British College Recommends Euthanasia for Sickest Newborns

BRITAIN'S Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology is reportedly calling on doctors to consider euthanasing "the sickest of newborns" which it says can disable healthy families.

The Sunday Times newspaper said today the proposal was in reaction to the number of such children who were surviving because of medical advances.
The college argued "active euthanasia" should be considered for the good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.

The proposal is contained in the college's submission to an inquiry into ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborn babies.

Euthanasia of newborns is illegal in Britain. continues news.com.au

Obviously this is a topic that invokes strong opinions and emotions.

I personally am very much against this proposal, with the the exception of a baby being born brain dead or having the prospect of a zero quality of life.

Sometimes having a child with a severe disability can bond a loving family even more. In my opinion, if the newborn has a prospect of some degree of quality of life then the government should provide appropriate care support and financial assistance.

sanc

Yes, survival of the fittest. Any civilization that has a sense of true well being for the people would do their utmost to rid their gene pool of the weaker elements in order for the overall population healthier. But humans are definatly complex beings, there is no doubt about that. Compassion is a blessing and a curse at the same time. Eventually, euthenasia will be common in cases such as this everywhere. Something has to be done to curve the growth of our population, and this is just one of the first steps.

Euthanasia is murder in my eyes.
Governments and Doctors should never play God with people's lives. The abortion debate has been raised again in the UK, some are aiming to lower the number of weeks that an abortion can be carried out. I think they are trying to reduce it from 21 weeks.

The brutal truth is that this only mirrors what goes on in nature. Lame foals, the runt of the litter, or the sick and injured offspring are almost always abondoned by the parent so as to maximise the chances of the other offspring, or the family group, surviving. In the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest is paramount, and it's what got us to where we are today.

However, for us, it's different. It's not about filtering the gene pool.. the serverely disabled aren't likely to be re-producing anyway.

Nor is it a question of whether or not the family survives. Our modern society ensures we don't starve, so in practical terms there's not reason why the parent's couldn't care for the child......it comes down instead to the quality of life for the child, the parents, and the other siblings.

Put in those terms, it initially seems utterly selfish to even consider the euthenasia if there is a chance the child could have some sort of life experience, However, it should be debated now, as the issue might not seem so clear cut in a few years.

As medical science continues to find new ways to keep people alive, we may one day arrive at a situation where we can keep even those with the severest disabilities and terrible diseases alive indefinately, yet not actually be able to CURE those problems. A child that suffers for a few years before dying of natureal causes before he/she was even aware they were different, may instead end up enduring a virtual life sentence, in pain, confined within rapidly deteriorating body, sufering 1000 times more than they otherwise would have.

Then of course there are the practical issues, namely money. While one can't put a price on a human life, money is a finite resource, and it must surely spent where it can help the most people.


Difficult indeed. And I think we must all try to avoid knee jerk reactions when considering the moral question and ALL of implications.

I gotta go with infinite on this one. We aren't animals, we have the ability to care for our lesser brothers and we should.

This made me think of a child that I know of where the Drs. told the parents she would die. She was severely handicapped and could not eat or anything, just screamed in pain 24 hours a day. They said she would die in a few days. The parents took her home.

As a last ditch effort they went to a Chiropractor who discovered a vetebrae had been severely twisted during the birth. She did not have cerebral palsy as diagnosed. He was beside himself afraid to touch such a tiny being to attempt to correct it, but at the parents insistence he did. She healed, grew up and led a normal life.

Who wants to play God? That's what it boils down to.

Edit: Oh, I forgot - it's the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology that ought to be considered for euthanizing if you ask me.

[edit on 11/5/2006 by Relentless]

How about we make a stew out of them and serve them up to the lizards who would gobble it up quickly?

I mean where is this all going to anyways? then we have the problem of who gets to decide these things? what is their agenda? their biases? will they rule against my child because they don't like me? because I dare criticize the state?

see some of the problems?

Yeah, not only do I see some problems, but I also see this (if it continues) to evolve into assessing the elderly the same way (just about the time I get there).

post removed at authors request



[edit on 12-11-2006 by pantha]

If I had of been born severely retarded or deformed; I would have prefered to have been euthanasied rather to have been a drain on my parents and society in general. I can't imagine a more pathetic life than knowing that you are the reason for keeping your parents from realizing their potential both financially and emotionally.

If anything happens to me even in adulthood to cause me to be a burden on my family; I hope I will have the courage and nobility to take the long swim or end it in some other manner.

Thats just my decision. I can't speak for anyone other than myself.

Originally posted by oxygen_kills
. Something has to be done to curve the growth of our population, and this is just one of the first steps.

So, first it's done for a 'healthy gene pool' then it's done to combat overpopulation, anybody see a pattern? which is it? btw, i hope you understand that there are few if any useful guidlines on genetic 'fitness' only ideology, most diseases do not have a known genetic cause-> effect relationship, so your reasons in favor eugenics are no better than Hitler's.

A 'strong race'. for that you'd apprently be willing to kill not just those who you consider unfit on a basis you have yet to explain, but anyone who you'd consider 'too many'. i think i'll stop here, for various reasons.

=======


About the subject at hand, i can see killing severely disabled babies with little or no hope for redemption, but for the family's sake, not mine or our 'great (insert whatever you wish here) society or my deluded ego.

PS:where's that 'way below top secret' award when you need it?