Dutch Hospital Euthanizes Babies

[Stapel]

The logic defies me.......these enlightened Europeans see no problem with snuffing out the life of an innocent, though diseased, child but find capital punishment for child raping murderers beyond the pale...............must be something in the water........

Though I won't expect you to agree, I do think you should be able to understand this phenomenon.

There is a lot of info in this thread about, you know .

 

[capslock]

I passionately believe in FREEDOM!
I believe each individual has rights&liberties. That includes a right to terminate your own life, once it is painful, miserable and hopeless.

If the individual, as a baby, has no way to express his wish in such a situation, we should ask ourselves what right is stronger:
-the right to live
-the right to have reasonable life

A very slipery slope. And that is why we should discuss it.

Okay. Here is a scenario for you to consider. You come home from work one day and find your wife/mother/best friend/whomever lying on the couch with a number of empty pill containers on the floor next to her/him. It is clear that she/he is attempting suicide. Would you let her/him die, since that is apparently her/his wish, or would you call the paramedics and try to save her/him?

I share your love for freedom, but I do not believe we have the freedom to take (human) life, even if that life is our own. This is a fundamental belief I hold that prevents me from accepting euthanasia. I would call the paramedics and try to save my freind, even if I knew he would be unhappy with me for saving him. I would want to help him live, and if his circumstances are poor, then I would try to help improve them so that he could live a higher quality life.

Also, I am not sure about this "right to have a reasonable life." First of all, reasonable can mean many different things. More importantly, however, if it is their right to live a reasonable life, wouldn't our responsibility be to provide them with one? Otherwise, we would be depriving them of their right, right? Even if we don't have the means to protect their rights by providing them with a reasonable life, I don't see how euthanizing them would help. Euthanizing them would only keep them from living a sub-standard life, it wouldn't help them have a reasonable life.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Capslock: Suicide is something completely different than euthanasia.

Suicide is often a cry for help or a split-moment decision.
Euthanasia "good-dying" is a process of acceptance of the inevitable, a goodbye-process and the end of suffering.

 

[IglooDame]

If memory serves there were a number of "medical procedures" practiced at Dachau and other "medical facilities" in the '40's...............but I'd not whine about that either.....

The logic defies me.......these enlightened Europeans see no problem with snuffing out the life of an innocent, though diseased, child but find capital punishment for child raping murderers beyond the pale...............must be something in the water........

Then you'd really when you try to see the logic of Chinese parents that snuff out the life of an innocent child of an undesirable gender...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

No hope of what? Living? The baby is already alive! We have no right to take it, even if it does make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

It is exactly this type of thinking that disturbs me the most. You aren't killing this baby to help it, but to help the parents, yourself, and all others who aganize while it suffers. This child, or any one who is euthanized for that matter, won't know that their suffering is over. They won't be comforted and thankful that it is finaly over. They'll be dead! Yes, suffering must be endured. After all, much of life is suffering, and we ALL suffer to some extant. Again, how much suffering, or potential suffering, qualifies these children for euthanasia? How long a life span, potential life span, is too long to allow this procedure? The slope is very slippery (see my first post and FL2's post) and I fear that allowing this sort of procedure will only be the beggining.

Yes, the slope is slippery. That is the exact reason laws are being passed, rather than letting this be one of those "dark matters" that never shows up. (Look back, it happens in the US, far more often, it just isn't mentioned.)

You say the child won't be thankful because it'll be dead. (which is bad.) I say it won't be experiencing hellish pain because it's dead. (which is good.) We're on opposite sides of the fence here, and neither argument is really useful, both being an appeal-to-emotion sort of thing.

On how long a potential life span: I think somebody posted that this was for when the maximum life span is a few weeks. The Death With Dignity Act is six months, but applies only to adults.

I don't really have much more to say. The "slippery slope" cry is an argument for passing laws and being open rather than hiding this. I have trouble seeing why this is so inherently bad; can you clarify?

 

[capslock]

Capslock: Suicide is something completely different than euthanasia.

Suicide is often a cry for help or a split-moment decision.

Agreed that it is often a cry for help, not sure about the spur of the moment decision. But my point was that if a person deciedes to end their life, as Stapel said is their right, who are you to interfere? I wanted to show that it is okay to tell people they can't kill themselves.

Euthanasia "good-dying" is a process of acceptance of the inevitable, a goodbye-process and the end of suffering.

Wow, that almost made me want to get euthanized! But, I plan on doing my duty as a living being and live, right up to the end.

I am not forcing anyone to live in pain and suffering, they are living are all by themsleves, with no help from me. I refuse to use my superior intellegence to cheat life by 1) accepting the notion that it is ok to kill to end suffering and 2) killing to end suffering. Euthanasia is not necessary in order to accept the inevitable and say-goodbye. It is a good way to end suffering, but if we accept it as valid method for ending suffering, then we are in big trouble. Suffering is part of life, and everybody suffers. There is infinite room for abuse of your initial good intent.

 

[luiz]

Thanks for handling this discussion so maturely .

You seem to miss an important point though.

I passionately believe in FREEDOM!
I believe each individual has rights&liberties. That includes a right to terminate your own life, once it is painful, miserable and hopeless.

If the individual, as a baby, has no way to express his wish in such a situation, we should ask ourselves what right is stronger:
-the right to live
-the right to have reasonable life

A very slipery slope. And that is why we should discuss it.

Government interference with rights and liberties of individuals, like so many conservatives here seems to argue for, strikes me as quite communistic .

I agree with the basic premisse, however I disagree strongly with the notion that anyone can make the decision of terminating a a babie's life simply because it would be bad. The way I see it, we only come this world once, and hence a crappy life is better then no life at all.

 

[Stapel]

Okay. Here is a scenario for you to consider. You come home from work one day and find your wife/mother/best friend/whomever lying on the couch with a number of empty pill containers on the floor next to her/him. It is clear that she/he is attempting suicide. Would you let her/him die, since that is apparently her/his wish, or would you call the paramedics and try to save her/him?

I'm in a hurry now, as I have to celebrate a fraternity reunion in an hour, but I will elaborate tomorrow, when I recover from the hangover

In such a scenario, I would do anything in my power to save a life, and thus call the paramedics. Even worse: been there, done that. Not a pleasant experience!

The key is in:

since that is apparently her/his wish

This is where the difference between suicide and euthanasia is shown!

and hence a crappy life is better then no life at all.

Wherever the truth lies, it is no universal fact that a crappy life is better than no life at all.

But, luiz, we are not talking about a crappy life here.
We are talking about a painful and hopeless life, not just a crappy life!

Later more!
Cheers,
Stapel

 

[luiz]

Wherever the truth lies, it is no universal fact that a crappy life is better than no life at all.

Certainly, but who are we to decide?

 

[Rik Meleet]

Certainly, but who are we to decide?

"we" in this specific case are the parents who choose to save their newly born babies from the hours or days or weeks of needless suffering.

 

[IglooDame]

Certainly, but who are we to decide?

As Rik says, "we" are the baby's parents who by law, custom, and ethics are empowered to make virtually every other decision for the baby at that point in its life, accompanied by doctors who by law, custom, and ethics are bound to go by the best interests of their patient (the baby).

As I've said before, saying that it is the baby's decision may be true, but since the baby cannot under any circumstances communicate that decision, then the next-best decisionmakers must make it for the baby. Think of it as de facto medical power of attorney.

Reasonable people have asked for euthanasia under similar circumstances (similar except for the extremely young age, obviously) so it is reasonable that a baby could decide that it doesn't want to suffer for two more weeks (assuming higher critical thinking skills on the baby's part, presumably). To equate the baby's inability to communicate that decision to the baby's always deciding not to select euthanasia is doing an injustice to the baby.

 

[luiz]

As Rik says, "we" are the baby's parents who by law, custom, and ethics are empowered to make virtually every other decision for the baby at that point in its life, accompanied by doctors who by law, custom, and ethics are bound to go by the best interests of their patient (the baby).

As I've said before, saying that it is the baby's decision may be true, but since the baby cannot under any circumstances communicate that decision, then the next-best decisionmakers must make it for the baby. Think of it as de facto medical power of attorney.

Reasonable people have asked for euthanasia under similar circumstances (similar except for the extremely young age, obviously) so it is reasonable that a baby could decide that it doesn't want to suffer for two more weeks (assuming higher critical thinking skills on the baby's part, presumably). To equate the baby's inability to communicate that decision to the baby's always deciding not to select euthanasia is doing an injustice to the baby.

Reasonable people have decided not for euthanasia as well, in fact they I have met many people who were terminally ill and went thorugh the whole process(knowing full well that they would die suffering), but I've never met anyone who chose euthanasia. So how can we assume that the baby would choose euthanasia?

 

[jack merchant]

but I've never met anyone who chose euthanasia.

It'd be rather more surprising if you had in fact met anyone who chose euthanasia !

 

[IglooDame]

Reasonable people have decided not for euthanasia as well, in fact they I have met many people who were terminally ill and went thorugh the whole process(knowing full well that they would die suffering), but I've never met anyone who chose euthanasia. So how can we assume that the baby would choose euthanasia?

I've never met anyone who chose euthanasia either, but I do know that there are some out there.

So, we don't assume that the baby would always choose one or the other. Instead, we assume that the baby would look at the circumstances similarly to the way the parents/doctors would and choose similarly. The fact that reasonable people tend to decide against euthanasia is reflected in the fact that (in the Netherlands, at least) the parents and multiple doctors must all agree on it - in effect they each have a veto, which makes an inherent bias against euthanasia but still allowing it as an option.

 

[thestonesfan]

If I had a baby that had no chance for anything close to a decent life I would want it euthanized. The option should exist.

 

[emzie]

Suffering is part of life, and everybody suffers. There is infinite room for abuse of your initial good intent.

You and I agree on that point. Very much so. If person A is Schizophrenic, his or her perception of his or her own life will be pretty crappy. It's never going to end. Why continue (which is why so many Schizophrenics kill themselves)?

That's the reason behind acting now to set clear and precise guidelines, and banning what falls outside of it. I know, from the other side of the argument, your side, that seams like a weak answer as opposed to outright banning all, but that's your right. But we see pointlessly continuing life differently. However, we both fear the abuse. I don't want such abuse to happen either.

Choose that for yourself, and I'll never question it. Let me choose for myself, and I only ask the same.

 

[shadowdude]

OK, I believe I agree in great lines with Stapel on these issues.
I also believe you want to discuss these issues in a honest way.

But it's 12.15 PM here (or should I say 0.15 AM), so time for me to go to bed.
Furthermore these issues are off-topic. Therefore I think it's better to discuss them by PM. I will send you one tomorrow.

Sounds good

This is where the difference between suicide and euthanasia is shown! ( since that is apparently her/his wish)

But one would argue that if someone is such pain that they wished to end their life, it might not be a rational decision.

Wherever the truth lies, it is no universal fact that a crappy life is better than no life at all.

But, luiz, we are not talking about a crappy life here.
We are talking about a painful and hopeless life, not just a crappy life!

Shouldn't we let the child (person) decide wether they want to die rather than killing them because we think they want too? obviously they are too young and cannot communicate that choice, but would you really kill them out of "mercy"- how do we know they might want to live with that pain.

 

[Rik Meleet]

But one would argue that if someone is such pain that they wished to end their life, it might not be a rational decision.

And that is exactly the point of this legislation, as I see it. To make it rational.
In this case the "someone" are the parents and the person who is (or will be) in pain is the doomed, heavily misformed to such an extent that it cannot live, baby.
Parents love their children and saving it from pain and suffering can be an act of love, as well as a rational decision.

This thread is not about killing unwanted babies; it is about allowing heavily misformed babies with no chance of a life, except for a short painful and with a lot of suffering, to die peacefully.

If I had a baby with no brains, no mouth, no skin, no stomach, liver and colon-system (thus unable to eat and who will certainly die of starvation, whilst even air or clothing on it's 'skin' causing enormous pain) I would allow him or her to die peacefully. I would love it too much to force it to suffer it's short life.

 

[Stapel]

I've never met anyone who chose euthanasia either, but I do know that there are some out there.

I have known one. But there could be far more, since it usually is not something publicly announced.

Last spring, it turned out my mother was suffering from cancer. Chances of full recovery were not that big, and doctors told her there was a reasonable chance for a long and nasty path towards death.
At that moment, my mother made me promise her that I would make a dicision for her, in case she would not be able to do so herself.

The good thing is that she totally recovered .

Shouldn't we let the child (person) decide wether they want to die rather than killing them because we think they want too? obviously they are too young and cannot communicate that choice, but would you really kill them out of "mercy"- how do we know they might want to live with that pain.

Only in very very exceptional cases, such as no brains, no mouth, no skin, no stomach, liver and colon-system.