Category: Let's talk
Doctors are calling for euthanasia to be available to babies born with severe disabilities.
The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. The
college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial
hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.
“A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it says. “If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might
have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy
and taking a risk on outcome.”
discuss
can you find out for us what they consider a very disabled baby? I'm not fond of such considerations as this but it mayhelp make for a more serious discussion.
the report didn't specify kev.
but it said that
"The report does not spell out which conditions might justify euthanasia, but in the Netherlands mercy killing is permitted for a range of incurable conditions,
including severe spina bifida and the painful skin condition called epidermolysis bullosa."
full artacle is
link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2437921,00.htmlhere}
I find it very very difficult to justify this for a baby. it seems like a form of murder. the baby isn't able to choose, so it's like within guidelines if parents aren't satisfied wit the child they get, and doctrs agree, then bam, it's given an injection.
I can cope with euthenasia for old people within sound mind because they are able to make valid choices based on how they feel, but no, not for babies.
If it had been known as a baby that i have a condition that could not only cause the things i have, but severe heart problems, and renal failure, would I have been a consideration for this? yet I think I live areasonable life.
exactly kev. currently terminations can be carried out on babies for a cleft pallet, so would a cleft pallet, a condition which is rectifyable by surgery be one of these "severe disabilities"?
The problem is that what to one is severe is, to another, manageable. And parents are not able to make such a decision at such an emotional time imo
i agree.
it does seem harsh for someone that young
i think this is absolutely horrible. no matter what someone should be able to llive. I have all kinds of health problems, and so do the majority of my family but we manage, we have cili acts disease, cleff palet, cancer, heart problems, diabettes, lupis, sarcoidosis, fibromialgia, blindness, deafness, and many more. also asthism. and i would not wand any of my family to be killed at birdth because of "not being fit to live".
For babies with very severe conditions, which make living an independent life in which a person can work and care for themselves, it is best that they die. It's best for them, it's best for their families and its best for the state. Their parents won't be around for ever, and these severely disabled people will never give back to the state, because they'll never be able to work. In fact, they may never even be able to communicate. Obviously people who are blind, death or in wheelchairs who can work can learn and can live independent and relatively ordinary lives should be allowed to live.
so define what conditions you talk of. Tell us how any doctor or parent knows at birth exactly how severe said illness is going to be. Because I've known people with spine abifida who have lived relatively normal lives, who can drive, hold down a good job. should they be killed at birth because their disease is consider serious? the list can go on and on.
Some children born with the condition I have (Alstrom Syndrome) have severe heart problems when only weeks old, is someone going to decide well they couldn't possibly live a full independant life so lets give them a quick injection.
If you're going to make sweeping statements like you just did about how it should happen please be so kind as to elaborate a little.
Oh senior I recognized who you were even before I’d looked at your profile to see your user name change.
It’s very easy to put a blanket opinion of “if they cannot contribute to the state”, on something like this, but reality is that it’s really not that simple. I talk to someone on a different forum, whose baby was born prematurely. She was very ill, doctors didn’t think she would survive. When she was 5 days old they told her parents that she would never walk, never talk, would be blind and deaf and have severe learning disabilities, and they advised them to allow them to switch off her life support and allow her to die with dignity. They didn’t, they just wanted their baby to survive. So doctors continued with her treatment. As her drugs were gradually withdrawn, she began to come round, and as time went on she took more interest in her surroundings. She spent 3 months in special care. She is now 5, she has mild cerebral palsy, she walks with a limp and has some balance and coordination issues, but she has perfect eyesight, perfect hearing, and she is on the same level as her peers in terms of intelligence. She will live independently one day, and will no doubt make a contribution to society, and yet at birth she would have been eligible for such a “mercy killing”, and the doctors had got it wrong, very wrong.
Reality is that we do not know what a baby is going to be like 10, 20 years down the line.
I do think there’s a difference though between not resussitating a baby that might be in severe pain, and actively killing a newborn.
Ok, at present, babies with very severe uncurable conditions or deformaties, in this country anyhow, are being allowed to starve to death, doctors call it, along with parental conscent, withdrawal of treatment.
a baby was born recently with no actual brain. the doctors found out that it had no actual thinking capacity, the only part of the brain that worked was the part that allowed it to cry, suckle and so on.
the doctors shon a light in its ear and they could see the light through the other.
they are letting it starve to death.
i think if it is a choice between letting it starve and letting it die quickly, i'd prefer to let it die quickly. however, I would only agree to it in severe situations like this one. not for cleft pallet....that is wrong.
No one should be able to judge the value of another's life. All life is precious and has a purpose.
All I can say is, agreed with the last poster.
the likelyhood is though lui that that baby would have died anyway. No human can survive without a brain for any length of time. I would imagine that the feeding tubes were removed and that the baby was not put on any life support and probably died within a matter of hours. but "baby starved to death" looks far more shocking in the media than "baby who was born with no brain has died after the doctors agreed to withdraw his treatment".
I do believe that if a baby is going to die anyway then it should be allowed to do so with dignity, and that in some cases no measures should be taken to resussitate that baby, but the problem I have with euthanasing a small baby is that this practice does not extend to the rest of the population. If I became terminally ill and unable to look after myself I would probably not want to live like that, but the law does not allow me to ask a doctor's help to allow me to die at a time of my choosing, so why is it that the life of a newborn is les signifficant than the rest of the population?
I also do not think that a parent is able to make such an emotional decision at such a time - often a baby that has been born with a severe disability has been born either prematurely, or sometimes as result of complications during birth (more broadly referred to as medical negligence), so the arrival of a severely disabled child is often unexpected and to expect a parent to come to terms with the fact that their baby is not the perfect child they had hoped for, and then to make a decision on whether that child should be euthanased is just too much to ask IMO. And often doctors make such decisions based on their "medical opinion" which, as stated in the post above can be wrong.
I also think that you can never know what it's like to have to care for a disabled *your disabled child* until you have actually had to do it, and therefore no-one who has never done so could really judge what kind of financial and emotional situation this would create.
That is deplorable children with cleft pallets being left to die, when this is easily treated is an absolute scandal. We advocate withdrawing treatment for terminally ill adults, what kind of society are we?
To elaborate on what I said earlier, I think the children should only die once it is definitely known that they will never be able to contribute to society. While there is a chance they could, they should be allowed to stay allive, though their should be a time limit on how much free support they can have from machines in hospitals. If the baby has been on the machine for a year and will need to remain hooked up in order to stay alive, then its parents should foot the entire bill. Otherwise, after a year it should die, because then it is clear that they could be on their for a very long time and this could be very costly. In the case Sugarbaby put forward about the child who is now living a relatively normal life, this is why babies should not be killed unless there is absolutely no chance they could ever grow up to live a normal working life. There may be situations in which it takes a few years for it to become apparent that the child will never be able to contribute to society and live without being dependent on others. There should be a limit of about 7 years before a final decision has to be made. The longer people spend making such decisions, the easier the decision should become, because the child's development can be observed.
I meerly think that euthenasia should be available to all...i believe in it for older people, and also in the cases that are too severe.
I only agree with it if a person can choose for themselves however, not if a family member gets to say.
You contradict yourself. If the child or adult is profoundly disabled and suffering, who will be left to make the decision?
A previous post said that euthanasia should be available only to those who can choose it for themselves, but family members shouldn't be able to choose.
This leaves the question of whether the person who is in such desperate circumstances has tthe mental capacity to make a clear and rational decision on such an important matter as taking their own life.
In cases like this, depression and other emotions occur that may make the situation seem hopeless, when it very well may not be.
I believe that God is the only one that should say when we die, not us or anyone else. God has a specific plan for all of us, and when he wants our life to end, it'll end. Before that, we need to protect life, all life, even life that we may see little or no value in.
So, people should only be able to live just because of what they can give back? Then, in thatcase, you could've been aborted at birth too because you could contribute nothing to the wolrd then.
Yeah, jamisch i totally agree with you!
senior, i'll tell u something, i'd rather my taxes went on paying for a child's life than for england to go to war in irac and have people's lives taken away from them. i don't care how much it costs, if a baby needs a machine to keep it alive, i'd pay for it myself if i had the money! as for letting a severely disabled child die at birth, it is murder! i know people with severe cerible pausy who can't walk talk or physically do anything for themselves but are here at the same university as i am! i personally can't say, but i have met a lot of severely disabled people, and when given the right support, they are able to do things like everyone else. they just need support!
there is one thing i would say though, if a child is terminally ill and if nothing can be done, maybe the doctors could consider turning off its machines. but that is only if the child is in pain and suffering! not cos of disability. there is a difference!
Hm, this is a difficult issue. I think the problem, as SugarBaby points out, is that it is often hard to tell at birth just how disabled/ill a baby is--in the case of very premature babies, long-term effects of prematurity often don't even become apparent until the child reaches school age. I agree that it's really sad to give up a baby's life because it simply falls short of some standard of perfection and has a mild deformity such as a cleft palate that doesn't significantly decrease quality of life, but I don't really think that would happen very often--what parent is cold-hearted enough to abort a baby for something so minor? And once the baby is born, I sincerely doubt that it would be legal to actively put this baby to death. I think the most that is legal is to withhold aggressive treatment for severely ill infants, and as Claire points out, only the babies that are not strong enough to live on their own will die from that. This is an important distinction: medically speaking, withholding aggressive treatment is not the same thing as killing. Rather, it constitutes in simply providing comfort care rather than painful procedures if it is thought that the only benefit to be gained from these would be more pain for the infant, and no improvement in outlook in terms of quality of life. Also, another important point is that "starving" an infant might not be as horrible as it seems: Apparently (and don't quote me on this, I just read this not too long ago and can't remember what the source was, or whether it is reputable) babies don't really get hungry in the first few weeks of life. They simply eat out of habit, and that is why they sometimes lose so much weight right after birth. So, if you don't give them food, though technically it leads to malnutrition and the baby will die, it apparently doesn't hurt them, and is thus less horrible than it sounds. Has anyone else heard this? Any impressions/insights on whether it might be true?
Hi everyone,
this is in response ot the previous post.
Many parents abort children for far less than something like a cleft palette, they abort them simply b/c they don't want them or think they can't be bothered with a child at that time in life.
As tot he question of whether children eat out of habit when they are first born, starving them to death is cruel. I am not sure about them eating out of habit, but along with starvation comes dehydration. If you've ever ben dehydrated, you have the first inkling of what dying of dehydration is like.
What a terribly cruel thing to do to any living thing, yet alone a precious baby. My God, if you starved your dog or cat to death for any reason, ppl would have a fit and call for jail time for you, yet a group of scientists and others is calling for a law which will alow to do this to an innocent baby.
All life is precious. If we devalue one person's life for whatever reason, we are all in potential danger. We may become injured and be deemed no longer fit to live.
How crazy and scary at the same time.
i don't know how anyone can even consider these plans. A life is a life no matter how limited or insignificant. I mean, i could never knowingly kill anything, not even insects. Everything has a right to live and it's not up to someone else to make the choice of life or death for someone else, no matter what the circumstances
o my god. Please do not post this again.
Ok, this is my opinion.
1. it is better, if you must kill something to kill it in a fashan that is painless.
2. if there is totally no doubt that a baby will not survive to live a life that is free from suffering and pain, and the doctors want to switch the machines off, then yes, a less inhumain method should be used.
3. Older people should deffinitly have the right to choose if they should live or die, this can often save their families the pain, especially if that person may kill themselves.
4. Family members shouldn't be able to make these sorts of decisions on their own without perhaps written evidence from the inflicted one themselves, or doctors opinions...and not just one, but several.
5. in the case of children, which is difficult, i believe that in most cases it would be best to let the child live. only in cases like the one i outlined above should they be euthenased.
I agree that if somebody should be killed, it should be done in a way which is quick, and therefore painless. To make somebody die a slow painful death through starvation etc isn't necessary, because it just prelongs the inevitable outcome. The doctors should be the ones who deciede on these matters, because they have a better understanding of the medical condition of the person and the possibilities as to the implications for the person. They are inthe best position to make the decision. As for old people, when they get to an age whereby they can't even whipe their own bottoms, feed themselves, dress themselves, maybe even can't remember who they are, never mind the relative who has come to see them at the home, it's time for them to die. I certainly wouldn't want to live in that condition, and I am yet to meet somebody who is looking forward to it. The state should definitely not pay for the care of people in these conditions through old people's homes. We don't send children to a home when they can't look after themselves, so surely if we insist on old people living, we should care for them in the way they once may have cared for us.
Hmmm, the only problem with doctors deciding things is that they may decide money over life, which is fundementally wrong.
i think that severely disabled babies are those that have no arms or legs and that they can't see or talk or hear ontop of that.
EVERY CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO LIVE! iI DON'T CARE HOW DISABLED THEY ARE, JUST THE THOUGHT OF KILLING THEM MAKES ME SICK. IT'S FRIGGIN MURDER.
I totally agree, Joanne.
For God's sake, let them live!
some doctors might concider us severely disabled, most blindness is uncurable, and didnt that fit what was said before? that if there was an uncurable disability they had the option of killing the baby? well, maybe if your guy's parents had made that decision, you wouldnt be here, and it would have been a life wasted, because i'm sure everyone on here is by the state or whatever "disabled." but you, arent dead, and i'm not quite sure if this is making sense, but i guess my point is we are disabled and we could've been killed for it, its heartless, and cruel to kill something before it has had a chance to live in the world, if the parents dont want to have to deal with the depression and whatever else comes from having a disabled child we do havd adoption, and if the baby was in suffering, then if it was in its best interests (not the parents) but the life in concidderation, then they could take it off the breathing machines
I didn't read the other posts here, just the first one. So sorry if maybe I missed some stuff. I think it's a good idea, provided that the disability is severe enough that the child can never lead a meaningful life and contribute to society. Blindness, deafness etc should fall under that category. But mentally retarded to the point where a child could never learn to even feed him/herself or being in a vegitative state or paralised from the neck down, or having a disease that causes constant pain that would require extremely heavy drugs for the rest of the child's life stuff like that should.
Btw, I'm not against abortions, especially in this situation, though partial birth abortion is a bit much, so this might be a better option. Still, the earlier it's detected, the more I'd stress abortion instead of going through with the full pregnancy.
I don't think the child should be killed just because he or she has a really bad physical disability. Also, if parents find out while their still pregnant that their child will be disabled and they decided to abort them, we'd just have a perfect world and that would be really boring.
It wouldn't be a perfect world. There would still be people with other disabilities and even perfectly able people have their share of imperfections. It would just be a world where at least some people wouldn't suffer needlessly and be institutionalised where they would be traumatised because they're no longer with their parents/guardians and where tax payers money wouldn't be wasted.
But who is to say who is "severely disabled" and who isn't? There are those who would say if someone is 1 point below the "norm" they're "severely disadvantaged". What gives any of us the right to play the part of what ever powers you believe in? Mind you, I support euthanasia; as long as the person is mentally capable to say that in a given situation they would want it. I personally wish we could add euthanasia options to a living will...I'd do it. Anyways, my point is this. Again, who is to say what is disabled and what isn't? Who are we going to give the right over life to? Who is to say what won't work out in the long run? IE I think it was SB who gave the example about the child born so prematurely...Yep, it was post 11. And think of this. It wasn't so long ago that if an unwed mother was going to give birth she was encouraged to abort...An unwed mother refused to abort and today we have Einstein's contribution; at least according to Paul Harvey, for anyone who knows who that is. I know that we're not discussing abortion, but instead euthanasia, but think about it, doesn't it boil down to the same thing. Think about Steven Hawking, and the list goes on. If anyone wants more info on disabled individuals who have contributed to today's world feel free to ask and I'll see what info I can give. I'm not an expert, but things like this always have interested me.
Doctors aren't perfect judges either. When I was born, I was partially sighted, since then I have lost my sight completely. However, when I was born the doctors told my mum that because of my disability I would never learn to tie my own shoe laces, make friends and live an indipendent life, and if I'd been born a few years previously, he would've been able to recommend I was put into a home for disabled children, one of those Sunshine homes they used to have in the UK, and maybe they still do.
Even a very disabled person can offer something to this world, even if it is simply the effect they have on another by existing and touching their lives.
Like Mattie Stepanek. look at him. His doctors said he would die when he was born because he had a rare form of muscular dystrophy, called Dysautonomic Mitochondrial Myopathy. Did his mom ever give up on him because he was severely disabled? No, and as a result, he lived to the ripe old age of thirteen, the oldest survivor of that particular childhood illness. His mom never gave in to the doctors, but raised her son to be the person he was; gentle, profound, and always kind toward others.
All his life he was in and out of hospitals, eventually wheelchair-bound due to his neuromuscular and painful disorder. He touched thousands, possibly millions with his words of hope and peace. I'm sure as a person with a severe disability, he had his days when he would ask himself, "Why me," but he said, "Better me, than a little baby who doesn't have any support.'
Thats fucked up!
Another thing to think about. I knew a little girl when I was young who was so severely disabled that she was never able to do anything for herself. In February of 91 she died at like 8 or 9, and at the end she lived on a feeding tube that was inserted through her belly. She never could be your conventional "contributor to society", but I know personally how many lives she touched, and how many things she taught. The first poem I ever wrote was in her memory, and from then on I've been in touch with my creative side. My creativity doesn't always come out in writing, but now it's more often in software and/or web design, but that is just one of the many things her life did. I know that as a little girl her older sister wanted to be a doctor to figure out things like what afflicted her sister, and the last I heard she was in medical school. Those who can't see the grays in life and who only worry about "contributors to society" may not understand what I'm saying. So, I'll put it simple...Who knows what effect one person is going to have on a whole community, and I personally will never say a child should be killed just because the closed minds can not see the potentials. I believe everyone is born the way they are for special reasons...Maybe it's to make a genius doctor find her calling; (not saying her sister is, but who knows?), maybe it's to teach siblings how to love if there is little love in the family; (not saying that was the case here...I don't honestly remember the parents, it's her I remember). The maybies can go on and on. No body knows, and in my opinion no one has the right to decide.
wow, i'm not saying i agree or disaggree with any of this. but, don't you think it's a bit unfare to have this poor girl that never was able to do anything for herself and i'm sure suffered for most of the nine years of her life, left on machines for a while just to reach out to others and for others to benefit from this? maybe i took that wrong. but that's the way i took it. others may have benefited from her, but where did she benefit from all the pain the poor girl went through?
Shea
There was never any sign that she was in pain. She could smile and make some sounds; even if not words. Sorry, I should have explained more in my last post. No one really knew what she knew about her surroundings and what she didn't. She loved for people to sit and talk with/to her, and she generally seemed happy. But to assume that she was in pain...I knew her, and I couldn't say she was. Also, she wasn't in a hospital. Her mother loved her, and took care of her at home. I also know it was this little girl who got my Mom to go into social work for the disabled. Not that this makes a difference, but as I think back I'm remembering more and more. One more thought...Some people when they find out I'm blind say, "Oh, you poor girl...". But what is poor about being blind? Now to explain...Given her generally seeming happiness, who is to say she didn't enjoy the life she had; even for as short as it was?
She was lucky to have a mother who cared for her. If the parents of such people could live on and on or at least for the full duration of their child's life that would be one thing. But imagine a child like that, maybe with a hint more understanding. I knew of this boy who was wheelchair bound and severely mentally disabled. He'd never be able to live an independent life. His mother, who was the only one who really loved and cared for him, was killed when a car hit her. The little boy was sent off to an institution. How do you explain to this child that his mommy is never coming back? How do you make him understand that he's to live here for the rest of his life among strangers? If you were to look at it from an economic point of view, yes, these kinds of people do bring jobs. From a humanist point, yes, they may inspire others. The stories shown here are perfect examples of that. But what about the people themselves. Not everyone who works in these institutions etc are the kindest. Many times, their patients are abused. I was reading horrible things about what they do to the elderly and it made me sick. Am I saying that all people in nursing homes should be euthanised? Of course not. But something should be done about these excuses for human beings who go around harming people who, for one reason or another, can't defend themselves. As for Mattie Stepanek, he could think and was a genius. Mental ability should never be taken lightly. I'd never, for example, advocate for euthanasia of someone with mild retardation because they still have enough comprehention to be able to take care of themselves and to understand things. As for adults, I'm a strong believer in a living will and I and everyone in my family has one. For me, this is the best way to insure that you're treated as you want to be in the event of something happening to you and you being unable to decide for yourself. I think that if a person is basically a vegetable with no mental ability and on life support etc, that he/she should be allowed to die in peace. What worries me is those who are in such a state but who don't need the life support. I don't agree with letting someone starve to death and think that steps should be taken to help them die without suffering. I'm sure they could at least feel pain and wouldn't wish that on anyone.
Killing Disabled infants babies is the first step towards the end of civil and natural society.
Well, I personally think any type of euthanasia is wrong, because you never know what kind of cures or miracle drugs might come out for a terminal illness.About euthanasia regarding babies: I was a premature and i only weighed 1 pound 9 ounces. Doctors obviously had serious doubts I would survive, much less walk and talk. If they had killed me, I wouldn't have my wonderful husband or my beautiful son. I wouldn't have had a fighting chance.
Hi, I hink people should be allowed to live as long as they can. Regarding bbies, I was a premaure as well but big all the same. 9 pound 7 a one month premature. I was born sighted but lost my sight when I was 1 yar old. I was in a coma for 10 days but pulled threw. I was also parilized down one side but they manaed to fix that but they couldn't save my sight.
The first thought into my head was this, and I figure this will be my only contribution.
If they euthanize "severely disabled" people *today*, what will they be doing tomorrow? euthanizing people with blindness, deaf people, or people who won't be able to walk?
Stupid, that's what I say. Also, an emotional decision can seem right at the time - but then you look back on it and say "God, what was I high on?"
If you have those feelings after you've euthanized a baby, well, that's not a mistake you can just leave in the past.
Scratch
If you rely souly on feelings, you might make the best decision for you and not for the child. And as I've said, blindness etc can't possibly be considered severely disabled today much less tomorrow.