[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4093965.stm

Thoughts?  First instinct it obviously negative, but this bit of text;

The protocol would relate to only about 600 infants in the world - and between 10 and 15 in The Netherlands.

These children are born with extreme malformations. For instance they may have no brain.

makes me feel there can be justified circumstances.  At the very least, it definately warrants discussion, I think.

[Goober5000]

If they have no brain they'll die anyway.

This sets up a dangerous precedent.  First, they'll euthanize children that have life-threatening defects.  Then, they'll euthanize children that have serious abnormalities, such as retardation or Down's Syndrome.  Then they'll be able to get away with euthanizing any child the parent doesn't want to have.  "Post-birth" abortion.

[mitac]

I think you're way too fatalistic on this one, Goober. The dutch will certainly not turn to that post-birth abortion, for this procedure exactly corresponds to Nazi procedures in 1930's/1940's. The euthanisia programs back then systematically killed handicaped and retarded children, they were taken from their parents into special hospitals to "care for them properly", and then "mysteriously" died of pneumonia.

No government in Europe could seriously try and install such a program. Apart from that: I think letting children that won't be able to live die "peacefully" is not wrong. At least not in these extreme cases, like that "no brain" example.

[SadisticSid]

I'm in agreement with Goober on this one. Euthanasia is a *voluntary* concept and since we can't tell if a child with a birth defect would rather die or go on living we have no right to make that choice. In any case, babies born with such horrible malformations will die of natural causes in the short term, so why not make what little time they have alive as comfortable as possible?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Goober5000
If they have no brain they'll die anyway.

This sets up a dangerous precedent.  First, they'll euthanize children that have life-threatening defects.  Then, they'll euthanize children that have serious abnormalities, such as retardation or Down's Syndrome.  Then they'll be able to get away with euthanizing any child the parent doesn't want to have.  "Post-birth" abortion.

I think you can take just about any principle and extend into something harmful; but only if you remove the ethical and moral boundaries that doctors are sworn to uphold.  I think that if you can dinstinguish that, for example, euthanizing downs syndrome children is wrong, then so can doctors.

[Goober5000]

They're sworn to uphold it.  Doesn't mean they will.  Not all doctors have the same level of moral and ethical restraint.

Euthanasia has been going on in the Netherlands for some time now, and each time it changes it gets more expansive.  The slippery slope is an insidious thing.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by SadisticSid
I'm in agreement with Goober on this one. Euthanasia is a *voluntary* concept and since we can't tell if a child with a birth defect would rather die or go on living we have no right to make that choice. In any case, babies born with such horrible malformations will die of natural causes in the short term, so why not make what little time they have alive as comfortable as possible?

It doesn't have to be volountary...

When the horse breakes his leg, you don't AKS him anything...
The question is - Slow, painfull death or quick, peacefull one..I know what I would chosse any time...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Goober5000
They're sworn to uphold it.  Doesn't mean they will.  Not all doctors have the same level of moral and ethical restraint.

That's why it's being discussed consultatively and towards a legal policy, though; I doubt there are a significant number of doctors (especially ones who would have influence) that would actually take this sort of measure as anything but a last resort, for a patient with no recovery chance and who is suffering constantly (the latter being the key thing, I think)

Originally posted by Goober5000
Euthanasia has been going on in the Netherlands for some time now, and each time it changes it gets more expansive.  The slippery slope is an insidious thing.

I've not been aware of any changes to the euthansia law introduced in 2002; only of a court case brought which prevented mental suffering being used as a justification.... I do know that the Dutch law requires the express voluntary will of the patient and a second opinion (with regards to facilitation by the doctor), and that it has to be in the event of unbearable suffering with no other solution.  (AFAIK the 2002 law itself was only cementing in stone what had been stated as 'tolerable' in 1984)

What i do know, is that current law requires it to be expressly the patients will to die; with regards to the fundamental issue of euthanasia, shouldn't it be a persons choice to die as much as it is to live?

(Of course, the issue here with infants is in that it's a patient incapable of making that choice)

[Flipside]

http://pages.preferred.com/~davisrm/morals.htm

Theres some info on some of our favourite topics and points of view from both sides here.... Interesting read too

[diamondgeezer]

I think we've already allowed this in the UK. There were two high profile cases recently in which very ill premature babies were not resuscitatated on the authority of a high court judge. I mean they died of natural causes resulting from their very premature births, but doctors wanted to be allowed to let them die for their own good. Does that count as euthanasia?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I think we've already allowed this in the UK. There were two high profile cases recently in which very ill premature babies were not resuscitatated on the authority of a high court judge. I mean they died of natural causes resulting from their very premature births, but doctors wanted to be allowed to let them die for their own good. Does that count as euthanasia?

No, because the doctors were only allowed to withhold resuscitation; euthanasia would involve actively 'killing' (for lack of a less emotive term) the baby, be that by administering some substance (which causes death) or withholding life-supporting treatment.

[Janos]

Originally posted by Goober5000
If they have no brain they'll die anyway.

This sets up a dangerous precedent.  First, they'll euthanize children that have life-threatening defects.  Then, they'll euthanize children that have serious abnormalities, such as retardation or Down's Syndrome.  Then they'll be able to get away with euthanizing any child the parent doesn't want to have.  "Post-birth" abortion.

WHERE DOES IT END?!?!?!

Here, gentlemen, we have something known as "slippery slope fallacy".

[Tiara]

So, once again people got it all wrong

For an euthanesia they need;

1). Evidence of terminal illness, extreme malformations or extensive lifelong conditions provided by a doctor and verified by others.
2). Authorization by either the patient in question or the legal guardian of the patient.

So before people start yelling "OH MY GOD!!! THEY KILL CHILDREN AND SACRIFICE THEM TO LUCIFER!!!!1111oneoneone" get your facts straight.

The most people hear about it outside the Netherlands is conservative and religious points of views. And those people base their opinions on the subject at hand accordingly instead of actually looking at the facts concerning this subject. Let me ask you this; if you were in excruciating pain or were doomed to live the rest of your natural life as a vegetable, would you really want to live? Or would you want the option to decide over YOUR OWN LIFE?

In the end, it's all up to the patient. If he/she says no (or the legal guardians do) it won't happen! Doctors don't euthanise people without consent.

Is it really such a bad thing that we give a person without hope of a normal life an oppertunity to die with at least a shred of dignity?

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by TrashMan


It doesn't have to be volountary...

When the horse breakes his leg, you don't AKS him anything...
The question is - Slow, painfull death or quick, peacefull one..I know what I would chosse any time...

Yes it does. If you kill someone without their consent that's murder, not even euthanasia. Animals don't have the same rights so your 'analogy' is invalid

The problem here is that the child CAN'T give its consent. People who can communicate and who make the decision of their own free will (though even that's open to greedy relatives who might want rid of granny to get their claws into her inheritance) can be legally euthanised in some countries.

The similarity with post-birth abortion that Goober mentioned is nearly absolute - it's a third party making a decision about who lives and who dies.

[Goober5000]

And in some cases there isn't even consent.  Babies have been "euthanized" in the Netherlands without the parents' consent or knowledge.

[Lynx]

Any proof for that?

[Janos]

Originally posted by Goober5000
And in some cases there isn't even consent.  Babies have been "euthanized" in the Netherlands without the parents' consent or knowledge.

source

edit: I refuse to read the thread before making a contribution! Daaaaamn youuuuu, Lynx!

[Goober5000]

I saw an article on one of the UK websites (Telegraph or BBC) last year but I haven't been able to find it.  This is the first article I've found so far on a Google search.  It says that 21% of all euthanized children were done without consent.

[Janos]

Anyone has Lancet account? Because quick Googling shows that most the groups commenting on current Dutch euthanasia thingamungie are basing this on much older Lancet report on euthanasia in Netherlands.

[Lynx]

[]Originally posted by Goober 5000[/i]
This

This article is just a bunch of ****tards jacking each other of and gargling on one anothers semen.

Here's an extract of their article :

t took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg. For those who object to this assertion by claiming that German doctors killed disabled babies during World War II without consent of parents, so too do many Dutch doctors: Approximately 21 percent of the infant euthanasia deaths occurred without request or consent of parents. Moreover, since when did parents attain the moral right to have their children killed?