be better if we could be more "grown-up" about death, facing it directly and not insisting on having it sneak up on us unexpectedly?
If anyone understands even slightly that our identity is eternal soul or spirit which lives beyond the death of the body, artificially hastening death is not a good idea.
Okay, so who defines "artificially hastening"?
Were the disposal of human life so much reserved as the peculiar province of the Almighty, that it were an encroachment on his right, for men to dispose of their own lives; it would be equally criminal to act for the preservation of life as for its destruction. If I turn aside a stone which is falling upon my head, I disturb the course of nature, and I invade the peculiar province of the Almighty, by lengthening out my life beyond the period which by the general laws of matter and motion he had assigned it.-- David Hume, Essays on Suicide and the Immortality of the Soul, Essay II, 1783(?)
I recognize and respect your personal insights gained from your experiences. However, please recognize that there are others who have their own experiences with death and have their own preferences. Our country is founded on non-interference with others' preferences,* not a forced conformity.
Obviously, I am not directly addressing the question of those who cannot express preferences (the subject of the article).
*unless they interfere with others
"It's a shame that something as important as our deaths is left to chance for so many people"
That by far is one of the most chilling statements I've seen posted here. Simply sociopathic, my friend.
You failed to explain how a belief in a Creator negates any right to die.
Wrong. You failed to explain how the absense of a Creator allows for the existence of any rights whatsoever.
Some of us realize that managing our lives is compatible with belief in a Creator, and that a relationship with God doesn't make one helplessly passive, able to guess every Divine intention, or simply along for the ride without any rudder.
We are not animals. We change the environment that God put here. We fight diseases that we catch (that God put here). These aren't sins, and preparing for death (and in some cases even choosing our moment or method of dying) doesn't mean a person has a death wish...but can be a choice made because of a situation a person finds himself in.
I didn't argue against that...that wasn't the part I quoted. If I misunderstood you, then I'm sorry...I thought you were claiming that there's no way a Creator and a right-to-die can co-exist.
Wow, two posts. I'm honored.
Both are true. In the social form, the right to die as defined as a human euthanization is no right and in fact history points out it is a dangerous philosophical breakdown.
Hurling insults and claiming those who disagree with you are stupid or somehow not as aristoi because they happen to know their history seems to reveal an argument which relies far too much on pathos to be above the suspicion of the most casual bystander.
Please re-read the article and tell me where they are mixing and matching the terms. For example, the Oregon law is specifically physician-assisted suicide, not euthanasia, and that's how it is described. I think they are using the terms properly.
Right now, this very minute, people can commit suicide. There are guns, ropes, cars, exhaust pipes, various lethal combinations of chemicals and drugs either over the counter or easily obtainable by prescription. Death afficiandos even have books out about how to do-it-yourself.
Many people desiring deliverance wait too long and are unable to do it themselves. Also, if you research suicide, you'll find that methods are "personal" and not interchangeable. For example, I know someone who had a .357 Magnum, but instead she drank cyanide--much more painful, but she couldn't do the gun...and that's common for women. Men, on the other hand, are more likely to choose a gun. But that's distressing for families. It seems, though, that many people would prefer a simple, effective, and more comfortable method if it were available. Despite the efforts of the Hemlock Society and others to publish methods that can be used by people who aren't fully able-bodied, many people who want to end their suffering require assistance.
Why is it that you have such hatred for people who have compassion for those who want to die or are in severe pain? Why did you immediately jump to two unrelated "reasons" for wanting physicians involved, ignoring the fact that effective agents like secobarbital and phenobarbital are available by prescription only? I'm asking you seriously...was it a prejudice against such people, or did you attempt to smear them, or did you honestly not think of it? I think that even the latter reason would simply indicate that you're not really understanding the perspective from which many "death dealers" operate. They are not monsters, and if you can't see that they are operating from a perspective of compassion, too, then you're misunderstanding the disagreement.
I hope I don't come across as hostile in this, as I don't mean to... but I admit that some of your rhetoric rubbed me the wrong way. Even if euthanasia is step two, that doesn't mean that these people are aiming for murder as "step three"...
Re: "You failed to explain how a belief in a Creator negates any right to die."
My own preference is that people not steal - but should that be forced on others? We have laws against drugs, prostitution, and other self-destructive lifestyles to keep people from hurting themselves. This is the same restriction we have on the "right to die."
We do not have infinte knowledge to know if that is the best decision - not just for us but for everyone around us. There are many people affected by our decisions. How will we know how it will affect them in the long-term?
Gondring - when you can create Life yourself - then - you will also have the authority and wisdom to make any "right to die decision!"
**There are some things that are not good for people - one of them is making "right to die decisions." Only God has the foresight to see what will happen to us - and He knows what is best for us. That is why the decision should be left to Him.
How do I know? I've been there – under duress and really sick.
That is interference with another, and not relevant to the discussion of a person's own rights. As for the other prohibitions (against "self-destructive lifestyles"), we go back to the point about how far conservatism has gone from being the view of fighting for individual rights and has become the group pushing for a "Big Nanny" to take care of all the poor little people who can't run their own lives. The only question is whether it's the Republican Nanny or Democrat Nanny that's going to meet your needs best. :-(
Gondring - when you can create Life yourself - then - you will also have the authority and wisdom to make any "right to die decision!"
Is that a promise? ;-)
Seriously, I do hope you stay inside and never take any chances, since you have no right to risk that life you've been given. You have no authority or wisdom to make any decision that puts that life at risk, I'm sure you agree. And if something bad happens in your sanctuary, like a tornado that He sent, I do hope you won't fight against His will and try to stop what He plans will kill you--if the wall collapses, don't think you have the authority and wisdom to get out of the way!
Obviously, this is not all that is encompassed by the article, which refers to euthanasia of those who cannot communicate intent, not right-to-die of those who can express 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.