Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

Oh, how could I forget? The mighty sky pixie commands that people should suffer and die only at his pleasure. Even if it's in your power to help someone else die it's better to let them suffer. A suffering animal can be put down, but humans have SOULS that are purified by suffering.

...

Honour killing is a tribal practice that should be abandoned. Killing your daughter because she was raped? Killing a child that wants to marry the wrong kind of people? Barbaric.

---

You say that humans are no better than animals and yet you criticize others as barbaric? :inquisitive:

Let's follow your strange logic:

Humans are animals, animals are food, let's eat people! Oh wait that would be barbaric; you must be a vegan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Wow I don't know what to say. What are yall doing in the UK? I'm a stout and stubborn supporter for abortions up to late term (when the baby can survive on its own) but this is way to far. So what if the baby is severely mentally retarded, they deserve as a human the right to live and develop. Some of the greatest philosopher's are handicaped mentally and physically. Look at the brilliant Stephen Hawking, one of the smartest people in the world he is severly crippled. He'll probably die eventually from his disabilities. Should we have just given him mercy and taken a knife to his throat when the disability first started to develop?

Good lord, killing a baby becuase it's malformed is beyond me. Let us not forget Budha. So disformed was he that most refered to him as a cyclops. Yet look at what he accomplished. It would be one thing if the person had asked to be killed, but the baby has no say in the matter. The child is a human being, they deserve all the protections of the law and then some because they cannot defend themselves. They deserve to live even if their disabled, we shouldnt snuff out a life because they are handicaped or have severe disorders. This is a very, very slippery slope.

I guess the only thing else I could say is, not in Texas. I would invoke my 1st and 2nd amendment rights and have an armed protest outside the representatives house who proposed this idiocy.

---

Those are Rare Cases Big Tex :whip: ,

I think, if the Kid just will be born, Blind or Deaf, and say, that is it, No then. One little Ploblem like Blindness or Deafness don't casues that many ploblems. But When a Kid, a Baby I should say, will be in so much pain, and have to live with several ploblems in his/her life, then I say let them go and have a new one..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Seamus, I disagree with your views on the issue, but this post proves once more that you are Senior Member material. Palms will have to be greased, files lifted and the occasional reputation destroyed in the process, but it shouldn't be long before you can access KukriKhan's beer stash.
:bow:

---

Kind of you to say, sir, though not necessary. Hmmm...Beer stash...:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Sasaki, there are counter-examples of parents and doctors prolonging untold suffering in new-born children for reasons of religiosity, medical hubris, etcetera.

Anecdotal evidence and moral absolutes are useless in practice, i.e. when you are faced with a dilemma without knowing the outcome of your decisions. With 20/20 hindsight, some parents will be satisfied with their decision to intervene in certain ways, others will not. And in this regard, non-intervention is a choice just like any other. This boy Hunter that you refer to may have lived for six years in relative comfort and happiness. Other Hunters die horribly after six years of constant pain and misery.

The only question we can legitimately address is who should decide and on what grounds. Your suggestion (as per Hunter's example) that parental love and deviotion will always prevail over pain, misery and death is, to say the least, naive.

---

I posted that as an example of why keeping them alive was "not worth it". I guess it could easily have sounded like I was saying killing them was not worth it. I think it's a prime example of the parents getting satisfaction from being martyrs.

I missed this thread. I understand the mercy killing argument, but the argument put forward by the Royal College of Surgeons and apparently the Church of England is the cost to treat the child being 'worth it' and whether the 'worth it' decision belongs solely to the physician. I know universal health care is expensive, but this is full blown eugenics, folks. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Why doesn't that surprise me? Diluting the master race are they?

---

Well they are wasting resources, time, money and energy, its sad to say it but they are a waste of energy, in those pictures that kid looked the same as if he was just a dummy, no emotion on his face, yes he may be a human being but his life just looks terrible.

This doesn't even have anything to do with politics its common sense.

Ragnar,
Stephen Hawking couldn't justify his existence using your criteria. Would you recommend snuffing him as not contributing to society?

im talking about very very severly disable people, here have you looked at the link with the pictures, stephen hawkings is at least aware of what is happening around him and can perform simple tasks, i doubt that child in the link can, and still that is only one example..

Dave, have you ever heard of Harlequin Icthyosis?

Ive just looked into that and it looks awful, but i bet some people here would agree to keep that child alive though it clearly looks in pain....

As distasteful as some people may find the money argument for this sort of thing, it does have to be considered. Intensive neo-natal care is very expensive, and the NHS doesn't have an unlimited budget. Every pound being spent on prolonging the life of a premature baby who is probably going to die, or have severe disabilities, is money that then can't be spent on other less emotive-but no less necessary-things. I'm not saying that I agree exactly with what's being proposed, but I don't think you can completely remove cost from the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

As distasteful as some people may find the money argument for this sort of thing, it does have to be considered. Intensive neo-natal care is very expensive, and the NHS doesn't have an unlimited budget. Every pound being spent on prolonging the life of a premature baby who is probably going to die, or have severe disabilities, is money that then can't be spent on other less emotive-but no less necessary-things. I'm not saying that I agree exactly with what's being proposed, but I don't think you can completely remove cost from the equation.

---

Sounds like a sound reason for not having a blanket socialist health care system.

Quote:

---

Sounds like a sound reason for not having a blanket socialist health care system.

---

So a sound reason without that blanket health care would be that the doctors can end the childs life because the parents cannot afford the costs themselves .
Or do you mean something entirely different on this topic ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Sounds like a sound reason for not having a blanket socialist health care system.

---

So its okay for those who can afford neo-natal care to have their babies live, while others who can't afford to pay have to watch their child die?

I would prefer an option to choose a health care plan that fits my desires rather than the same one that every different shaped peg is forced into. My current health care plan has layers and options, I get to pick and pay accordingly and if I choose a plan that offers more I pay more.

My motivations are not so sinister as to deprive babies of care, but to allow choices that represent coverage to the recipients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

So its okay for those who can afford neo-natal care to have their babies live, while others who can't afford to pay have to watch their child die?

---

It is better than if in the interest of fairness, we kill all marginal babies, even those who have parents that can afford to and want to save them. I've heard of making sacrafices at the altar of political correctness, but this is ridiculous. You're going to force people into a one-payer system, then tell them that the government won't pay for their child's care, and in the interest of fairness to others, you won't let them pay for it either. Yeah, that's... uhm, an interesting approach.

While we're at it, are we going to take food and clothes away from middle class and wealthy children too? ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It is better than if in the interest of fairness, we kill all marginal babies, even those who have parents that can afford to and want to save them. You're going to force people into a one-payer system, then tell them that the government won't pay for their child's care, and in the interest of fairness to others, you won't let them pay for it either. Yeah, that's... uhm, an interesting approach.

---

i can see where your coming from,

but in that case, would those who can afford it be willing to pay for all of that type of care? last time i checked they didn't like paying more tax. Its wrong to say that "when i need it" im willing to pay for the nhs, but "when i don't need it", im not willing to pay. Again the more wealthy would be very happy to pay for private care for their own child, but the state is unable to provide the same care for those who can't afford it.

Very simply, if those families that can afford the care deserve to have thier children live, but so do those that don't. The ideal scenario is for all of them to recieve that care, and the only way thats going to happen is if those who can afford the care are willing to give more money to the nhs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

i can see where your coming from,

but in that case, would those who can afford it be willing to pay for all of that type of care? last time i checked they didn't like paying more tax. Its wrong to say that "when i need it" im willing to pay for the nhs, but "when i don't need it", im not willing to pay. Again the more wealthy would be very happy to pay for private care for their own child, but the state is unable to provide the same care for those who can't afford it.

Very simply, if those families that can afford the care deserve to have thier children live, but so do those that don't. The ideal scenario is for all of them to recieve that care, and the only way thats going to happen is if those who can afford the care are willing to give more money to the nhs.

---

I think you sat down and went through my tax records for the past few years, you'd find that I'm a rather charitable person. But I simply see no basis for this argument that NHS is the only fair system. It's Marxism for healthcare, plain and simple, with everything that includes, including rationing, corruption and favoritism of the political elite (trust me, Ms. Taylor's or Mr. Brown's seriously disabled children would receive ANY care their parents desired for them).

I think a combination type system, such as what the Germans or the Japanese have is a much more fair system. British health care is scary. It's oppressive, it's poor and it doesn't serve it's intended function. That's not a slam on you guys, you do many things well. But personally, I would be terrified, absolutely terrified to get seriously ill while in the UK on assignment. When I found out I had a tumor that needed to be operated on in 6 months, but the government office came back with a 4 year estimate and I would be forbidden from returning to the US for medical treatment, I imagine you'd see me in the press, quite soon and quite dramatically.

Socialized aka one government provider medicine runs into a catch-22 here.

It is impossible to provide all care options to everyone without prohibitive expense. The government is torn between providing the best care available and minimizing costs -- and the two do not always cohere. So to be able provide good care you deny care.

Sad really.

To put it simply - its a parents decision with information and possible courses of actions from the doctors. Courts get involved to determine after the fact.

Laws that expressily allow it - do not sit well with me. Allowing a judge to determine that the parents and the doctor did not commit a crime if the death of the child was necessary, seems an acceptable course of action to me.

But a blanket law that allows it - does not provide for review.

It’s easy to be a socialist until you are on the receiving end of mediocre benefits. :thumbsdown:

I can understand the desire to give everyone some kind of basic coverage but to give everyone the same choice is insulting. Some people have more or are willing to give more and others are not as willing to give as much or don’t use as much, health care is definitely an area that should have choices and options.

Quote:

---

When I found out I had a tumor that needed to be operated on in 6 months, but the government office came back with a 4 year estimate and I would be forbidden from returning to the US for medical treatment, I imagine you'd see me in the press, quite soon and quite dramatically.

---

I'm not quite sure I understand this example. If you have a life-threatening tumour, and you need surgery, you will get it very quickly.

Also-you are aware that you can get private health insurance if you want it in this country, right?

Quote:

---

I would prefer an option to choose a health care plan that fits my desires rather than the same one that every different shaped peg is forced into. My current health care plan has layers and options, I get to pick and pay accordingly and if I choose a plan that offers more I pay more.

---

Well surprisingly we also have that option here , just as people in the UK have that option .
Didn't you know ?

Don doesn't ..........

Quote:

---

I think a combination type system, such as what the Germans or the Japanese have is a much more fair system. British health care is scary.

---

There are lots of private doctors and hospitals , there are lots of options you can choose for your health care , or you can get an employer who provides it as part of your package :yes:

Thank you BKS & Tribesman for the correction. I must have the UK & Australia confused. There was one of the Commonwealth states (perhaps even Canada) that outlawed seeking private medical treatment, and I had thought it was UK.

So, in the UK, you pay for the NHS, which doesn't work all that well, then, with whatever money you have left you can use towards treatment in the private sphere, that you yourself would be obligated to pay for (even though that NHS tax was supposed to cover you in the first place).

As I said, interesting system you have there. Not sure I'd care to play at that craps table, when the House gets such an advantage. I'm not saying the American system is perfect (Lord knows it isn't), but there are middle grounds of reasonable compromise (ala my aforementioned Germany & Japan examples).

Quote:

---

So, in the UK, you pay for the NHS, which doesn't work all that well

---

In terms of the amount we pay for our health system, it does very well indeed. According to the WHO, the US actually spends more on health as a percentage of total government spending than we do, and you also have far more private spending than we do-in total, you spend almost double the percentage of GDP than we do on health. Yet we still do better than the US in a whole bunch of health indicators, including infant mortality-somewhat ironic, concerning the thread topic-absolute life expectancy, healthy life expectancy, and so on. So we must be doing something right.

Our numbers are ridiculously inflated by lawsuits, malpractice insurance and excessive forms and documentation to defend oneself against said legal harrassment. I really can't express to an outsider just how tick-ridden this particular dog is (the US Health Care system). It's devestating, and they're only multiplying. If you look at real health care spending (the amount spent on actual care) the US system is actually relative competetive. But that's sort of like saying "if you ignore the fact that I have stage 4 liver cancer, I'm the picture of health!". I'm not offering our system as a postive alternative, but I am quite enamored of hybrid systems, such as Germany's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

There was one of the Commonwealth states (perhaps even Canada) that outlawed seeking private medical treatment, and I had thought it was UK.

---

Nah, wasn't here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Thank you for intentionally misunderstanding misinterpreting my post. :stare: Moreover, perhaps you should not have children if you perceive them as a "burden".

---

Personal attacks on myself or others particularly them being parents is not warranted. Trolling of this level is 'unacceptable'. Removal of my steel cap from your %^$& will now require a surgical procedure and long term physiotherapy. ie talk to the admins. :furious3:

Of course children are burdens, and one I am willing to take. Those who waft through life thinking that raising a child is easy are fooling only themselves. Then to make an arguement that a child should be killed because they are a burden is invalid because all children do take up ones resources. Time flies out the window, they want your constant attention, reading is childrens books, there needs come first. It is a burden, and like a lot of things that are worth doing it takes resources, being a burden does not make it not worthwhile. The 'ROI' to use economic terms is wonderful. And as a parent I am very protective of my child and put him first. I am also like most parents likely to rip the arm off and beat them around the head of anyone who says I should not be the person looking after that wonderful person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I posted that as an example of why keeping them alive was "not worth it". I guess it could easily have sounded like I was saying killing them was not worth it. I think it's a prime example of the parents getting satisfaction from being martyrs.

---

Fair enough, I got that impression too, though it is not for me to judge so I abstained from saying so. And there is also anecdotal evidence about the very successful and rewarding 'martyrdom' of parents who refused to accept a doctor's judgment and raised the child regardless.

No medical prognosis is infallible, nor is any parental decision. Absolutes have little or no relevance in these cases, where the outcome depends on unknown variables and there is usually only a small margin of intervention, consisting of a dire choice between different kinds of misery.

for these sorts of severe deformities, I think that Euthanasia should be an option for the parents to consider. If it were possible to cure such horrors then I would recommend trying that first, but Euthanasia should be an option and not be illegal.


If I was suffering terribly and being nothing but a huge burden on those around me with little or no hope of improvement, I too would want to die quickly and peacefully.

I'm not saying that deformed or handicapped infants should all be euthanised, but I'm saying that it should be a legal option to consider.