Doctors are urging health regulators to consider allowing the “active euthanasia” of severely disabled newborn babies.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has put forward the option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of medical ethics.
It says “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall benefit of families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial suffering.
“A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making,” the college writes in a submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Mmmm… is Mr. Hawking “severely disabled”?
Being one of the millions who supports the right to suicide > an aspect of euthanasia > I think it’s legitimate to support families who have to confront such a tortuous decision, as well.
The Humanist position is humanity is all. If you aren’t useful for humanity, you are worthless. In Cambodia, that was the criteria they used for killing over 20% of their population.
What is the demarcation line here? What is “severely disabled”? And who’s gonna be the judge? Doctors, parents, or God? I know God has already passed his judgement here.
Loaded situation here… Not easy to make snap decisions… My personal opinion is that doctors exist to save lives, prolong lives and diminish suffering – patient’s suffering, not family’s suffering…
I’m perfectly willing to leave it in the hands of the family with doctors’ advice.
Im going to be the odd man out when I say, this is terrible. Like what #4(Morphimus) said, who is the judge. If it is whether a person is useful to the overall gain of society, all infants along with a fair amount of retired folk fall into the “useless” category. I would hate to see this society (America) follow the example leaving us with no right to anything but killing off those who we are easier off without.
I thought the slippery slope wasn’t real? Oh! Wait! it is real only when it helps your point. I remember now.
It would be a terribly slippery slope, too. Too short? Too ugly? Too tall? Autistic? Epileptic? Left handed?
I second this demand, call me Nazi at will and see if I care.
“Slippery slope” defense is typically a catch-all roadblock to progress. To pretend that a set of guidelines can’t be developed to allow this service to be available is silly. Why do we, as a society, spend so much effort protecting the dead and dying at the expense of the living?
This is the slippery slope of having government provided health coverage. It is very easy than for the government to claim rights on controling what you do and eat for example so that you do not participate in “dangerous practices” that may increase your chance of needing medication and healthcare (recent example, also in UK with school children foods). And, of course, if you are disabled, government will need to pay a lot for you over the lifetime… I see this news as a direct consequence of such system and why it should never be allowed in practice here in the USA. (And hopefully erradicated elsewhere).
Hawking became disabled much later in life, so comparing him to, say, a spineless and brainless baby is extremely silly rhetoric.
However, there was a lot of brouhaha about this topic last year, when the Dutch University hospital AZG proposed protocols for exactly this. Because no doctor likes to make decisions about life or death, and it is a big help for him or her if there are procedures to help them.
It was only this modest proposal that led to the immediate outcry ‘Nazi state’, and such all arounf the world.
Hawking is objective enough to decide on his own — or in advance — if he wishes to end his own life. The superstitous whiners will continue to prevent that right to die.
Of course, most of the whinging is about a theoretical government assuming the right and choice — which has nothing to do with the article or the real topic.
What ever happened to using an amniocentesis test prior to the birth of these children? What this proposes is a post birth abortion….is anyone grasping that? Slippery slope? Slippery isn’t even the word.
Have some of you people lost your f*%king minds? Let me say this as a non religious person. There is a very special place in hell for people like you! This is not the same as someone who requires life support and also it is not the same as an early term abortion. This is the selective murder of a defenseless human being. They are born! We as a moral people must protect them until the time when they can communicate for themselves and make that decision independently. If they never develop that ability then we should be required to support them!
Well,
It looks as if, the slow enforement of population control is finally being implemented.
considering that 1in 10 children are born handicapped. thats the first 10% per year.
NEXT will be cutting social security, and cutting off drugs to those beyond a certain age. That will be about another 10-15%
Critical care patients, 1%.
Then cutting welfare to the poor, and those without money, which is about 5-10%.
Health insurrance will go up, and MORE employees will loose out.
It has been estimated that the WORLD needs to drop about 30% of its population, just to feed itself properly…I wont go into the problems that are happening here with the type, quality, processes used to extend the food materials on this planet. MOSTLY in the USA, so we can make MORE money on the better foods being sent elsewhere.
but the real stats say that the world needs to drop about 40-60% to be able to sustain and improve Health, sea life, medicines, trees, and to self sustain this planet..
OK, its time to get OFF this planet, and pay the price of exploration as the early sailors did….
Hey – god’s got some good points – but i’d prefer to see this sooner than later – Survival of the Fittest, anyone?
Perhaps inevitably, given the strong feelings aroused, too many people here are missing the point of what is being proposed. It’s not suggested that any disabled, even severely disabled child should be killed. The report cited (see my earlier #14) uses the phrase “active euthanasia” just once, on page 1, in the context of urging the Nuffield Council to consider all appropriate options in respect of dealing with the problems arising in respect of “the sickest of newborns”. With terminally ill adults, particularly the old, when patients are in serious discomfort or pain which it’s not possible to ameliorate and following extensive clinical diagnosis and discussion, the typical procedure is to give a sufficient quantity of a narcotic which will indeed ameliorate the pain but which will also hasten death. This seems to me an entirely proper and humane action to take and my reading of the report is that similar action in respect of very seriously disabled neonates – again after extensive diagnosis and discussion and only with the agreement of the parent(s) – should not be ruled out. This also seems to me entirely humane.
The RCOG also makes the point strongly that people too often shy away from such emotive subjects but that ignoring the real problems which arise will not make them go away. In contrast, considering seriously the issues and seeking to lay down guidelines as to what is ethically proper the RCOG is taking a responsible stance on this very difficult matter. It would be good were others to do the same irrespective of their particular viewpoint.
We shouldn’t be euthanizing these kids, and disabled elderly. While they are disabled, I’m sure they have many healthy organs that can be used to help others who are suffering.
Currently we treat terminal infant lesser animals better than we treat terminal infant people.
How remarkable. Do you live in the UK, Murdoch? Your responses are quite well written and suggest you know something about the subject beyond what you read. I found this item this morning, just before I went to bed, and knew it’d end up here.
I’ve worked in hospice and cared for disabled family members my entire life; ordinarily, this would be a pretty futile subject to attempt to debate with anyone who didn’t have some personal exposure to the subject. It’s a good choice if one simply wants to pick a subject that will bring out the worst in people, though.
It’s doubtful, unfortunately, that we’ll see anything like this in the states any time soon, but there’s an easy way around it if the subject ever does come up. Just tell everyone you’re only talking about illegals.
#21 – Soylent Green!! make em into food…mmm… tasty food…
or make em into organ farms, and process the rest into Soylent Chips
Max: thanks. Yes, I’m British, live in the UK and work largely as a freelance journalist and writer.
#18 – ECA, you first.
Murdock, once again you present a great view of a subject. I may disagree with some(very little actually), but your grasp of the issue is a solid one.
Don’t be to upset by how posts are headlined in here, they usually are more to the far extreame of any issue, other than tech. Also they are done to provoke readership of the post and hopefully real discussion.
I don’t care about slippery slopes, usually by the time something like this becomes public the slope has long been slid down.
My concern is always goverment and businesses like Insurence Companies. Once you start making policy to allow for euthenasia of **severly disabled** children, it seriously won’t be long before it does become policy to euthanise disabled Seniors, and then disabled period. The large and powerful insurance industry, combined with goverment beaurucrats will start making the decisions, and it will be just a matter of time before parents are just bystanders.
I have said many times in here that I am pro-life, and that means for all life, no capital punishment or abortions. My only real concern here is WHO will end up making the decisions here and based on what criteria.
I guess what amazes me the most is that so many so-called liberals in here are all for executing disabled children. God, I hope none of you ever have to face that with your own child.
13 – I may be missing the point here, but wouldn’t a spineless and brainless baby be dead already?
26, Gwendle
YEP, I would have been…
I had both legs folded behind me, 2 types of epilepsy, a heart murmur…
Murdoch, well written pieces. You brought much light.
***
Joshua. Your slippery slope is already gone. Like it or not, even as we write and read these posts, a physician somewhere is pulling the plug on a patient. It might be a little extra morphine or potassium or accidentally pulling the plug from a ventilator. Sometimes the family knows and have even asked.
If you recall only one and a half years ago, we went through the whole thing with Terry Schaivo. She was the one visible patient. There are tens of thousands more that are helped every year we never hear about. We know they will die, but we don’t want to see them suffer. Schaivo prompted me to write a living will / directive in the event I am unable to communicate to avoid any battle.
Resources are scarce. Compassion is sometimes even more scarce when it comes time to letting go.
#30…Mr. Fusion….I know what you say is true. And I’m not one of those people who think that someone should be forced to stay alive by mechanical means, or even forced feeding, if they are beyond hope. I have such a living will, and directives and Powers of Attorney’s for all kinds of things. I didn’t think I needed them as a 22 y/o….you know, thought nothing could kill me……I was wrong, and when they revived me, the first thing I did was all the legal paper work after I got out of the Hospital.
But , my original point isn’t that no one should be allowed to die, it’s who will end up making those decisions and what criteria they will use. Would you like this left up to the Goverment??? I seriously doubt if you(especially you) would.
What scares me is that they can now find markers(DNA/Gentic) that shows your fetus may be prone to certain problems. As long as it’s the parents, with maybe advice from a Medical Doctor, that decides what they should do, I’m alright with that(even though my own feelings are against abortion), but if they allow the child to be born and it turns out to be severly handicapped, how long do you think it will be, before some beaurucrat decides to take upon himself to deny medical coverage, or some Insurance company to deny coverage, based on the pre-birth markers. This is going to act as a hammer to get these parents to agree to euthenise their child…..this can’t be allowed.
#17 said:
“Have some of you people lost your f*%king minds?”
Yes, they have.