Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

[BPSCG]

Terminally ill ones.

 

[KelvinG]

The article seems to describe the policy in a pretty logical way.
Of course, this is the kind of situation where the old slippery slope argument will rear it's head very quickly.

 

[Ed]

First they kill babies and then they kill quaint, wooden shoed film directors.

 

[shuize]

For all their crying under Nazi occupation, the Dutch finally seem to be getting with the program ... the eugenics program, that is.

 

[Mycroft]

The article doesn't say if the parents were involved in the decision making or not.

 

[Tony]

I don't have a problem with it, as long as parents aren't being forced to euthanize their terminally ill child or baby.

At what age would the parents loose the right to decide euthanasia for the child? IMO, I think it should be fairly young, like 3, or 4.

 

[BPSCG]

So when Dad's in the nursing home drooling porridge on his lap and soiling his diapers and he seems to always have a couple of fresh scabs on his head and face from scratching himself and speaks in no language anyone can understand, can we kill him, too? Oh, and he's terminally ill, too, but not actually suffering yet - say he's got a slow-growing but always fatal cancer.

Decide quickly: That nursing home he's in costs about a hundred bucks a day and the old guy's chewing up your inheritance at terrifying speed.

 

[Tony]

So when Dad's in the nursing home drooling porridge on his lap and soiling his diapers and he seems to always have a couple of fresh scabs on his head and face from scratching himself and speaks in no language anyone can understand, can we kill him, too?

No, it has to be his decision.

 

[Luke T.]

The article doesn't say if the parents were involved in the decision making or not.

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.

 

[BPSCG]

No, it has to be his decision.

But dad is incapable of making a decision any more. Do we kill him like we would kill a terminally ill infant?

 

[Tony]

But dad is incapable of making a decision any more. Do we kill him like we would kill a terminally ill infant?

Only if he stipulated (in the form of a contract a will or something similar) before hand that he would desire to be euthanized if he was no longer able to make that decision for himself. Did you not see where I said the cut off age should be 3 or 4? If a 3 or 4-year-old terminally ill kid (who is still conscious) didn't want to die, his decision should be honored.

 

[Jocko]

But dad is incapable of making a decision any more. Do we kill him like we would kill a terminally ill infant?

Everyone is terminally ill. Life is inherently terminal. Let's just rename murder to euthenasia, and bingo - your urban crime problems are solved.

The whole idea of euthenasia is based on individual selfishness. The excuses are legion, the blame nowhere to be found. No one wants to tend for a sick child, an infirm parent or a paralyzed spouse. Too much time, too much effort, too much emotional investment.

To make ourselves feel better, we rationalize that the infant wouldn't really WANT to live that way, the geriatric would ASK to die if he had the mental capacity to do so, and the spouse would WANT us to just "get on with our lives." The worst part is, those attitudes lay guilt on the ill and disabled, compounding their suffering.

Maybe they would be more interested in living if the people who are supposed to give a ◊◊◊◊ about them actually did.

You want to end your own suffering? Fine. But don't pretend it's noble. And may God protect you from trying to end the "suffering" of anyone I care about.

Life is suffering and it goes beyond what is convenient for you. Deal with it.

 

[Jocko]

Only if he stipulated (in the form of a contract a will or something similar) before hand that he would desire to be euthanized if he was no longer able to make that decision for himself.

So, the very act of not being able to decide to kill yourself is to be the trigger for you to kill yourself? Suppose you're senile but happy?

Did you not see where I said the cut off age should be 3 or 4? If a 3 or 4-year-old terminally ill kid (who is still conscious) didn't want to die, his decision should be honored.

How gracious of you. But what if a child - who can speak at 1 year and form simple sentences at 2 - indicates a clear but (to you) incomprehensible will to live? Is it still a matter of parental authority? Are we extending abortion rights to the 11th trimester now? Why 3 or 4, instead of up to the traditiona age of reason, around 12? Legal emancipation at 18? Why do you draw the line there?

 

[Tony]

How gracious of you. But what if a child - who can speak at 18 months and form simple sentences at 2 - indicates an incomprehensible will to live?

Then let him live. I only brought up the 3-4-age range to convey that I think the age of self-determination (in the case of euthanasia) should be extremely young. I don't know exactly how young, but a suffering baby should not be forced to endure that suffering.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You want to end your own suffering? Fine. But don't pretend it's noble. And may God protect you from trying to end the "suffering" of anyone I care about.

There really are people who would prefer not to live in certain circumstances. If you love someone, would you let them suffer, even knowing that they want to die?

 

[Jocko]

Then let him live. I only brought up the 3-4-age range to convey that I think the age of self-determination (in the case of euthanasia) should be extremely young. I don't know exactly how young, but a suffering baby should not be forced to endure that suffering.

Sorry, I edited as you were responding.

Why should a suffering baby be excused from life? It is bound to suffer sooner or later no matter what. Since we're projecting our own value system and priorities onto someone else, why limit it to the safe period before it can speak for itself?

Suppose there's a family history of pancreatic cancer.
Or alcoholism.
Or mental illness.

The baby's fine now, but it's a sure thing it will suffer badly in the future. Why not kill it now?

 

[Tony]

So, the very act of not being able to decide to kill yourself is to be the trigger for you to kill yourself?

Those kinds of issues would be worked out in the contract I mentioned.

Suppose you're senile but happy?

I don't see how being senile relates. Just because someone is senile doesn't mean they are at death's door.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why should a suffering baby be excused from life? It is bound to suffer sooner or later no matter what. Since we're projecting our own value system and priorities onto someone else, why limit it to the safe period before it can speak for itself?

Suppose there's a family history of pancreatic cancer.
Or alcoholism.
Or mental illness.

The baby's fine now, but it's a sure thing it will suffer badly in the future. Why not kill it now?

You're sure to feel pain at some point in the future, so I see no point in giving you anasthetic for your root canal. What's the point?

 

[Jocko]

There really are people who would prefer not to live in certain circumstances. If you love someone, would you let them suffer, even knowing that they want to die?

Ah, but that's not what we're talking about here. Newborns cannot communicate anything, particularly a willingness to die.

However, to answer the question, if that situation arises and the person is cogent enough to indicate a wish to die, then I would do what I could short of murder. Turn off a ventilator, close a feeding tube, maybe... not a pillow over the face, though. Most suffering of the terminally ill comes out of treatment, preventing death. Ceasing to prevent death is not the same as causing it. That's the line I draw.

And most important of all - I would not expect that my individual circumstances should dictate how others deal with tough choices. I would not make it hospital policy, I would not make it law, I wouldn't even recommend it to a friend. That's my real beef with the way euthenasia is couched: a convenient, sanctioned way to dispose of your troublesome loved ones.

 

[Jocko]

You're sure to feel pain at some point in the future, so I see no point in giving you anasthetic for your root canal. What's the point?

The point is, if the true motivation is to end suffering, why let anyone live? It's not a huge leap, TM. Everyone dies.