Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

If a child is so badly deformed that he/she has no realistic chance of living anyway, I think treatment should be stopped. But that's about it.

If a born chid is severely deformed but will probably live through if given the chance, you should let him/her be raised by a state clinical institution and waive your parentship. Or deal with it. Proponents of euthanesia in such cases would say that it would be doing the child a favour, but I wonder if some of them just can't stand that a malformed creature of their own flesh and blood is out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

---

Children are a burden. That doesn't mean they aren't worth the effort, but anyone who thinks raising kids is all peaches and cream doesn't have children.

When it's -20 and I feel like crap and I have to make the kids breakfast and walk them down the hill to the bus stop, wait with them until the schoolbus picks them up, then trudge back up the hill home, then do all my stuff, then leave for work, well, sometimes it's a burden. If you think it's all smiles and games just because they're small and cute, you're dreaming.

Exhibit A:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...1snowsmall.jpg

When you have to get up at 6 for a busy day but you're awoken at 2 by a crying kid who just barfed dinner all over her bed, and I change the bed while my woman puts the kid in the bath, well, that's a burden too. You just deal with it and try to get everyone back to bed ASAP.

There is an art to raising children, and the biggest part is finding a level of patience you never knew you had or could have. It ain't easy, but like Pape, I know it's worth it. As for "if you think children are a burden then you shouldn't have any" comments, those are the words of someone who quite simply has no grasp of the reality of the situation.

Quote:

---

If a child is so badly deformed that he/she has no realistic chance of living anyway, I think treatment should be stopped. But that's about it.

---

But surely this is exactly the same as giving them a big shot of morphine, in terms of results? Except they die more slowly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

When you have to get up at 6 for a busy day but you're awoken at 2 by a crying kid who just barfed dinner all over her bed, and I change the bed while my woman puts the kid in the bath, well, that's a burden too.

---

Oh sure. And then the kid barfs a second time, not just all over his abominable self, but also all over his kid brother who is lying next to him. Guaranteed to keep you up till 4 a.m. runing baths, changing bedsheets, disposing of puke in the most unlikely corners, and generally comforting and getting glasses of water and singing soothing songs and *yawns vicariously* ... God knows I have been there.

But the knowledge that they are healthy and happy, that they'll live and laugh another day and probably stand on their own two feet in the future is such a comfort in those situations. Parents of severely handicapped or deficient children don't have that comfort. Some literally succumb to it, physically. Others just give up on their own lives and bide their time on earth, and it shows.

Some issues are easy to judge, but nearly impossible to decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Oh sure. And then the kid barfs a second time, not just all over his abominable self, but also all over his kid brother who is lying next to him. Guaranteed to keep you up till 4 a.m. runing baths, changing bedsheets, disposing of puke in the most unlikely corners, and generally comforting and getting glasses of water and singing soothing songs and *yawns vicariously* ... God knows I have been there.

---

Best I've seen is when my younger one barfs (several times) all over the bed big time. Then my woman, who's cleaning it up starts to gag and runs to the can and blows into the toilet. Meanwhile, me, who was never queasy about these things until that moment, starts to gag too, so I'm running outside and hurling over the balcony while my woman is spewing in the can and the kid is still barfing it in her bed.

Meanwhile, my older one is in the top bunk laughing herself silly. Good lord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Parents of severely handicapped or deficient children don't have that comfort. Some literally succumb to it, physically. Others just give up on their own lives and bide their time on earth, and it shows.

---

My nephew is autistic and requires 100% attention. Fortunatelly my sister has the attention to give. But I have friends who do not have a lot of time (or money) to deal with their kids speacial needs and the stress is horrible. My woman's friend has a four year old who is constantly one seizure/crisis/asthma attack away from death and the doctors still have no idea what's wrong with the kid. I don't know how she deals with it. This has been going on for two years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Oh sure. And then the kid barfs a second time, not just all over his abominable self, but also all over his kid brother who is lying next to him. Guaranteed to keep you up till 4 a.m. runing baths, changing bedsheets, disposing of puke in the most unlikely corners, and generally comforting and getting glasses of water and singing soothing songs and *yawns vicariously* ... God knows I have been there.

But the knowledge that they are healthy and happy, that they'll live and laugh another day and probably stand on their own two feet in the future is such a comfort in those situations. Parents of severely handicapped or deficient children don't have that comfort. Some literally succumb to it, physically. Others just give up on their own lives and bide their time on earth, and it shows.

Some issues are easy to judge, but nearly impossible to decide.

---

So THAT'S the secret!!! I thought it was a test of character to just sit there and try to keep the fatigue and exhaustion at bay. All kidding aside, I could not begin to tell a parent, any parent that truly has their child's best interest at heart, what to do in a situation where their child is living in an agonized existence. I would always counsel to choose life, but I pray to God daily I'll never have any clue what these poor people are going through.

My argument is with the Church of England and the Royal Academy of Physicians issuing a statement that even if the child might survive with treatment, if it's too expensive, you have to let them die. :furious3: :furious3: This dyed in the wool capitalist would give his last nickel to help (and I frequently do). If you need to manage care, and control cost, quit giving cable TV and conjugal visits to rapists and murderers. Put them on a chain gang and force them to raise money for the state to pay for their upkeep. But don't starve handicapped kids to death 'for the good of society'. Have we really lost that much of our humanity?

That sounds good, until the breast cancer sufferers start asking why the government isn't giving them carte blanche as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

That sounds good, until the breast cancer sufferers start asking why the government isn't giving them carte blanche as well...

---

I'm not sure how it goes in the UK, but as it's one of the most treatable forms of cancer, here in the US, breast cancer gets a lion's share of research and treatment money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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

---

No, I say that humans give suffering animals the mercy of death out of kindness. Yet some would want to deny their fellow humans that same kindness because it's bad. :dizzy2:

The woman they interviewed on the news this morning about it seemed to imply that it was mainly aimed at not resuscitating very very underdeveloped babies. Around the 20-24 week stage, where only 1% survive even given every help in the world, and even then usually with a lot of serious issues. Apparently resusciting babies this young is rather unpleasant, particularly for the baby.

BDC, I think what bothers me most about the statements issued are two things:

-First, the Church of England taking a stance that in making life-saving/life-ending decisions, cost of treatment should be an important consideration. There's plenty of barristers and businessmen around to make the business case. One would expect that what passes for ecclesiastical authorities in England would limit their considerations to moral concerns. It's funny, Americans, especially Republicans are supposed to have cash registers for hearts, but in England even your churchmen talk about killing babies to save money.

-Second is the lack of any definition or guideline in terms of viability or when the measure should be considered. Let's say I'm an OB/GYN, and I have a personal conviction that children with Down's Syndrome don't lead a life of sufficient quality and only serve to drain the system of its resources. Do I have the right to withold medical treatment, even warming lights, upon delivery? According to the Royal College of Surgeons, and shockingly, the Church of England, yes I do as they made a blanket acceptance with no limitation.

I'm also think it's terrible that parents get no say, that whatever the doctor says goes. But hey, this is a British legal issue, and if you think want to cede the decision making authority of your life and your death to your physician and remove yourself from the decision making process, it is certainly your right.

Personally, I'd prefer to be put down if I was living in england and had those conditions. From what I've heard from people who go to school at england, that seems like the surest way for a life of hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

No, I say that humans give suffering animals the mercy of death out of kindness. Yet some would want to deny their fellow humans that same kindness because it's bad. :dizzy2:

---

You are not religious (I think), if you consider a child a being with a soul and a gift of god then it becomes an intirely different discussion. From a christian's point of view it's denying someone his life, in whatever form it may come.

If you see it like that it's not cruel, sucks to be the baby though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

BDC, I think what bothers me most about the statements issued are two things:

-First, the Church of England taking a stance that in making life-saving/life-ending decisions, cost of treatment should be an important consideration. There's plenty of barristers and businessmen around to make the business case. One would expect that what passes for ecclesiastical authorities in England would limit their considerations to moral concerns. It's funny, Americans, especially Republicans are supposed to have cash registers for hearts, but in England even your churchmen talk about killing babies to save money.

-Second is the lack of any definition or guideline in terms of viability or when the measure should be considered. Let's say I'm an OB/GYN, and I have a personal conviction that children with Down's Syndrome don't lead a life of sufficient quality and only serve to drain the system of its resources. Do I have the right to withold medical treatment, even warming lights, upon delivery? According to the Royal College of Surgeons, and shockingly, the Church of England, yes I do as they made a blanket acceptance with no limitation.

I'm also think it's terrible that parents get no say, that whatever the doctor says goes. But hey, this is a British legal issue, and if you think want to cede the decision making authority of your life and your death to your physician and remove yourself from the decision making process, it is certainly your right.

---

I don't know enough about all this to really answer properly.

People who go into these parts of medicine do it because they care about babies though. They're hardly going to use it as an excuse to kill every other baby. I was also under the impression it was merely witholding treatment, not killing them. I doubt anyone would agree with that.

Church of England confuses everyone. That's practically it's job. There are plenty of religious fanatics in the world, it's at the exact opposite end of the scale.

Ok, I found the actual report conclusions:

Quote:

---

Born before 22 weeks: No intensive care
22-23 weeks: No intensive care, unless parents request it after a thorough discussion of the risks and doctors agree
23-24 weeks: Parents, after a thorough discussion with the healthcare team, should have the final say
24-25 weeks: Give intensive care, unless the parents and the doctors agree there is no hope of survival, or the level of suffering is too high
Above 25 weeks: Intensive care as standard

---

So hardly killing babies. There probably isn't a baby anywhere who survived being born before 22 weeks anyway. It's not that long ago that babies born well past this stage would be certain to die in any case. Plus the report points out that everything needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

---

I thought we were discussing a hypothetical land, my bad if we weren’t. :bow:


I am a little disappointed that you have quoted me and not used laugh4 anywhere in your response. :smartass2:

Quote:

---

Ok, I found the actual report conclusions:

---

So this has been a topic over a non story really .

But it has been an interesting one .

Quote:

---

That sounds good, until the breast cancer sufferers start asking why the government isn't giving them carte blanche as well...

---

I thought they were already campaigning very widely for that .
Something about individual health authorities not providing certain treatments due to disputes about effectiveness and costs of those treatments .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Have we really lost that much of our humanity?

---

It sounds pretty human to me.

Pretty good summary here.

So the committee basically recommend to continue as things are, which is about equal to the US's stance, but not as extreme as the Netherlands (where babies may be euthanised apparently).

Hey BDC , with your posting some of the expected study which actually says what it says and not something else entirely , isn't it a real demonstration that your first response in this topic to a starter like this.........

Quote:

---

Is this the direction of morality in England? Jesus, talk about losing your way. I guess some won't be happy till abortion is legal to high school.

---

....was actually spot on .
The key part of your first post being.......

Quote:

---

the Daily Mail should be ignored for any serious news articles.

---

......:yes: :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

So this has been a topic over a non story really .

---

well, we knew that in the very first line :laugh4: :

Quote:

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

---

You know, I get really sick and tired of this bullcrap that if it doesn't come out of a lefty leaning newspaper, it can't possibly be true. The NY Times has been caught outright lying on multiple occassions in the past few years, and you guys would still treat it as gospel. But an esteemed paper like the Wall Street Journal, because it has a right leaning editorial stance, is a piece of trash and you just dismiss it out of hand, without bothering to address stories listed there. Or Foxnews, or the Daily Mail, or any other media outlet that doesn't proclaim the glories of socialism and the evils of Bush and fit neatly into your limited world view.

Well, this time, you guys are gonna have some egg on your face. In the thread I opened, your beloved Guardian says the exact same things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guardian article

The Rt Rev Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark and vice chair of public affairs of the Mission and Public Affairs Council, states in the church's submission to the inquiry, that 'it may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death'....

---

Quote:

---

The church's report does not spell out which medical conditions might justify a decision to allow babies to die...

---

Quote:

---

The report also suggests the enormous cost implications to the NHS of keeping very premature and sick babies alive with invasive medical care and the burden on the parents should also be taken into consideration.

---

Go ahead and keep laughing Mascen and Tribesman, but even your lefty rag says that Bishop Butler is all for pulling the plug if the little bugger is draining too much money out of the system. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So THAT'S the secret!!! I thought it was a test of character to just sit there and try to keep the fatigue and exhaustion at bay.

---

The secret is to sit down and breathe slowly every time you are about to lose consciousness from fatigue, and then try to tell yourself that one day this kid is going to come down the stairs as an adult, that he is going to say "Hi Mom, hi Dad', make his own breakfast, clean up after his own *** like a civilised being, announce 'I'm done with my homework', followed by either 'Anything I can do to help today?' or, in the specific case of one Adrian II, 'Gee, I have been reading this fascinating book yesterday and I would love to discuss it with you, Dad'.

You know it is an illusion, but it prevents you from shooting the kid on the spot, or strangling it slowly with a nylon chord...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

My argument is with the Church of England and the Royal Academy of Physicians issuing a statement that even if the child might survive with treatment, if it's too expensive, you have to let them die.

---

That is what worried me in the statement of the Bishop in the initial article and made me wonder if the gentleman considers himself a Christian.

Quote:

---

This dyed in the wool capitalist would give his last nickel to help (and I frequently do).

---

You know what is funny, in light of the above discussion about socialised medecine and such? Some, like you, worry about the thought of a heartless state health care system killing handicapped kids for reasons of financial convenience. Others worry about a heartless capitalist system where insurance companies force doctors and parents do the same, and for the very same reason: cost-cutting.

In the end, it always comes down to a question of who makes the decision and on what grounds. No matter what the prevalent health system is, the principle should be the same across the board. Decisions should be made by the parents, unless they are demonstrably unsuited to the role of parenting, but not without extensive consultation with the doctors who are responsible for the kid's treatment. The state should guarantee both due protocol and absence of undue financial pressures on the parties involved.

Preach on, brother Adrian.

I'm not a huge believer in every last nickel health care, mind you. Personally, if I get the big C, I'll take rudimentary steps to try to treat it, but I'm not going to run up my insurance bill to the tune of 100K on every experimental possiblity out there. But most importantly, that is MY choice. If somebody else feels they want to exercise less certain, but still medically valid treatments, I agree that they should have access to them.

But frankly, I think a huge part of the reason with ballooning health care costs, in a private insurance payment system or in a state based one-payer system is the lack of visiblity into cost. If my doctor says "Look, we want to try a new ultrasound scan on you. It probably won't actually tell us very much, but it might, and hey, it's only going to cost you a $25.00 copay", my first thought would most likely be "$25.00? Why not?" But the fallacy here is that the procedure really costs hundreds of times that much, perhaps a thousand. My insurance company, and hence, all of my co-members are paying 2500 for a procedure that's not telling me very much and honestly, I don't even really care about. That, and of course, the evil lawyers. And you know what Shakespeare said about those dirty dogs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

You know it is an illusion, but it prevents you from shooting the kid on the spot, or strangling it slowly with a nylon chord...That is what worried me in the statement of the Bishop in the initial article and made me wonder if the gentleman considers himself a Christian.

---

Well since he is CofE, he could be anything from an atheist to a Muslim.

Quote:

---

Go ahead and keep laughing Mascen and Tribesman, but even your lefty rag says that Bishop Butler is all for pulling the plug if the little bugger is draining too much money out of the system.

---

Yep , and notice the difference .....
Some sick babies must be allowed to die, says Church


and .....Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth

Thats a damn big difference in reporting isn't it Don

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

That, and of course, the evil lawyers. And you know what Shakespeare said about those dirty dogs...

---

And I know what John Maynard Keynes said to Dean Acheson during the 1944 Bretton Woods conference.
"The Mayflower, when she sailed from Plymouth, must have been entirely filled with lawyers."

Quote:

---

You know, I get really sick and tired of this bullcrap that if it doesn't come out of a lefty leaning newspaper, it can't possibly be true.

---

If you were posting articles from the Daily Telegraph, or the Wall Street Journal, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. The problem people have with the Daily Mail is not that it is right wing, but that it is a sensationalist, scare-mongering rag. Bad journalism is bad journalism, whatever the political viewpoint of your newspaper.

Quote:

---

The problem people have with the Daily Mail is not that it is right wing, but that it is a sensationalist, scare-mongering rag. Bad journalism is bad journalism, whatever the political viewpoint of your newspaper.

---

Any Americans who aren't given the opportunity to read it should probably be wary before leaping to its defence.

Whenever I have the misfortune to read it (it's free at my gym for some reason, it was the Independent and FT for free when I joined, going downmarket me thinks), I always end up really confused. You read a story that you're pretty certain you understand and suddenly it becomes a big vague mess. Can see why people get angry over things if it's the main source of news...

It has some interesting stuff in it, its just its often overshadowed by the huge amount of rubbish, its not the right-wing byass ( i can handle byass, because all media is byass, when reading left leaning papers i take this into account) its the more-or-less fabrication of some articles and complete sensationalism.

Having said its a bad paper, i read the metro, so i really can't talk :idea2:

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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

---

Don, He is One of FEW people who actually did something good with his life, even though he is severly disabled. Using him and the other Very Few People to me, isn't a good argument.