Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’
Each year in Holland at least 15 seriously ill babies, most of them with severe spina bifida or chromosomal abnormalities, are helped to die by doctors acting with the parents’ consent. But only a fraction of those cases are reported to the authorities because of the doctors’ fears of being charged with murder.
Things are about to change, however, making it much easier for parents and doctors to end the suffering of an infant.
A committee set up to regulate the practice will begin operating in the next few weeks, effectively making Holland, where adult euthanasia is legal, the first country in the world to allow “baby euthanasia” as well.
“If a child is untreatably ill,” Verhagen explained, “there can be horrendous suffering that makes the last few days or weeks of this child’s life unbearable. Now the question is: are you going to leave the child like that or are you going to prevent that suffering?” He went on: “Does the child have to sit it out until the end? We think that the answer is no. There can be circumstances where, under very strict conditions, if all the requirements are fulfilled, active ending of life can be an option — but only in cases of untreatable disease and unbearable suffering.”
It’s about damned time.
The people who say legalizing euthanasia is a slippery slope are starting to look correct. Princeton has a professor who advocates this option for parents after birth for any child.
Texas already does this, but not for humanitarian reasons. Last year, a Houston hospital stopped treating a desperately ill black baby because her parents couldn’t pay the hospital bill. The baby then died in her Mother’s arms. And it was perfectly legal, thanks to a bill that was promoted and signed by Governor George W. bush.
Here’s the story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html
Then that person in Princeton is a flake. It will never happen because people such as myself who are for euthanasia would not be for such a thing.
The serious proposals on euthanasia have all put a very strict set of conditions on when it can be applied. That’s the way it should be. The purpose is to end untreatable suffering, not to allow elective or even gray area deaths. If I see anything that approaches the latter, my support dries up. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Just the first few paragraphs of the actual story if you click on the link show a situation where it would be appropriate. There are some dramatically, dramatically bad birth defects most people aren’t familiar with that give the child no chance of survival. It would be compassionate to end their lives and thus their suffering early. The fear is that people would want to do this if they find out they’ll have a child that’s born blind or with Down syndrome, people who are capable of living happy lives but the parents may not think so at first, or may not want to deal with it. I agree that’s a danger, but I’d fight against any such loosening of the regulations to allow it.
I’m actually not that gung ho about it. Typing out that last part reminded me that I do think that’s a realistic danger over time and that we need to tread carefully. However, I tend to instictively bristle at slippery slope arguments because they’re a cheap way to extend reasonable proposals into ridiculous areas in order to build opposition. Like how they say legalizing gay marriage would remove any barriers to legalizing polygamy and bestiality. Bull, but that’s another spiel. I do think pointing to the Priceton proposal is that kind of cheap, unrealistic tactic. However, the Down Syndrome example is one I can see becoming realistic over time. I still support tightly controlled euthanasia because there are clear cut examples of when it’s the best option, I just want those tight regulations so that we tread carefully.
How stupid are people to be against an idea simply because it can be taken too far and exploited. People will always exploit laws and guidelines to their own will so you simply write the laws clearly and explicitly so that LEGAL Euthanasia only applies to a certain set of acceptable and proven ailments. Then, if someone decides to go beyond the limits then they know that they are simply committing a crime.
The point is that if someone wants to kill someone, they will do it regardless of the laws but this actually permits people to relieve the suffering of themselves or loved ones because of an unfortunate ailment.
“Taken too far and exploited.” That’s like the patriot act, we’d never spy on americans. It’s like the RICO laws, which got applied to all sorts of non-organized crime organization. The fact is, if you open the door, it will only continue to open farther.
To draw the inevitable moral conclusion: you can’t be just a little unethical.
Guess those are the ones they did not get around to aborting. I wait to long myself on projects sometimes.
Who cares? It’s just a blob of tissue. Just like all of us. Creatures resulting from chance and time. In fact, the chances of us being alive are so minute that we should not exist at all. Unless of course we were created. Oh, oops, that would require a Creator. Then we would have to re-think all this.
Perhaps those who would oppose euthanasia in these cases should meet the newborn individual in constant pain and suffering, waiting for her body to fail, and meet the parents too. Abstract and “principled” opposition to euthanasia does not serve these people. How about a principle of, Let there not be unnecessarily painful, lingering death?
Well that’s a natural progression abortion, euthanasia, now baby euthanasia.
Can’t wait till killing those that disagree with me is legal.
>legalizing gay marriage would remove any barriers to legalizing >polygamy and bestiality.
If it’s the courts doing the legalizing, then the slope is very slippery. The courts have to use consistent principles while lawmakers don’t.
In the case of euthanasia, what the opponents argued is actually happening, with now baby euthanasia instead of old people. The princeton flake is a chairman of bioethics at an Ivy League University, presumably teaching hundreds of students a year.
>“Taken too far and exploited.” That’s like the patriot act, we’d never spy >on americans. It’s like the RICO laws, which got applied to all sorts of >non-organized crime organization. The fact is, if you open the door, it will >only continue to open farther.
>To draw the inevitable moral conclusion: you can’t be just a little >unethical.
>Comment by James
Your point refers more to the fact that lawyers don’t create “air-tight” laws because they want to be able to argue and manipulate them to their will. IMO, you can breach these “slippery slope” issues as long as you make the laws succinct and unexceptional. They would be like the Bill of Rights for the suffering which could have amendments to allow or prohibit certain exceptions as they become apparent. For example, I’m sure you’re against killing people but also have exceptions for personal defense. This is the same type of issue and you can’t just not “open the door” because it is a difficult subject to address as it simply creates a greater problem which you aren’t privy too.
Freedom from permanent suffering is more important IMO than “forced” freedom to life because there isn’t any quality of life with intense suffering. People who don’t understand this have never experienced real suffering and/or refuse to acknowledge what value life would have if their limited experience of suffering was constant and permanent.
I would have never argued that baby euthanasia was unrealistic. Although the elderly make up the majority of the cases, the conditions of “untreatable illness and unbearable suffering” really can apply to anyone. For example, the thing I didn’t like about the Terri Schiavo case was that she had to die by dehydration because they weren’t allowed to euthanize her. Her normal state obviously didn’t meet the “unbearable suffering” standard, but once the decision was made that the tube would be removed, we knew death was inevitable and it would be probably painful. I don’t like how we’re allowed to kill somebody if we do a little tap dance of technicalities when said technicalities make us do it painfully instead of humanely.
I didn’t know the Princeton person was so high up. He’s still a flake, but he unfortunately could be an influential flake. Sad. A Pat Robertson for our side, I guess.
I would still argue that it’s unrealistic despite him because it goes against the rationale most people like myself use. “Untreatable illness and unbearable suffering” sums it up nice and tidily. Elective euthanizing of healthy children would require a completely different rationale, it doesn’t extend from that one. It seems more like a super-extremist pro-abortion stance than anything else.
I’m tempted to give the gay marriage spiel, since there are principles that differentiate it from polygamy and bestiality, but I’ll leave that for another time.
“I would have never argued that baby euthanasia was unrealistic. Although the elderly make up the majority of the cases, the conditions of “untreatable illness and unbearable suffering” really can apply to anyone. For example, the thing I didn’t like about the Terri Schiavo case was that she had to die by dehydration because they weren’t allowed to euthanize her. Her normal state obviously didn’t meet the “unbearable suffering” standard, but once the decision was made that the tube would be removed, we knew death was inevitable and it would be probably painful. I don’t like how we’re allowed to kill somebody if we do a little tap dance of technicalities when said technicalities make us do it painfully instead of humanely.”
Yeah, let’s intentionally starve her, and then advocate euthanasia, whatever’s convenient, right?
“I would still argue that it’s unrealistic despite him because it goes against the rationale most people like myself use. “Untreatable illness and unbearable suffering” sums it up nice and tidily.”
You know what’s interesting, with all the advancements in pain management, the push for euthanasia becomes stronger? Just because someone has an untreatable illness doesn’t mean we kill them (do we euthanize the people with AIDS” and “unbearable” suffering, what is unbearable, is it *any* type of pain? Just because someone has “unbearable” pain doesn’t mean it can’t be treated, and even if it can’t just because someone experiences pain doesn’t mean we should euthanize them.
“The serious proposals on euthanasia have all put a very strict set of conditions on when it can be applied. That’s the way it should be. The purpose is to end untreatable suffering”
End untreatable suffering? So just because someone is suffering means we should kill them? What type of untreatable suffering are we talking about anyways? Coulkd you give an example?