Posted on 11/12/2006 5:21:18 PM PST by xzins
The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.
Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.
And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
The shock new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.
A spokeswoman for the UK Disabled People's Council, which represents tens of thousands of members in 140 different organisations, said: "How can the Church of England say that Christian compassion includes killing of disabled babies either through the withdrawing or withholding of treatment or by active euthanasia?
"It is not for doctors or indeed anyone else to determine whether a baby’s life is worthwhile simply on the grounds of impairment or health condition."
The church's surprise call comes just a week after the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology sparked fury by calling for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled infants.
But it has been made in a carefully thought out official Church of England paper written by Bishop Butler for a public inquiry into the ethical issues surrounding the care of long premature or desperately ill newborn babies.
The inquiry, by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, began two years ago and its findings are due to be published in London - but the church's contribution to the debate has been leaked in advance.
The Nuffield Council, an independent body which issues ethical guidelines for doctors, began the inquiry to take account of scientific advances which mean increasingly disabled and premature babies can technically be kept alive.
In practice, doing so can be controversial - with the three months premature Charlotte Wyatt a case in point.
The Portsmouth baby weighed just 1lb at birth, and had severe brain and lung damage. Doctors wanted to be allowed to leave her to die, but her parents successfully campaigned through the courts against them.
Now that the child is three, however, and could be cared for at home, her parents have separated and are considered unsuitable to look after. In future cases doctors may work to guidelines proposed by the Nuffield inquiry.
In the Church of England's contribution to the inquiry, Bishop Butler wrote: "It may in some circumstances be right to choose to withold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death."
The church stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained".
The bishop's submission continued: "There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved.
"Disproportionate treatment for the sake of prolonging life is an example of this.
The church said it would support the potentially fatal withdrawal of treatment only if all alternatives had been considered, "so that the possibly lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance."
Yet the Revd Butler's submission makes clear that there are a wide range of acceptable reasons to withdraw care from a child - with the cost of the care among the considerations.
"Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided," he wrote.
"The principle of justice inevitably means that the potential cost of treatment itself, the longer term costs of health care and education and opportunity cost to the NHS in terms of saving other lives have to be considered."
The church also urges all the parties involved in care for critically ill babies should be realistic in their expectations, demands, and claims.
The submission says: "The principle of humility asks that members of the medical profession restrain themselves from claiming greater powers to heal than they can deliver.
"It asks that parents restrain themselves from demanding the impossible.":
UK Disabled Peoples Council spokeswoman Simone Aspis said the group's members were appalled that the Church was joining doctors in calling for disabled babies to be left to die.
"It appears that the whole debate on whether disabled babies are worth keeping alive is being dominated by professionals and religious people without any consultation with disabled people," she said.
Out of babies born at just 22 weeks of pregnancy or less, 98 per cent currently die. In Holland babies born before 25 weeks are not given medial treatment.
I sure miss Cardinal O Connor.
And He would say: "Whoever receives one of these little children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me, receives not Me but Him who sent Me."
Mark 9:37
Well, since socialism is so gadawfuully inefficient some adjustments have to be made. The idea that a free enterprise society would have enough abundance to take care of those who can't take care of themselves would never occur to the these filthy european marxists.
Europe is the center of evil in the world. It has been for centuries. Hitler, Marx, Spencer, Malthus, Hegel......opium wars, world wars, etc etc ad infinitum.
Reply?
My youngest son was born with Down Syndrome; without a major heart surgery, a very rare one at the time, he'd have never seen his 3rd birthday. Today he is 23 and the greatest blessing my family has.
What a timely blessing is your story.
See #33
Is this the same church that wanted to divest from Israel?
Where have we heard that again? Oh, yeah... "safe, legal and RARE".
The world has turned into a House of Horrors :-(
I'm only making a guess at "strong proportionate reasons", but I would say that it's similar to "do not resusitate (sic)" orders, which aren't uncommon with adult patients who are terminally ill. Life may still be maintained, and it clearly depends on who is giving the "order" (patient, family); a newborn obviously cannot communicate on his/her own behalf, and the Church may simply be saying that life should not necessarily be preserved at all costs. It's not a matter of whether a life is worth living, but whether a physical life can be maintained without extreme measures. We have wonderful modern medical technology...is it always a blessing?
"...the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions."
This is the logical end point of socialized medicine. If the state is paying to keep you alive, the state gets to decide if you are worthy of life. This is why we cannot let HillaryCare take hold here.
Consider a very premature newborn who has been losing sections of his bowel to necrosis, has endured a couple operations to put it back together, he's on a respirator, then he has a bleed on his brain and pneumonia, and his bowel goes bad again - would it be so evil or unreasonable for his parents to resign themselves and hold him as he dies, or should they say cut him open again...
The Church (either R.C. or Christian in general) has NEVER said "life should be preserved at all costs." We do believe in heaven.
That said, these C.of E. bishops should never say anything that might be construed to support active euthanasia. They should be very clear to condemn it, and apparently they haven't.
Mrs VS
See #33
If the CofE were in charge in Europe in olden times, I guess they would have had Quasimodo put down and the bells at Notre Dame would never have rung.
Oh my no. Goodness gracious. It's just that there are "strong proportionate reasons" for ignoring it from time to time, especially when the NHS budget hearings are imminent.
I've heard the last six months of health care are the most expensive, averaging $200,000 -- though this could be an inaccurate #. Suffice it to say, there is a very real financial incentive to shorten that period of time, by insurance carriers and sometimes family members who would rather have the loot than the old coot. No wonder there is a push on to "allow" euthanasia for the old and infirm. Tragic and despicable are two terms for those who would kill innocent babies in the womb and the helpless elderly.
Very true observation. And it should be acknowledged that some in governmental power WANT this authority and control! Scary isn't it that they would want to have authority of over life and death?
That single issue is sufficient to put every effort into stopping liberalism.
Wouldn't it be a false dilemma to say the choice is between extraordinary measures and no measures?
Shouldn't "reasonable measures" be in that list of choices?
I would say that "some measure" should always be taken.
You and I are on the same page...thank you for some rational thoughts...
I'm speechless.
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.