Church supports baby euthanasia

The UK Times ^ | Sunday 12 November 2006 | Peter Zimonjic

[silverleaf]

Church Supports Baby Euthanasia

THE Church of England has joined one of Britain’s royal medical colleges in calling for legal euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies. Church leaders want doctors to be given the right to withhold treatment from seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances.

Their call, overriding the presumption that life should be preserved at any cost, follows that of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology, revealed in The Sunday Times last week.

The church’s position was laid out in a submission to an independent inquiry, due to publish its report this week, into the ethical concerns surrounding the treatment of severely premature babies.

In the submission Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark, states: “It may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2450134,00.html

[struggle]

>>>God's plan was for it to be born without the capability of being able to survive?

If that was the case, an abortion would not be necessary anyway...

[newberger]

Shame on the Church of England and your whitewash.

I am an EX Anglican. I intend to stay that way after this moral apostasy.

I was also the intended target of "baby euthanasia" having been born with a cerebral hemorrhage. My obstetrician wanted my parents to "let" me die but they wouldn't hear of it. I fact, my dad (rest his soul) asked whether there wasn't someone who could help. The answer was, "yes, but he'll cost you $25."

Passive euthanasia is just as much killing as active euthanasia. Your distinction just helps push the apostate churches and indeed our whole culture further down the slippery slope.

[newberger]

Shame on the Church of England and your whitewash.

I am an EX Anglican. I intend to stay that way even without this moral apostasy.

I was also the intended target of "baby euthanasia" having been born with a cerebral hemorrhage. My obstetrician wanted my parents to "let" me die but they wouldn't hear of it. I fact, my dad (rest his soul) asked whether there wasn't someone who could help. The answer was, "yes, but he'll cost you $25."

Passive euthanasia is just as much killing as active euthanasia. Your distinction just helps push the apostate churches and indeed our whole culture further down the slippery slope.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

"Shame on the Church of England and your whitewash."

"Passive euthanasia is just as much killing as active euthanasia. Your distinction just helps push the apostate churches and indeed our whole culture further down the slippery slope."

In large part, my comments address the way in which reporters misstate and twist what people say. I find the Bishops comments about "the lethal act" disturbing (the lethal act of withholding or terminating treatment.) The only thing I can determine from the reported comments The Anglican church does not support active euthanasia as the title suggests. It does state that the position taken by the college of obstetrics does. To draw attention to this fact is hardly a whitewash on my part.

I am glad that your father fought for treatment for you and that you survived. There are times when medical intervention will not produce healing and only increase pain with no change in the outcome. Sometimes all you can do is place a situation in God's hand and allow him to deal with it. When this happens with infants. All you can do is baptize the child, offer it to God, and love and comfort it for what ever remains of its life.

[itsahoot]

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

[newberger]

Thank you for that clarification.