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.
That's just sad and sick. What kind of culture are we turning into? When I went to college, 20 years ago, chastity wasn't exactly universal, but promiscuity was still very much looked down upon. Now, some research I've been doing about my alma mater tells me that not only is it widespread, it's being actively promoted by the university administration because it "allows kids to explore their sexuality".
Sick. Gross. Disgusting. My kids, and my money, will go elsewhere.
we have taken up this specialist's valuable time when there are already insufficient obstetrical professionals around, leading to overworked OB/GYNs who make mistakes and cost lives of babies. Yet a 1:1000 or worse chance was taken, despite this, and who paid for it?
Sorry, but a perinatologist doesn't deliver babies daily - they are specialists trained to take only the most severe of cases, so I don't know how that factors into your equation.
but some people would say you have an obligation not to waste a doctor's time when there are others in need.
First of all, let's consider the ROLE of a perinatologist: "Perhaps the most significant contribution of the perinatologist is as a communicator. When given unsettling news about their baby, parents need information from a knowledgeable and caring doctor who can provide reassurance. The perinatologist can act as a sounding board for parental concerns, provide options for care, and act as a liaison between the referring doctor and the other members of the healthcare team who become involved after birth. Careful collaboration among perinatologists, neonatologists, and pediatric surgeons, or pediatric cardiologists, improves the prospects of a healthy outcome for an infant with special healthcare needs. As advocates for both baby and mother, perinatologists are in a unique position to maximize perinatal health outcomes. Source:http://www.eparent.com/healthcare/perinatal.htm
Second of all, and most important, this was a case of a PPROM (Preterm Premature Rupture Of the Membranes) that occurs in maybe 2% of pregnancies in the US. So valuable insight into this condition could be gained, whereby assisting future cases seen by said perinatologist. And this information is vital to determining what may have caused it in this pregnancy, whether it is predetermined to occur in subsequent pregnancies, and whether, in fact, there was nothing more that could be done to bring this pregnancy to a successful outcome.
Third of all, if you were diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, would you expect your doctor to refuse to see you or refer you to any other doctor because you were terminal, and thus "you have an obligation not to waste a doctor's time when there are others in need."
And finally,
Is that a cruel way to look at it?
In short, yes, and rather poorly thought out, as well.
Agreed.
I just had a baby girl, and I can tell you, I hope this changes before she gets to high school (where it all begins). I am thinking Christian/Catholic/Private all the way, because at least they pray and teach some form of modesty (uniforms) and morality.
The notion that blastocysts are not living human beings, or "people", as you put it, is controverted by all empirical and ontological evidence. The easiest way to demonstrate this fact is simply to ask you when you, personally, began to exist, and what was the proximate cause of your existence? If you answer, and answer truthfully, and if you use the personal pronoun "I" in your answer to indicate your personal identity, then your position is self-refuting.
The simple truth is that your existence has been an unbroken continuum from the moment that you began to exist. If your life had been suspended or interfered with in some fatal way obviously you wouldn't be discussing the issue.
Now the fact that you view other human beings in the blastocyst and other stages of development (not yourself, of course, when you were those ages) as somehow not equal in worth and dignity to other human beings or to yourself is precisely the same type of mentality as those doctors I quoted above, albeit in a slightly different form.
While every analogy breaks down at some point, there are still times when this particular analogy is entirely appropriate:
"It had nothing to do with humanity — it was a mass. I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass." (Franz Stangl, former commandant of Treblinka, 1971)
Cordially,
"Who will grow the tulips?"
...good point...given that the last of tulips will, apparently, be planted over the grave of Holland's national culture.
If we all listened to doctor's there would be a lot of people giving up on themselves and there health and care. These poor babies that were killed cause of simple disfigurment just breaks my heart. For pete's sake, people like Alan Colmes would be dead today if weren't given life because of physical disfigurments. Sooner or later we will be deciding we will kill anyone a doctor says won't make it in life. There will be a whole lot of killing going on!
This thread Godwin'd in 21, but I'll bite.
In your list, you forgot "universal opportunity for education"--another Nazi party platform plank.
The Nazis also promoted the idea that foreigners were considered "guests" in the country, and not given the full access that citizens enjoyed. Some people think we should follow that ourselves...but should we reject it because it was a goal of the Nazis?
In other words, the Nazi argument doesn't prove anything, and just because the Left exploits compassion doesn't mean we should abandon it.
But do you really want the elderly to feel guilty for staying alive? That's what will happen.
In case you missed the sarcasm in my earlier satirical comment about passing a law preventing old people from spending money, I'll elaborate by pointing out that the guilt is already there. The fact that people "spend their children's inheritance" has been around for millenia, regardless of laws on euthanasia. The resulting guilt from that has nothing to do with the law...it's a fact of humanity and a strawman in the debate on euthanasia.
...a boyfriend will sometimes kick his girlfriend in the stomach if she doesn't choose abortion. Some parents will drag her to the abortion clinic.
As sick as it is, legalizing abortion didn't cause these crimes.
Euthanasia will have even worse results, because the victim will be able to speak, will break down, and say, "Kill me for the sake of the family."
Gee, based on that argument, we should eliminate all freedoms, since they can be used as intimidation or can result in someone "breaking down" and sinning.
Wow, never before have I had such a chilly feeling that many conservatives feel people need a nanny state to care for them, and that they can't be trusted with their own lives. That's sad, and scary, IMHO!
Absolutely.
Mr. K was wrong in his initial assessment (or inference) that the article was referring to the witholding of care for essentially "terminally ill" infants.
Upon further review and analysis of the "Groningen protocol", I find it to be a poisonous outgrowth of the callous disregard for human life that has been building strength in the last several decades. It is another slide down the slippery slope to a place where we imagine that we can somehow quantify the quality of someone else's life.
Poisonous, immoral, and unethical in the extreme. I stand against this hideous evil.
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!
Gondring - I have been drastically sick - I almost died twice. I know that if I or my loved ones had at the time I was so sick decided to end my life through assisted suicide - I would not be here today. I did not have that option - and I can now see that eventually I did get well - although my situation did not give any of my loved ones much hope. All I know is that I was in great pain and going downhill - but fortunately - time, prayer, and healing by the One you said I should not "try to stop what He plans will kill you" - I am almost totally restored. That is my point - we don't have the foresight to see what will happen in the future. Had I taken the suicide route - I would not have the opportunity to enjoy life today. I know my loved ones did not believe I would survive. And that is my point - no one does!
There is no difference between starving someone to death or "administering a sedative". Both are murder.
How evilly clever of them to play semantics so as to lull the masses: "birth defects" are within the definition of "terminally ill"?
No problem, and thanks for your reply. Actually, this one is late because the first version of this response that I typed up yesterday got lost when I got a BSOD. I'll try to cover what I did in the first attempt, just more concisely. :-) ...perinatologist doesn't deliver babies daily - they are specialists...
You're right...I was making a shorthand leap from the generic "obstetrical professionals" to OB/GYNs. I recognize the difference, but my point was more general--that there are limited healthcare resources.
...ROLE of a perinatologist... When given unsettling news about their baby, parents need information from a knowledgeable and caring doctor who can provide reassurance.
I'm not so sure that refers to "reassuring the parents that the primary doctor can properly triage" in the case of no hope. But see point #3 below...
So valuable insight into this condition could be gained, whereby assisting future cases seen by said perinatologist.
Many on this board would consider that line of argument to be horrific.
...doctor to refuse to see you or refer you to any other doctor...
Unless I misunderstood, that's not what was going on here. But it does make the point that perhaps we should allow for second opinions in all cases, just to confirm the primary doctor's opinion.
Still, there are many doctors who pass off bad news to specialists to give (and there are many specialists who just don't tell patients bad news), and my guess was that the specialist in the example you gave was frustrated that the situation was so obvious that she had nothing more to add...and felt the primary doctor should have known that (which he did, but the parents asked for referral, right?)
Note also, though, that in the terminal brain cancer situation, there are often options to change the course and the quality of life of the patient...whereas with this case, the implication was that there was no option that would lead to a different outcome (physically--the spiritual outcome would be different). I think that's important to note.
>>Is that a cruel way to look at it?
>In short, yes, and rather poorly thought out, as well.
Note that I didn't say the view is my own. Frankly, I'm formulating an opinion. I was just pointing out objections to the view, and a side to it that was possibly not considered by you or the parents. I doubt the perinatologist is bloodthirsty and without compassion. It's just that we have limited resources, and research keeps providing more and more options. Unless we want to stop improving our healthcare methods, we will have to restrain ourselves from trying every last method in every case,* and I was wondering if this was such an example--and how we decide.
You haven't convinced me that it's a "cruel" way to look at things, though it does seem "dispassionate." Perhaps, though, the specifics of the case you mentioned are what give the difference in view.
Thanks again for your reply. Though the thread has broadened out beyond the specific topic of the article, I'm glad for that, as it's interesting to see how they fit in with my belief in an absolute right to die.
I liken your questions to what anti-hunters ask me. Few of them have grown up in the country, and even fewer have seen what happens in those areas that don't allow hunting. On the other hand, I've seen whitetail deer starving, half-ripped apart or badly weakened.
Perhaps if I hadn't known things, I couldn't have lived with myself after shooting that deer last week. But I did know that, and I also realize that life is decisions. Not assisting a suicide doesn't make everything better--it just means the person has no option to choose what they want for their life.
From being close to the right-to-die movement, I've known people who have chosen to take their life under their own terms, rather than spend their last days in decline and resentment. I think that actually knowing such people, and realizing the issues that arise in such cases, would make many people support assisted-suicide initiatives.
Perhaps that's why many people who are trying to take away peoples' right of self-determination often try to portray "assisters" as monsters, demonizing them rather than recognizing that these people are often torn up inside, and only their compassion for the patient is what allows them to do the right thing. Our selfish motivations make us want to keep a person alive for our own needs, while it's the patients who have to deal with the downsides: pain, discomfort, and lack of control over their life paths.
I imagine that if I were ever in a situation of actively assisting a suicide, I would try to broaden my perspective beyond my own desires--but that doesn't mean it would be easy.
But then again, isn't that what loving someone is all about -- wanting what's best for them, fulfilling their desires, not just being greedy?
Callous disregard for rights is just as heinous. I think that one of the key points is what the deciding factors would be under this protocol.
If a person left a living will that is not 100% legally effective but is clear in intent, shouldn't a doctor be allowed to act upon it to the extent it is clear? Must we all hire a lawyer to go over our every document?
Callous disregard for suffering is also heinous.
If an infant is in distress, obvious pain, and nothing can be done to save the child...is it wrong to cut short its life to eliminate the pain?
Note that I'm not even saying infanticide...I'm talking about giving it pain killers that might shorten its already short life. Is that wrong?
More points to ponder.
Anita1, I'm so glad you recovered from your illnesses! I don't mean to minimize the wonder of such happenings, or to belittle your experiences.
I just have to say, though, that I'm a conservative and as such don't believe that the government should get involved in outlawing things just because people might make a mistake with them. For example, I once said things in favor of gun control, but that doesn't mean I want our freedom of speech taken away.
And I don't have anything against you trying to convince people not to take their own life, but what I DO protest would be the removal of that right (and the ability to obtain assistance) from those who don't agree.
Many on this board would consider that line of argument to be horrific.
Sorry?
In case I wasn't clear, let me clarify: There are apparently so few cases of a PPROM pregnancy continuing on to 28 weeks that any information about the hows and whys of said condition are invaluable to perinatologists. Remembering, of course, that at the time of the visit, although there was a 99.9% chance of a stillborn, doctors didn't (and to this day do not)know enough about it, because THIS CONDITION IS RARE! And, rare as it is, there have been babies born alive, albeit with serious medical conditions.
So, how is that line of reasoning horrific?
Bottom line, suicide is not illegal. Or easy to carry out. And I believe it should stay that way.
You want to "assist" in a suicide, you do it at your own risk. I don't see any reason to change the laws - it is just too difficult after the fact to determine if that is truly what the deceased wanted.
You're a monster.
No, you are.
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.