Posted on 11/14/2006 4:13:10 AM PST by Phil Magnan
Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth By NEIL SEARS
Last updated at 22:00pm on 12th November 2006
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.
The Churchj of England is in some serious trouble.
Cotton Mather, please pick up the white courtesy phone!
This is what we have to look forward to if the dems get national health care.
Helen Keller was not BORN blind and deaf, plus, those are not life-threatening disabilites that require life-support.
Who is Fanny Crosby?
Didn't she write several Baptist hymns?
This is a slight gloss. Life need not be preserved if it would take extraordinary means to preserve it - e.g we do not require that every very old person or traumatised accident victim has to be kept alive indefinitely by machine.
However - simple feeding and primary care is not extraordinary means. Moreover - extraordinary or heroic means ARE sensible options for babies, who have extraordinary recuperative and regenerative abilities.
So, uhh, who gets to play God and decide which ones are 'good' enough to be allowed to live?
I watched a show last night about a little girl who they thought wouldn't make it two days because of the circumfrence (sp) of her head and how tiny she was. Turns out she was a primordial dwarf and was SUPPOSED to be that way. She is three and fine and keeping on growing and loving her family. If they had just 'let her die' it would have been the death of absolute doll baby.
>>>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.>>>
I do not think a newborn should be kept indefinitely on life support. But I think this is that slippery slope everyone is always talking about. If it applies, here is where it would.
Well, not specifically Baptist, although her hymns are loved and sang frequently in many Baptist churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Crosby
And, no Fanny Crosby was not born blind either. My point in bringing up those two people, was merely that the disabled can be, and are, still valuable to society.
Go just as far as you feel comfortable down that slippery slope - I'm sure there's someone behind you waiting to give you a little nudge further...
Carolyn
My tag line explains it all
No flames here.
What is happening in Britain is not the same as DNR. The medical authorities are attempting to justify the parcelling of care to people and deciding who is worthy of survival.
Babies who are born who are deformed can be "ordered" to die. That is what they are angling to do: create the argument framework to justify killing infants. They already allow abortions...so why this move?
Right now it is the infants who are at risk of being killed.
"Granny" is just the next step.
I understand families who don't want to let go, having just gone thru that with an elderly relative.
But that is not what this is: this is "medical practioners" deciding for the family: doesn't matter what the family wants, needs or desires. Now the Church is saying its ok....more cover for the "ethical" argument.
That, I submit, is just plain wrong.
agreed
Now I'm a married mother with an above average IQ. I'm so glad I was given a chance.
‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
I knew they'd redacted all the sexual morality from their Bibles, I guess this was just a matter of time. When does the CoE begin their campaign against the "useless eaters?"
and if they fail to abort inuterine or after birth they can also kill their children like Diaz and Yates get an instanity defense get two years cured and set free... There is something insanely wrong with this world. The begining of the end I believe.
I see.
Since the baby can't feed itself we can let it die of 'natural' causes?
That applies to every baby.
This is a consequence of Government Healthcare. They don't want to 'waste' the money on someone they deem as unable to be 'productive'.
Where will this end?
In a few years we could close down about 90% of nursing homes, dialysis clinics, transplant facilities. Just 'allow' them to die. Redirect the money toward AIDS patients ( an excluded group).
As anything else in our society, our rules and laws are built on precedent.
What starts as allowing severely disabled babies to die slowly morphs into more lax rules.
One example is the Medical Leave Act.
Remember when the argument was " We need to allow these people to take up to 3 months, unpaid, for medical or care purposes"?
Now the argument is that they should be paid during their leave.
And I'll bet they get it.
I do understand the "slippery slope" argument. But I also think that there are situations when inserting a feeding tube in a baby who is terminal is the wrong thing to do.
I think that God gave us the ability to discern which is right or wrong in these situations, and that we are not required to use any and all means necessary to prolong life.
The "slippery slope" can also go the other way. As medical advancements are made, more and more people's lives could be prolonged through artificial means. Is this why God gave us these techniques? And where do you draw the line?
"If an elderly invalid is very sick with say, pneumonia, and has little hope of recovery, do you think it is fair to that person for his/her family to demand that the medical team put that person through the trauma (and it CAN be very traumatic, i.e. broken ribs, etc.) of resuscitation, simply because the family just cannot bear to let go?"
The answer is most definitely YES. I want the medical community to PUSH the envelope and EXHAUST the means at their disposal. The minute we start asking them to 'give up', they will.
My grandfather was on death's door when he was 84, and we buried him two years ago at 99. He went to his final baseball game (SF Giants) in person at age 98.
As for me and mine - those doctors are going to exhaust all powers, means and skills. If they lose, which they are going to, fine. If not, however, maybe they'll learn something the world didn't know before.
Read recently about the use of Ambien to pull persistently vegetative people out of their comas?
It's like Reagan said to his surgeons, "Today, you are all Republicans."
What do we tell our kids? "Never give up, unless you are too tired to fight, then go ahead."
As for the kids, getting past the labia is even more difficult than it used to be it seems.
I'm afraid that is something I'm not capable of doing, and I don't know anyone who can.
A case by case basis might work but if this is made into any sort of rule, it will be inflexible IE. 'zero tolerance' laws.
That is the point.
While there are a few occasions that I could agree with, making some sort of rule, law, understood agreement with the medical community is ,IMHO asking for euthanasia.
And,in this instance we are killing a child that has NO input into the decision.
I remember the Jack Kevorkian controversy. Many thought he was an 'angel' for assisting terminally ill patients to 'die with dignity'. Turns out several of his patients were merely depressed.
Who makes the call?
Baptist ping...
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.