Posted on 11/14/2006 4:13:10 AM PST by Phil Magnan
BUDAPEST, HUNGARY- Biblical Family Advocates is condemning the declaration that children born with severe disabilities should be left to die. This indeed should send chills down the spines of all disabled people, as well as those compassionate care givers who truly want to extend loving medical care to those in need, especially when these little ones have just entered our world. So says Phil Magnan, director for Biblical Family Advocates, a Christian pro family organization.
The statements by Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark are sure to cause outrage among the faithful in the Church of England as well. Bishop Butler is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416003&in_page_id=1770
The faithful will have to consider whether it is more prudent to pay attention to one of their Bishops or to consider the compassionate and self sacrificing vision of the Holy Scriptures.
Magnan went on to say,So if we are to believe that it is compassionate to kill or allow to die those in need, can we throw out Jesus admonition about the Good Samaritan? It is stunning to me that the Church of England is losing its sense of right and wrong, based on economics. Using that reasoning, we could take the lives of all kinds of people we do not wish to financially burden ourselves with, like the mentally disabled, the homeless and those in comas. But why stop there? Will this end up being a slippery slope to justify the killing of the elderly or the infirmed? This is madness.
Magnan continued, How many stories do we have to hear about how disabled people have overcome incredible odds when the doctors themselves had lost hope? This policy is a commentary on how our society views those with disabilities and our sense of compassion. When the bottom line determines who lives or dies, society had better reconsider its priorities in health care. Once a child is killed for these reasons, we have opened a huge door for others to be at risk. Is it not better to err on the side of life rather than death, as we can do better than killing those in need.
Debate and commentary are sure to be made regarding these extremely troubling statements by the Church of England. It is the hope of Biblical Family Advocates that the policy set forth by Bishop Butler will be challenged in the light of compassion and the Holy Scriptures that are meant to promote a more just and caring society for those who desperately need our help.
Another after death victory for Adolph Hitler. One of his programs being adopted by the descendants of those who were appalled by him and his ideas and fought him because of it.
Ping.
Peter Singer is smiling.
Another inflammatory headline--I don't know who is writing these.
I think that even many pro-life readers do not consider the "withholding or withdrawal" of treatment the act of "killing". This is NOT euthanasia, as I read it.
The only thing that the Episcopal church (whose policies I disagree with most of the time) is saying is that there are situations where artificial preservation of life is inappropriate. It's no different than a DNR order on grandma.
Yep. That's pretty much what the Romans said about unwanted children when they exposed them. Great analogy.
I'll reserve comment on this until Helen Keller and/or Fanny Crosby weighs in...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The same logic will allow me to take granny to the woods to die because she's wheelchair bound, can't eat by herself and is incontinent and inconvenient.
Its not euthanasia. Its like a dnr order.
Difference here is that "medical professionals" are making the call, not the families. "Medical professionals" who are not above watching the bottom line, playing God.
So, if the gates of hell are seen to be prevailing against it, we can conclude that it is not the Church.
Q.E.D.
well maybe not but it's something to be on the watch for.
I won't take granny to the woods, but I also won't jam a feeding tube in her 99 year old body. Sometimes we need to let God instead of medicine decide the future. In the case of both Granny and the poor baby, keep them warm, hold them close, and let nature take its course.
As a logical extension of this reasoning, Rush and MJ Fox should be scheduled for execution. Their "disabilities" certainly cannot be tolerated.
This is just the foot in the door. As with abortion in this country it was supposed to be introduced for medical reasons to protect the health of the mother in exceptional circumstances. In reality it was to set a precedent, so if it's ok in some circumstances to kill your baby all you have to do is expand the definition and you have abortion on demand for any spurious reason.
Now what this church of satan wants is to set precedent for killing children after birth. Hence opening the door to killing on demand after birth.
Must disagree. We sin by act and by omission. Witholding lifesaving treatment from a newborn is evil.
As an aside: don't forget that technology is begin to greatly improve the quality of life of disabled infants. Developing ways for the blind to see and the deaf to hear -- while these methodologies are only experimental now -- I expect blindness to go the way of Polio in the next 20-30 years.
With respect to severly mentally disabled individuals there is hope even for them -- while beyond our capabilities today there is hope that in the next 50 years we may be able to find ways to restore mental ability.
There is simply no excuse in this day in age for letting any infant die.
The Church of England long ago decided that Christianity would be much easier if God were removed from it.
The C of E is like a swimming team that's terrified of the water.
Its sad. My father (along with most of the congregation) completely abandoned the Episcopal Church (the Church of England here in the US) and changed to an African Anglican Church - the Africans (esp. Ugandans) are better practitioners of Christianity than the Authorities of the Church of England.
I agree.
But I disagree that it is a decision to be made by "medical professionals" and the implied force of that decision on the family.
Except that Grandma got authorize the DNR for herself - the hospital is deciding for the child.
I was raised an Epicopalian back when it was a religion. Built a wing on my home church. Now I won't even go into that paganistic, hedonistic, house of sin.
My mother had five children, and we were all born premature. I was born two months premature and weighed 3 lbs. My brother was a few weeks premature and weighed 2 lbs. 11 oz. I was born in 1970. He was born in 1960.
I was VERY ill and my prognosis was not very good. My lungs had not completed being formed. I needed life-sustaining oxygen for weeks. Both the pediatrician and the lung specialist gave up on me many times over. Luckily there was always, "ONE MORE CHANCE". I spent many, many weeks in an incubator.
All of us left the hospital when we weighed five pounds. We were ALL given a chance to grow and mature in the hospital.
There was NO long-term prognosis for my brother, because he was born with only one kidney and it was malformed. The plastic surgeons repaired it so that his kidney could drain properly. He is now 45, and his life is a miracle.
Under these standards advocating infanticide, none of us would be here.
I argue these very life-saving measures force the medical community to give it their all, and continuously come up with new techniques that help man-kind, NOT just the smallest among us. These types of research and practical hands-on attempts are invaluable. Everyone, no matter how small, deserves a chance.
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.