Euthanasia - Netherlands pre-emp

[Funkenstein]

From this article:

Netherlands hospital euthanizes babies

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives - a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people ``with no free will,'' including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.

The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said.


Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.


The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.


The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.


Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.


The hospital revealed last month it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital or the doctors.


Roman Catholic organizations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to the announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.


``The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into a vertical cliff,'' said Wesley J. Smith, a prominent California-based critic, in an e-mail to The Associated Press.


Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.


``As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong,'' said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. ``In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting.''


According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen, but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals.


Groningen estimated the protocol would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country of 16 million people.


Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge.


However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.


``Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day,'' said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. ``Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do.''


More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said.



Wow. I want to say I am beyond belief, but sadly I am not. Have we begun to meddle too far?

[Adam D]

I was pretty taken aback when I read that.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally Posted by rufuspfunk

whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives

Bipolar Emo & Goth people are the worst for this. They keep saying they want to die, then half-ass try it, 'cuz they "change their mind". SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT, DAMNIT.

I wish they'd legalize forced euthanasia in cases like them. I'll help.

[dfwtrader]

although somewhat surprised that they brought it public, after living there for a while i am actually not surprised it happens there....i think this is where a lot of conservatives like myself who dont normally want to interfere with privacy issues start to worry. abortion, euthenasia, mercy killings.....where is the line drawn? i think a lot of people are concerned with the type of precedent these issues set.....i know i know people are going to say that an abortion and this are two different things but are they really that far off. why is this not considered child abuse? i also realize that like the article said, euthenasia happens all the time by the act of not doing anything or pulling the plug, but i don't think i can accept the repurcussions of taking a childs life because of an illness.

Originally Posted by Adam D

I was pretty taken aback when I read that.

[kit'n]

im all for it.



kill em all!

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by kit'n

im all for it.



kill em all!

And this is how humanity will end.

Paint us a pretty picture of this event then have them hang it in the Louvre for study when you go abroad next year to France.

Zing.

[question]

We should allow these babies to suffer immensely and die a horrific painful death? But yet, we're allowed to kill animals that are in extreme pain, out of mercy. The babies aren't euthanized indescriminately. It says really clearly in the article what the prerequisits are. It seems like the humane thing to do, in my opinion. The Dutch and the Swiss seem to be two of the few countries actually concerned with quality of life over existance of life.

Originally Posted by rufuspfunk

Wow. I want to say I am beyond belief, but sadly I am not. Have we begun to meddle too far?

[Tortures Dionysos]

After reading this... I think "survival of the fittest"... and if there is a baby who is deformed and not able to live on it's own... then should it survive?

But, I think that the baby should be allowed to live/die on it's own. Meaning: Measures are not taken to extend the life of the baby... vs. killing the baby.

I will say this... I think with all our medical discoveries... we have taken saving a human way too far... people are left to live... far beyond what is reasonable. Such as a person in a coma who can't breathe on their own is kept around for years, and years. All because it would be "wrong" to pull the plug.

At what point do we step back and let nature take it's course? When do we stop coming up with ways for people to live longer... and let our bodies do what they were meant to do naturally... die from heart attacks... high blood pressure... disease... etc.

Originally Posted by question

We should allow these babies to suffer immensely and die a horrific painful death? But yet, we're allowed to kill animals that are in extreme pain, out of mercy. The babies aren't euthanized indescriminately. It says really clearly in the article what the prerequisits are. It seems like the humane thing to do, in my opinion. The Dutch and the Swiss seem to be two of the few countries actually concerned with quality of life over existance of life.

post-natal abortions - neat trick

[dfwtrader]

This is very very true, its the same as a heard being thinned by lack of food or by disease and age.

Originally Posted by Karen EpiK

At what point do we step back and let nature take it's course? When do we stop coming up with ways for people to live longer... and let our bodies do what they were meant to do naturally... die from heart attacks... high blood pressure... disease... etc.

[Ash]

We should invade the Netherlands and put an end to this.

[dfwtrader]

You make a very good point about quality of life over existance of life. Again I will reiterate I think most people see a fine line between euthenasia by passive means of letting a disease run its course, which they mentioned, and actively participating in ending a life. I think some are especially worried when the life you are ending is not your own and is that of your child, no matter what the "prerequisites" are.

I have never walked in the shoes of someone who has had to deal with a terminally ill child, and I do not claim to have any clue as to the emotional stress and physical hardships that must be endured. I also pray that I never do.

I don't know the answer, I am just sitting here thinking about how shitty that must be to endure and then have to make a decision like that....

Geez....I am done with this thread.

Originally Posted by question

We should allow these babies to suffer immensely and die a horrific painful death? But yet, we're allowed to kill animals that are in extreme pain, out of mercy. The babies aren't euthanized indescriminately. It says really clearly in the article what the prerequisits are. It seems like the humane thing to do, in my opinion. The Dutch and the Swiss seem to be two of the few countries actually concerned with quality of life over existance of life.

[question]

Ah, so your dog can die an honorable and merciful death instead of suffering in immense pain and agony. But your terminally ill baby can't die an honorable and merciful death, they have to suffer and let the disease work it's course.

How compassionate.

Originally Posted by xiannaix

post-natal abortions - neat trick

[question]

Personally, and I'm sure I've made this clear. It's quality of life over existance of life for me. I don't think that it's fair to force a newborn to suffer and suffer, and suffer, even though it's known their life will end. Instead of forcing them to suffer, forcing the family to suffer through the process, let the family make the choice of whether or not to allow it.

If I were put in the situation, it would be an incredibly difficult choice. But if I see that child is suffering, and in immense pain that cannot be relieved, then I can't help but be merciful. They deserve to die honorably, and painlessly. No one's life is so valuable that they should be forced to suffer through pain. It's simply not fair to that person.

Originally Posted by dfwtrader

I don't know the answer, I am just sitting here thinking about how shitty that must be to endure and then have to make a decision like that....

Geez....I am done with this thread.

Originally Posted by question

Ah, so your dog can die an honorable and merciful death instead of suffering in immense pain and agony. But your terminally ill baby can't die an honorable and merciful death, they have to suffer and let the disease work it's course.

How compassionate.

My neice died after living 3 days last month - I'm extremely qualified to discuss this topic.