Printable View
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
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. Anyway, enough of my dogma, shall we "progress" to killing those that have "less desirable" life expectancies than "able bodied" persons? Sounds very enlightened in a 1940's kind of way to me. What do you think?:no:
So, if a child is born so badly deformed that they will either be a vegtable or in severe pain their entire (possibly very short) lives and that their life will be a burden physically, emotionally, and economically on both them and their families the parents should not have a choice? Meanwhile in the US, assisted suicide or euthanasia is illegal but starving a person to death is OK? You have some severely misplaced moral notions.
Ah, but here lies the question.. Who makes the judgement that the child's life is indesirable to continue life? I live in a country where its perfectly legal to stick a pair of sissors in the back of a perfectly healthy baby's skull, vacuum out his/her's brains out and killed just before it exits its mother's birth canal. Will it be the decision of the parents? The doctors? I have a feeling that there will be a LOT of pure infantcide on children with treatable ailments for the sake of "ending the suffering" of said child. This is a very scary and sad precident. And for a "church" to endorse this latest sickness of the progressive mindset is unbelievable. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
http://www.my914-6.com/hunter/index.htm
Not worth it.
Yup, you've convinced me. Let's kill it!!! It hurts my eyes to see such a beast. Kill it now!!!!:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Again, who would be the judge and executioner?
All children are a burden physically, emotionally and economically on there families. :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
My parents would agree with you.Quote:
All children are a burden physically, emotionally and economically on there families.
If the parents want to raise him, that's their perogative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Thank you for intentionallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
misunderstandingmisinterpreting my post. :stare: Moreover, perhaps you should not have children if you perceive them as a "burden".
There are certain illness's where doctors know without doubt that the child will not live anything close to a life, in these cases they should be allowed to kill the baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
If it does become legal there won't be inantcide on treatable ailments, because doctors know what can be treated and what can't - its importnant to note that the parents should have some say in the matter, if they really don't want their child to die, and are happy to take both the financial, and mental burden of the child.
Here's an excerpt from one of the more touching comments posted after the article::inquisitive:Quote:
There are so many normal children seeking loving kind homes and adoptive parents, this is surely a wiser course to take. Take notice of an animal birth, the runt always get thrown out to die.
I really don't see why this bothers people.
kill the blind quadraplegic baby
+
have a new one
= everyone is happy. Who are you to say that baby #2 shouldn't be born? He has as much right to life as baby #1.
I'm most certainly not pro-abortion; but I certainly don't think such a difficult decision belongs in the hands of the local priest who has a rather disturbingly high probability to be abusing his young parishioners nor in his followers' hands nor in the hands of the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals who who maxed out his probability to be having gay sex with a male prostitute and doing methamphetamines nor in his followers' hands either. All things considered, I believe that the decision more properly belongs in the hands of the parents with medical advice from their doctors. :wink:
It should definately be an option for the parents i mean looking at that link that was posted is very sad but just look at the lad in the picture, can people really say he is even aware of what is going on around?
Im all for killing severely disabled children.
Why doesn't that surprise me? Diluting the master race are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by King Ragnar
The value of human life and the quality of human life are much the same thing. That is, anybody having a serious disability is seriously diminished in the quality of life they can lead. Intense suffering devalues human life, and in so doing denies the human dignity that we all have a right to. True compassion is to alleviate the suffering of a person in pain by hastening their death. Even our animals when they are suffering seriously are frequently put down. Should we do less for human beings?
Human beings have the basic right of choice pertaining to their body, lifestyle, lifespan, birth control, etc and I think it is right that they should have the right to die with dignity as well. Should we deny the most vulnerable of our population, what we grant to adults? It does seem undesirable to society keep these unfortunates alive, and pointlessly cruel as well. Their continued existence burdens relatives, friends and the community, and often, themselves. If we choose to walk away from them because we are distressed at what we are faced with, we do it for ourselves, not them.
We should also embrace a new market-based, high-tech system where children can be what we have always wanted them to be. Why should we have to put up with children that are not everything we want them to be? We can run around in circles and wave our arms if we choose, but these things are already happening to a limited degree, and will only increase in frequency, and choice. Genetic modifications that manipulate the inheritable genes passed on to our children are the key, and the wave of the future. The state obviously has an interest in this, which is not something I can deny. Children, who are genetically predisposed to criminality, or illness, or other foreseeable misconducts, should be regulated. If we could abort a Jeffrey Dahmer before birth, don't we have a moral responsibility to do so?
If one believes purely in the free market then someone like Britney Spears could of course make a fortune selling her genetic code on the open market to young mothers who want children just like her, except with superior intelligence. The problem is that if we allow this, then we are left with the possibility that sub-optimal human beings will also be chosen. The kind we are talking about removing to begin with. It is likely that some parents would go this route and the question we must ask is, should we allow this? Be it for religious reasons, or personal choice, should a parent have the right to burden society with sub-optimal offspring?
What cost will we be willing to pay for unattractive, overweight, alcoholic, criminal, or less intelligent offspring. Whose burden are they? The government cannot spend money endlessly, and choices must be made. Some of these unfortunates, will simply be too expensive to deliver and be cared for, will have to be involuntarily aborted. Irresponsible parents do not have the right to burden society with malformed or mentally incompetent children.
These are the questions we need to ask ourselves.
p.s. This is called the slippery slope.
Ah, discussing the morals of killing babies. Delightful.
Come off it. Most of those agreeing with him probably don't share his politics.Quote:
Why doesn't that surprise me? Diluting the master race are they?
Crazed Rabbit
I say go ahead with it......
let´s be honest with ourselfs....People suck, there's too many of them, and they're easier to kill when they're foetuses/Small Kids than when they are grown up....
*man..I gonna stop posting first thing when I get to the office...my outlook is too grim at this hour :help: *
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.
Killing may well be the more merciful thing. What's wrong with euthanasia for severely disabled babies? Is it somehow noble to let them suffer and torment their families with it too? :inquisitive:
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. :laugh4:
That's fair enough- but the example in the article seems to be saying that the parents had to take their doctors to court to keep them from withholding treatment and allowing their baby to die against their will. That's outrageous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
This is because babies who once would have died (or been allowed to die) can or are now saved. Of course a lot die anyway soon, live short miserable lives, or have horrific brain damage. The case mentioned in the article is a bit weird really, never really worked out what was going on.
This isn't like "oh look, let's kill our newborn because they have webbed feet"...
Also, the Daily Mail should be ignored for any serious news articles.
Agreed. The decision should be the parents' not the doctors' and it's obscene that they had to take the doctors to court. Perhaps I should change parents to legal guardian. That's what annoyed me so much about the Terry Schiavo case. Her husband was the legal guardian, not the parents. They tried, and failed, in court to be made the legal guardians. At that point it was his decision and his alone - right or wrong. All those other groups got involved from both sides and not one of them should have been there. It wasn't their call. The court decided, which is the way it works in this country, that he was the legal guardian. At that point, the argument should have been over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
There is quite a distinct difference between animals and humans. Humans have the ability to question even their own existence, show me an animal that can do that. They should not be made to suffer, but the child has no say in this, so why should we murder them? I'm certain most of those children would never have wanted to have been murdered when they were born because of their deformities. Don't feed me that soul c##p that seems to come up in every abortion debate. This is not about abortion, this has nothing to even remotely do with abortion. The child has already been born, it is already a full human being, we cannot just murder them for the sake of comformaty. As a great philosopher once said "Struggle breeds greatness".Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
Each and every parent should take this into consideration when having a child that it could become malformed. But we cannot just kill them. Not only that but how can we bee 100% certain of the diagnosis? How can we be certain that within their lifetime that their will not be a treatment for their deformities? How can you be so certain of so many factors that they should be executed because of them? And if their executed shouldn't we execute any and all "unregular" babies? This is not Rome, this is not Carthage, the child is a human being, it should have a say in the matter of its own life.
Since you support mercy killing. Do you also support honor killings, ceremonial suicide, human sacrifice?
Anyways in this case the parents want their child to live. Having the doctors hold the child hostage to murder it is outrageous. In UK courts is that considered murder or is it even criminal?
There are birth defects that will kill the child in just a few days or months of painful life. If there's research into treatment it would have to be in the last stages of testing in order to give them any hope. Keeping them alive as long as possible just because you can is cruelty. Mercy killing is kindness.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Ceremonial suicide is different from regular suicide how, exactly? Killing yourself in some religious ceremony? That sounds like someone who needs treatment for mental illness.
Human sacrifice? :inquisitive:
I'm reasonably certain my dog questions my existence whenever I try to feed him cheap dog food. His look plainly says "WTF? Are you insane? I'm not eating that crap! Were you replaced by an alien? Where's the friggin' green pod! I want a lawyer!" He just can't say it in words.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
With some of the heroic medical interventions possible, at both ends of life, what we end up with under the guise of "extending life" is actually "extending death". Making people die more slowly, extending their suffering. It's a highly emotive subject, for different people have different wishes for themselves, and are happy to extend that to others. I know I have a limit of suffering, a prognosis beyond which I wouldn't want to endure. It's one thing to endure suffering on the road to recovery, but when that road is a purely downhill cul-de-sac, it's a very different matter.
Some of these parents seem to be satisfying their own emotional needs rather than considering the suffering the child will endure in its inevitably brief and pain-ridden life. From the original Mail article:
Are we really saying that what has happened here was in the child's best interests? She is now physically and mentally severely impaired and institutionalised, because her oh-so-loving-parents-who-know-what's-best-for-her dragged the medics through the courts. I assume on legal aid, and that the institution that now cares for her is a state run one.Quote:
In practice, doing so can be controversial - with the three months premature Charlotte Wyatt a case in point.
The Portsmouth baby weighed just 1lb at birth, and had severe brain and lung damage. Doctors wanted to be allowed to leave her to die, but her parents successfully campaigned through the courts against them.
Now that the child is three, however, and could be cared for at home, her parents have separated and are considered unsuitable to look after. (sic) ... her.
I'm amazed that some of the conservatives here who'll happily argue that the unemployed should starve rather than be a burden on the tax payer, seem to think this outcome is best for the girl in question in the article. If you want to cut one "non-contributing burden" from the bosom of the state, why not another?
.... yeah, hubris.Quote:
There is quite a distinct difference between animals and humans.
Same here, I am staunchly pro-choice and a non-Christian, but that Bishop of Southwark scared the bejeezus out of me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Is that man a Christian?Quote:
And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
Sasaki, there are counter-examples of parents and doctors prolonging untold suffering in new-born children for reasons of religiosity, medical hubris, etcetera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.
Paragraph 1 asks a very pertinent moral question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
Paragraph 2 then turns snide and insulting. Your question would have stood well enough on its own. Instead you had to trivialize, at least implicitly, my religious beliefs and mock me for holding such a view. This was beyond what was called for in this discussion, to say the least.
Yes, I belong to a Church that teaches that life -- and imbuement with an immortal soul -- begins at conception. To take action to end life at any time after that moment would obviously be a wrong, at least on some level. For me, this makes the larger topic question rather easy to answer. You need not agree, but a decent respect for the opinions of others -- and you can no more disprove my belief than I could yours -- suggests that some modicum of restraint would have been more appropriate.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
:bow:
I'm sorry for making you feel bad, less so for mocking certain religions. The "life is always sacred" POV causes suffering in many ways. The terminally ill should just grin and bear it even when they can no longer think coherently because of the painkillers. Babies that - at best - will never be more than vegetables must still be taken care of. Since condoms could prevent unwanted pregnancy they are forbidden, HIV be damned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
But let us return to paragraph 1. Why should people be made to suffer if there are alternatives?
You say that humans are no better than animals and yet you criticize others as barbaric? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
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
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..
Kind of you to say, sir, though not necessary. Hmmm...Beer stash...:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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.
Sounds like a sound reason for not having a blanket socialist health care system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
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 .Quote:
Sounds like a sound reason for not having a blanket socialist health care system.
Or do you mean something entirely different on this topic ?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
While we're at it, are we going to take food and clothes away from middle class and wealthy children too? ~:rolleyes:
i can see where your coming from,Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
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.
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.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.
Also-you are aware that you can get private health insurance if you want it in this country, right?
Well surprisingly we also have that option here , just as people in the UK have that option .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.
Didn't you know ?
Don doesn't ..........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: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.
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).
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.Quote:
So, in the UK, you pay for the NHS, which doesn't work all that well
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.
Nah, wasn't here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Meanwhile, my older one is in the top bunk laughing herself silly. Good lord.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
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...
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 Big King Sanctaphrax
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
If you see it like that it's not cruel, sucks to be the baby though.
I don't know enough about all this to really answer properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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:
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:
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
I thought we were discussing a hypothetical land, my bad if we weren’t. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I am a little disappointed that you have quoted me and not used laugh4 anywhere in your response. :smartass2:
So this has been a topic over a non story really .Quote:
Ok, I found the actual report conclusions:
But it has been an interesting one .
I thought they were already campaigning very widely for that .Quote:
That sounds good, until the breast cancer sufferers start asking why the government isn't giving them carte blanche as well...
Something about individual health authorities not providing certain treatments due to disputes about effectiveness and costs of those treatments .
It sounds pretty human to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
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.........
....was actually spot on .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.
The key part of your first post being.......
......:yes: :2thumbsup:Quote:
the Daily Mail should be ignored for any serious news articles.
well, we knew that in the very first line :laugh4: :Quote:
So this has been a topic over a non story really .
Quote: