They have already been euthanizing adults without their consent, and have been doing so for some time.
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.
souorce
They have already been euthanizing adults without their consent, and have been doing so for some time.
Something similar was practiced in this country up until recently. If a baby was severely ill and could not thrive to support itself, a doctor would instruct nurses not to feed it.
The way it is represented in the article, I do not have a problem with this.
</font><ul type="square">[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Those who love the baby the most, the parents, are making the decision in concert with those who know the most about the baby's prognosis, the doctors.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If it were me, I would prefer a quick and relatively painless death to a short but painful life. No one benefits from the prolonging of life in these tragic circumstances, except possibly the hospital (financially).</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is much more honest to acknowledge and open the practice for public scrutiny as they are doing in Amsterdam, instead of doing it furtively and illegally, the way the article acknowledges WE ARE DOING ANYWAY in the U.S.A.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The most practical item on the list: all things above being considered, this would save money for the parents who are already going to be grieving.</font>[/list]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wrote more but it is too personal to put on a board such as this. Gae, you will have a PM shortly.
As AL says mercy killings are indeed happening in this country. Unfortunately due to the legal repurcussions doctors and nurses can only aid the worst cases and then usually only by way of witholding something, such as food, as actively intervening would put them at risk of being prosectuted by those who would rather someone suffer intolerably than risk offending their sense of what god wants us to do.
My wife worked for over 15 years in critical care units and I've heard my share of stories of people in extreme pain with no hope of solace being forced to continue on just because the "moral" laws that make it a crime to help them prevent caring providers from taking what they know to be the truly compassionate course of action.
I thought I was undecided on this issue until I started typing. While it pulls at the heartstrings that these are newborns, I'm going to go with what AL said,<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">.If it were me, I would prefer a quick and relatively painless death to a short but painful life
Terminally ill animals are put down because we as a society recognize that it's more humane.
But terminally ill people are kept alive to suffer. Who benefits? Obviously, the hospitals and hospice centers, because that kind of care is expensive. The family members suffer; who wants to remember a parent or spouse being kept "alive" artificially? The patient suffers.
I've never met anyone who has asked to be kept alive artifically.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I actually laughed out loud when I read this. IMHO the Dutch haven't lost their moral compass. I think they are acting humanely and in the best interest of the person suffering. I know that were I in a postion where I was in intolerable pain with no hope of recovery or even survival, that someone would be decent enough to end my life.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.
I would hate to be kept artificially alive so that some holier than though catholic can claim a moral victory. Of course they'll never have to pay my medical bills, pay for the counceling D2 would have to go through to help her cope with 24x7 care of me for the rest of her life, etc etc.
I spit on the church, and Mr. Wesely Smith. Neither of them are worthy enough to wipe my ass!!
This is one of those case by case decisions.
My father-in-law was in ICU 10 years ago. He saw he was on a ventilator to assist his breathing....he thought, it was keeping him alive. He begged my Husband to pull the plug(Paul is executor of living will). FIL went as far as trying to pull the tubes himself. Luckily his is still with us and enjoying his famly.
A friend has a grandson who is terminal. He probably won't make it to his teens. They are in and out of the hospital constantly. Would she even consider euthanizing this child....Hell NO!
Another friend's 18 yr old son got his 16 yr old girlfriend pregnant. Months into it, they find the baby has some serious problems . It will need surgery immediately after birth just to correct one of the problems. The mother has a 2 week window whether to abort.
All I can say is I hope none of us are faced with these types of circumstances.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks