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.
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.
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.
Except that Grandma got authorize the DNR for herself - the hospital is deciding for the child.
>>>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.