Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’

Originally posted by riley
[I'm guessing you haven't been close up and personal with someone dieing of cancer.. there are some levels of pain that cannot be treated with painkillers and there are times when death is kinder than allowing someone to suffer. There have been people who have asked for the right to die because they could no longer withstand the pain. I in no way condone or agree with a baby killed for birth defects.. again.. I was talking about the pain the baby was going through and not the abnormality itself.

You would be very, very wrong. I have had a fellow Marine die in my arms, a father that struggled thru significant pain for 5 years after a major stoke, I ran a suicide hotline, and more. I have survived being a POW, daily torture, praying for death myself.........I live daily with intense PAIN from it all.

Please do not pretend to "preach" to me about physical pain........

I learned all Life is precious and can not be taken for granted. I don't just preach, I make a significant effort to respect the miracle that is LIFE!

A broken leg???

Thats a crappy analogy to say the least. I have broken my leg twice. Even if it couldnt heal, being bed-ridden still carries a pretty decent standard of life compared with the defects WE are talking about. Being in enormous physical pain from birth, with no hope of recovery, or even life past 18 months is not a broken leg.

When we are talking about "baby" euthanasia we are talking about a decision by the mother and father with the doctors guiding knowledge. We arent talking about putting old people down, or executing retards. Stop trying to twist this to suit your opinion.

I also have a retarded person in my life (best friends brother), and it angers me that people even drag this into the discussion. Being retarded isnt necessarily living in anguish.

Originally posted by DaFunk13

I also have a retarded person in my life (best friends brother), and it angers me that people even drag this into the discussion. Being retarded isnt necessarily living in anguish.

But how long will it be before the small step become a leap as it did in germany?

It has happened before.....................

You make the point very well sir!

Originally posted by pepsi78

...As for Bibliophile I think it's just greed for him, too worryed that a disabled kid might influence his buget...

I never made this statement and this is an absurd assertion.

My point, Therm, is that this is a debate about ending infant birth-defect related suffering; Not about this being a gateway to genocide.

You can believe what you will, but you sound just like all the commercials that claim marijuana always leads to crack use and prostitution. Its just a direction you try to add to support your argument. No one else is saying we should start killing anyone "they" deem as disadvantaged.

And if you are seriouly going to advocate any kind of human compassion....lose the avatar.

Originally posted by thermopolis
But how long will it be before the small step become a leap as it did in germany?

It has happened before.....................

You could make that same argument about war can't you?
If it's OK to shoot an enemy soldier then how long until it is OK to just go around killing off an entire race of people and making lamp shades out of their skin?

Do you understand how absurd your (and pepsi's and lost sailor's) arguments are?

Making it OK to end someone's persistent suffering is not the same as killing someone because they have a broken leg or a mental retardation.

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by thermopolis
But how long will it be before the small step become a leap as it did in germany?

It has happened before.....................

You could make that same argument about war can't you?
If it's OK to shoot an enemy soldier then how long until it is OK to just go around killing off an entire race of people and making lamp shades out of their skin?

Do you understand how absurd your (and pepsi's and lost sailor's) arguments are?

Making it OK to end someone's persistent suffering is not the same as killing someone because they have a broken leg or a mental retardation.

Denial of the truth? Mercy killings have been around a long time.......does that make it OK?

OK, how many lives would YOU give to save 1,000,000 lives?

How long would you "make" this child suffer to save 10,000 others? Is that OK?

This discussion is going nowhere.

The baby was in a lot of pain, and had no chance of a normal life.

...

“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 not that a euthanasia procedure is decided in a minute or two, there are VERY strickt rules for it.

Even the parents thought it was better to let her die in piece, so who the hell are you to blame them.

Here in Holland we can let people in a humane way. Terri Schiavo was STARVED to death, only because the US is so backwards about euthanasia.

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
This discussion is going nowhere.

The baby was in a lot of pain, and had no chance of a normal life.

Here in Holland we can let people in a humane way. Terri Schiavo was STARVED to death, only because the US is so backwards about euthanasia.

So as long as it is "quick" it is OK? Instant murder is better than slow murder? That is absurd.............

[edit on 7-3-2006 by thermopolis]

I couldn't agree with Zion more. Do you know how big a spectacle you people made of yourselves to we Europeans? You turned a suffering, non-functioning woman into a national object by starving her and putting news cameras in front of her. My medical school actually used her case study as an example of how NOT to treat patients with regard to patient confidentiality and chain of custody.

Who are we to play god over a life

Not to bring up religion, but I live in a predominantly Catholic nation and my flat is about 3 hours from the center of Catholic power (Vatican), so I get a healthy dose of "who are we to play god" all the time. My view is, waaaay back in the old times, a bunch of older, powerful men wanted to secure power for men, so they created a religion which subjugates they poor and female. Humans invented god, we get to make the rules. I think if there ever was any sort of supreme being, he has long since taken his ball and gone home.

~MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I couldn't agree with Zion more. Do you know how big a spectacle you people made of yourselves to we Europeans?
~MFP

Thanks I feel much better knowing our "allies" think life is so cheap. Perhaps we will sit out the next war.

Has life in europe become so boring that ending it is so easy?

hey thermopolis, man...imagine if you're the baby's father for a second, you look it in the eyes and see that it is suffering an unbearable pain, one that you wouldnt wish on your worst enemy, and yet you view existence as a miracle and do nothing about it; treatment is futile, suffering is inevitable...I think that the look in that baby's eye would plague you for life, had you seen it.

Life is better lived if one can live a prosperous life

Thanks I feel much better knowing our "allies" think life is so cheap. Perhaps we will sit out the next war.

Has life in europe become so boring that ending it is so easy?

First, we were never your allies. We fought you in WWII, but nice to know you guys study history so well. Secondly, you are already in the next war, you're fighting all across the Middle East and trying to conquer Islam. Nice. And finally, it's not that life is boring or that we are ending it, Italy actually has strict laws regarding abortion (again, the Catholic thing), but we also respect the fact that it's not really life if you're missing half your brain, are in excrutiating pain constantly, or, as in the case of Schiavo, just stare at the ceiling all day without making so much as a sound or movement. Please tell me what the purpose of sustaining her life was. She clearly couldn't experience any stimuli, couldn't feed herself or go to the bathroom, she couldn't survive without medical equipment, and couldn't even move. Sounds like a case of unnatural life support to me.

If she were in that condition even 60 years ago, she wouldn't have survived. At some point, we have to take into account the natural progression of life and death and ease it. It's not at all about ceasing what would be a longm healthy life. It's about painlessly easing along a natural, inevitable death. That infant was already on the wane, and this method used in Holland simply allowed the infant to die a painless, dignified death instead of being tormented as its body finally went into shock or hemorrhaged.

~MFP

Originally posted by ivansusanin

Life is better lived if one can live a prosperous life

Really?

I thought the argument here was about pain?

So - the fit are rich, huh?

Originally posted by ivansusanin
hey thermopolis, man...imagine if you're the baby's father for a second, you look it in the eyes and see that it is suffering an unbearable pain, one that you wouldnt wish on your worst enemy, and yet you view existence as a miracle and do nothing about it; treatment is futile, suffering is inevitable...I think that the look in that baby's eye would plague you for life, had you seen it.

Life is better lived if one can live a prosperous life

I have looked evil, pain and death in the eye many times..............I choose LIFE prosperous or not.

So now are we saying the poor should be killed off too? They have no hope in some countries to life a prosperous life.....................

I just can't believe what I am hearing from people. So the illegit rules of some imaginary being are now taking presidence over the real suffering of a life?


Where can I resign from my species?

Originally posted by Bibliophile
I never made this statement and this is an absurd assertion.

Originally posted by Bibliophile
Quality of life should always take precedence over quantity. Realistically, the severely handicapped are a drain on resources.

I'm confused... This is illogical.

so, now we are to prove the baby was in pain, the doctors don't know what they are talking about???

oh, yes, let's talk about terri for a moment......about how she starved to death......the impression I got from all the ruckus that was going on was that starvation was a very horrible way to die, very painful....

okay, let's assume for a moment that she did indeed feel the pain of suffering, for those few days. how long did she lay there, with half of her brain turned to mush, not able to voice or signal to anyone about the pain she more than likely was feeling....if indeed she felt the pain of starvation.

can any of yous prove to me that this lady could feel the pain involved with her starving to death, but not the pain involved with her long lasting physical condition? you's seemed very eager to latch onto the idea that the starvation was painful for her, but then, well, for all those years, you seemed to want to refuse that she might have been living a life of hell!!

was she in pain, or wasn't she?

careful, if you say yes, the you admit that you would have preferred that she stay trapped within that body, alone, unable to communicate that pain to anyone.

as for the babies, born with untreatable conditions that cause a great amount of pain, yous are aware that many of the good painkillers wouldn't have been given to them anyways, aren't you? I mean, to administer to babies that small would have been an act of euthanasia in itself.

we're getting at the point where we could conceivably keep someone alive forever. something in the bible keeps coming to mind, something about men wishing to die but they can't.....

gee...

Originally posted by thermopolis
..
Such so called extreme cases give emotional cover to those who seem to worship death. All to often they become a point of president for future judges to use to push a little further.
..

I don't know how many people actually worship death, nor do i care much about their preferences, tbh, but from what i gathered, you don't seem to consider the remote possibility that you're wrong in this case. Being Pro-Life is a mindset not an excuse for outlandish claims and demands just because you regard the infant's (biological) life as absolute while ignoring how it all affects the rest of the world or even the child him/herself.


PS: i view Eutanasia as a GRAVE THREAT, especially the autism epidemic and degenerative disease, but let'S face it, we'd better make sure we DON'T squander our arguments, or taint our motives.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by Long Lance]