Posted on 11/30/2004 9:13:52 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
A HOSPITAL in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, before revealing it had already begun carrying out the procedures.
The announcement last month by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalise euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives.
Euthanasia opponents view the prospect with horror while advocates call it a natural evolution.
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.
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 organisations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to Groningen's announcement, and US euthanasia opponents contend 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.
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 legalised euthanasia. In France, lawmakers today unanimously approved a proposed law to empower the terminally ill to refuse life-extending treatments.
The Senate is expected to examine it next year.
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 euthanise 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 Centre in the United States.
More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Prof Stell said.
Even more of Maggie the Nazi here: http://www.pro-life.net/sanger/woman_in.htm
"Woman and the New Race" by Margaret Sanger
This is the entire book, read at your leisure.
Troll DU, they are actually making excuses for these people. Sad..
FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List
Why don't they just expose the unwanted babies on the mountainside and save themselves some bother? It worked for the ancient Greeks, after all.
Sigh ... seriously, this is heinous. Not least is the fact that they are obviously presenting this so-called "choice" to new parents who are in shock from getting the news that the baby they hoped would be perfect is, instead, either terminal or dreadfully damaged. And they expect them to make a good decision? To realize that there are organizations who will help them carry the burden of a damaged child? It's awful to put the grieving parents in that position. You know they will carry the guilt of the decision until the day they die.
The most horrific aspect to this is that an individual (Doctor) could actually, without lifelong mental discomfort, perform such a deed on a human as innocent as a newborn.
By stating that you would wish to be allowed to die peacefully, you are implying suicide by inaction. I would never stand in your way, although if you were my friend, I might ask that you consider your passive "action" carefully.
By comparing this situation to a sick pet, however, you are inferring that we are no more than animals, "kept" by each other. I strongly disagree. I do not want my relatives, friends, the state or some Kevorkianesque "doctor" making those choices for me, and I don't believe I have the right to make them for anyone else.
Perhaps you will get to experience a loved one dying of pancreatic cancer. This is the kind that they use morphine drips to treat the pain, there is NO CURE and it is garranteed lethal; but you will get to enjoy watchign them suffer first. The patient's life is unending pain and suffering, with merciful lapses into unconsciousness.
Over time, the body develops a twist, as the muscles cramp from unending convulsions. Morphine, which is the strongest pain-blocker known is administered round the clock. Eventually the body adjusts to the morphine, and the pain becomes overwhelming again. So, the morphine doseage is increased.
After a month or so, the patient is at near lethal doses of morphine, so they lay there gasping for air; with the pain becoming greater hour by hour. Eventually, they will die; but you will have at least a month of smugly looking on. You can ride your mightly moral high ground, and visit for a few minutes every week or so; just so you could say you were there. I'm sure you will think yourself quite the Samaritan.
I'm sure your blovating will be a welcome respite, where your sadism in watching a helpless person experience pain you can never imagine can make you feel oh-so-superior.
Is there anything sicker and more depraved than a sadist who delights in another's pain? I take no small part of satisfaction in knowing that I am exactly opposite you in this matter.
Before you smugly label someone a Nazi; perhaps you should consider that others have experienced the 'mercy' from uninformed and arrogant people like yourself.
That is exactly part of the dirty little secret: that each choice has consequences.
In a reasonable society when consequences become too heinous, laws are recognized which discourage such "choices". Unfortunately reasonable societies come and go with the tide unless their value system is tied to a transcendant Law.
When you visit those consequences, somehow that transcendant Law doesn't seem so cruel after all. In fact, it seems rather kind.
It is a scary thing when men who cannot be everywhere and know everything or have all power attempt to play God by causing death. They should think about rechecking their job descriptions.
This is part of why having a will set forth is so important. If you are in a car accident, and are pronounded brain dead by 3 separate MD's, the chances are exceedinly high that you will not be coming back around. Is it right for machines to keep your lungs breathing and your heart beating for years to come? Consider the financial impact that will have to your surviving family.
We do live in an age where medical science can 'cheat' death; now we are faced with the question of "should we". Not that long ago, when a person was terminal, the medial community would do what they could to allow nature to progress, while keeping the patient as comfortable as medical science could allow.
Now, we have taken the stance that *IF* medical science can stave off death; it should. This is not necessarily always a good thing.
Death is inevitable, we all will die. Given the choice of going peacefully and painlessly, even if by my own hand; or living my remaining time in unending pain, I will choose the painless route every time.
This is not true. I work in healthcare and have seen countless people die, most of them under "snow". I have never seen someone die in pain.
And the 'snow' is the very definition of euthansia; thank you, you made my point.
As far as a living will goes, I've had one for years. That is a far cry from making decisions for others.
I posted this link earlier, but in case you missed it, I would ask that you read it, not to change your opinion, but to see its possible consequences.
http://www.haciendapub.com/article29.html
Brain damage and extreme deformities are not usually painful but they are a cost burden and that's why they will be murdered. Liberal constantly hide behind emotional cloaks to hid their true agenda. My old neighbor's daughter had spina bifida and started out on life support. She's 15 now. I'm glad she wasn't snuffed out.
Romans left deformed children on the hillsides to die. I don't want to go back to that.
Notable that Marines who kill armed combatants are vilified, while those who take the lives of innocent children are lionized as "humanitarians".
"And the 'snow' is the very definition of euthansia; thank you, you made my point."
Mr Hodar, I hate to break this to you, but you are sadly mistaken. The definition argued here is the willful ending of a patient's life. What you unfortunately missed was the purpose of the medication's administration. That is the line we need not cross, and to make such a shallow attempt at obfuscating it is disingenuous at best.
The euthanasia/asssisted suicide movement is about elimination of the less-than-perfect, not about helping suffering people to die. It is a movement toward a utilitarian society, where those who are disabled are considered disposable and expensive. It is about decreasing the sanctity of life.
You're buying into their propaganda.
Actually I countered your point. There are not people dying in tremendous pain.
I read your article, and yes; there is a distinct possibility (I won't say 'probability') that it will be abused.
But, like anything else, there are two sides to things. Is it better to keep a baby born extremely premature alive via medical technology; where it's life will forever be connected to life support machines (due to undeveloped cranial capacity to breathe); or allow nature to take it's course. Either way, the baby will die; if not from complications due to it's entrance into the world, then by infections a few months later.
If a person wishes to die; forcing them to remain alive despite pain, suffering and failing organs does nothing more than deplete medical equipment that could be used to literally 'SAVE' a life that needs that equipment NOW. I'm certain you will find a MD who will tell you of an experience where a life could have been saved, if only a vital hospital resource were immediately available. Unfortuantely, that resource was in use keeping a brain-dead patient's body alive.
So, how do we decide when to intercede with medical equipment, capable of protracting life almost indefinitely? Surely, if the patient will recover it seems humane to provide the life support. But if the patient is doomed, then how much do we provide; and when do we cease?
Does a poor family have the right to keep their brain-dead family member breathing (dialysis, cardio, resp. the whole she-bang) for years; while other patients coming into the hospital die for want of equipment? Who pays for the years of life support? At what point do we simply say "I'm sorry for your loss"?
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.