Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies
- Thread starter BPSCG
- Start date
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
BPSCG said:
This is silly. You can create a convoluted scenario to demonstrate how ANYTHING can be abused and/or used as a tool for murder. Pencils, knives, pillows, playing cards, paper, computers, TVs, cars, guns...ANYTHING. Do you propose that we make those things illegal as well?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Jocko said:
Tony said:
Have you been drawing your conclusions while using a moral compass?
Couldn't resist. Must...find...opportunity...to use it on William Bennett. Assuming I could drag him away from the slot machines.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I just had a brilliant idea. Inspired by the thread on medical use of marijuana, how's this modest proposal:
Don't euthanize the sick babies, just keep them completely stoned for their entire lives!
Don't euthanize the sick babies, just keep them completely stoned for their entire lives!
This is easy, just make it a legal as well as a medical procedure. An individual must have the legal capacity to make such a decision for himself, either at the time of the event or through a legally binding contract prior to mental incapacitation. That gets rid of a lot of the "he asked me to kill him, that's how I got his wallet in an alley" arguments. Whenever possible the individual should bear the responsibility of his/her own death. No one has to kill you, you just take the pill.
And if I'm denied this decision what's next? If I'm brain dead and have a living will that in such a state I want no machines doing my living for me... would I be denied that right to a decision too? What if I didn't even want intravenous feeding? Does that cross a line, do you still want to impose your religious views on me? Frankly, I don't want the gov't or someone who does not share my personal beliefs about religion making those decisions for me.
Conversely, if my child should be born with his brain outside his skull, which is 100% fatal over a very short timeline, I should not be forced to keep my child alive for weeks on end through the use of machinery to do his breathing, etc. for him. That's my decision and not the government's or anyone else's no matter what anyone's personal religion tells him about my private situation.
If we don't trust spouses to make these decisions for us, then hire an attorney to carry-out your living will. And if the attorney colludes with my spouse, I hope they both go to jail and my kids sue the living crap out of them.
Perhaps I would find this whole debate less grating if some of the same people telling me what their god says I can't do with my own body weren't so eager to support some ignorant religious nuts who refuse to give their children any medical treatment what-so-ever... because it's "god's" will. It's ok for them to allow their child to die or the flu or pneumonia, but someone else's terminally ill infant has to be perpetually hooked up to a machine? This isn't even a matter of difference of degrees, it's pure hypocrisy!
And if I'm denied this decision what's next? If I'm brain dead and have a living will that in such a state I want no machines doing my living for me... would I be denied that right to a decision too? What if I didn't even want intravenous feeding? Does that cross a line, do you still want to impose your religious views on me? Frankly, I don't want the gov't or someone who does not share my personal beliefs about religion making those decisions for me.
Conversely, if my child should be born with his brain outside his skull, which is 100% fatal over a very short timeline, I should not be forced to keep my child alive for weeks on end through the use of machinery to do his breathing, etc. for him. That's my decision and not the government's or anyone else's no matter what anyone's personal religion tells him about my private situation.
If we don't trust spouses to make these decisions for us, then hire an attorney to carry-out your living will. And if the attorney colludes with my spouse, I hope they both go to jail and my kids sue the living crap out of them.
Perhaps I would find this whole debate less grating if some of the same people telling me what their god says I can't do with my own body weren't so eager to support some ignorant religious nuts who refuse to give their children any medical treatment what-so-ever... because it's "god's" will. It's ok for them to allow their child to die or the flu or pneumonia, but someone else's terminally ill infant has to be perpetually hooked up to a machine? This isn't even a matter of difference of degrees, it's pure hypocrisy!
Elind
Philosopher
BPSCG said:
I don't think this is anything new at all, except that the mainstream press has decided to run with it, just like some threads here get momentum and keep going and going and going....
People make tough decisions all the time, always have and always will, in spite of those who have their own agendas.
Elind
Philosopher
TragicMonkey said:
You joke because you are uncomfortable with the issue, or just basically insensitive?
Jocko said:
Life is not the same as illness. Illness is the presence of a medical disease or condition. These cases require terminal disease with a symptom of chronic pain.
The whole idea of euthanasia is based on a perception of moral obligation to save people from untreatable suffering. It is certainly open to people abusing it for selfish purposes, but that isn't the only purpose.
It also is not simply rationalization to say someone wouldn't want to live a certain way. One of my grandfathers let himself die by not getting medical attention when an internal surgery site opened for the umpteenth time, knowing that it would kill him. One of my grandmothers tried to jump off the boat on a cruise because she knew her organic brain disease was killing her. While they were exceptional people in my mind, I don't think their responses were that unusual. They also spent a decade living in Japan and had a friend who committed seppuku; that may have influenced them.
You are projecting your own negative perceptions on people who are caregivers for the chronically ill. There is a difference between chronic conditions and terminal conditions. Many of them not only give a ◊◊◊◊ for them but love them dearly. It takes a lot of commitment, patience, and care to assist someone with all their needs day in and out for years on end.
Western civilization assigns a stigma to suicide, and it seems you agree with that. But not every culture does, and not every person. You might not think it is noble to kill one's self, but for some, they prefer to choose their death the same way they choose their behavior at any other time of their life.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
BPSCG said:
I'm going to have a living will. When I longer have any mental faculties, stop the torture, for this is what I would see it as.
The "slippery slope" argument in this case is legitimate, since such the argument that X will lead to Y is legitimate when X does, in fact, lead to Y. (The "slippery slope" argument is a FALLACY only when people claim X leads to Y when it does not.)
Experience with so-called "euthenasia" (in reality, murder) of old and terminal patients in the very same Netherlands that is now killing babies showed that while, in THEORY, there are supposed to be all kinds of legal, moral, and buerocratic safeguards against killing those who don't want to be killed, in REALITY, once the practice is legitimized, it becomes (in effect) a "license to kill" those whose treatment is expensive and are costing the taxpayer money. It is now not uncommon for "consent" to euthenasia of the old to become almost a mere formality, or to "encourage" old patients who are expensive to kill themselves by family pressure ("look how much your costing us!") and not giving enough pain-control medication, etc., or even for consent to simply be absent.
In fact, the euthenasia program of babies IS an instance of PRECISELY such a slippery slope. When euthenasia of the old was first suggested, conservatives (you know, those against everything good and holy) pointed out that the next step will be the killing of babies. This was widely derided and ridiculed as a "slippery slope" fallacy: proponents of euthenasia of the old argued that killing babies is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT CASE, because the holy grail, the essence that makes the murder of the old legitimate and moral, is that they will give informed consent. Since babies cannot give consent, went the argument, nobody will ever consider killing them.
But, practice shows, with the legitimizing and spreading of the euthenasia of the old, consent often becomes a mere formality, and that it's legitimate to "convince" the old to die. In some cases, doctors simply kill them without their consent anyway, since when a hospital legitimized killing the old as "therapy", yet another "assisted suicide", even if the paperwork is not completely in order and is missing form REW-#2244, "patient's consent", is not likely to be vigorously investigated. And once consent IS seen as a mere formality and its sanctity is undermined, it is not at all surprising that the idea that the victim needs to consent in the first place becomes to seem quaint and old-fashioned, and various "progressive" groups argue that it isn't really necessary anyway. The result? Killing babies is legitimized. What would "never happen" first begins to happen, and then becomes commonplace.
In theory, I understand, the idea is for a law that would allow euthenasia of children up to age 12. You think the south park episode where an 8-year-old's mother wants to kill him (or as she puts it, to have a "late abortion") is unthinkable? So was killing babies a few years back. As time passes, children who are less and less sick and more and more old will be considered legitimate fodder for murder, excuse me, "euthenasia"... at least until the Netherlands fall under shari'a law due to a growing and radicalized Muslim population and these practices are stopped at gunpoint (together with other infidel ideas like elections, human rights, and voting). I guess the historical lesson the Netherlands wants to teach us is that shari'a isn't all bad.
Experience with so-called "euthenasia" (in reality, murder) of old and terminal patients in the very same Netherlands that is now killing babies showed that while, in THEORY, there are supposed to be all kinds of legal, moral, and buerocratic safeguards against killing those who don't want to be killed, in REALITY, once the practice is legitimized, it becomes (in effect) a "license to kill" those whose treatment is expensive and are costing the taxpayer money. It is now not uncommon for "consent" to euthenasia of the old to become almost a mere formality, or to "encourage" old patients who are expensive to kill themselves by family pressure ("look how much your costing us!") and not giving enough pain-control medication, etc., or even for consent to simply be absent.
In fact, the euthenasia program of babies IS an instance of PRECISELY such a slippery slope. When euthenasia of the old was first suggested, conservatives (you know, those against everything good and holy) pointed out that the next step will be the killing of babies. This was widely derided and ridiculed as a "slippery slope" fallacy: proponents of euthenasia of the old argued that killing babies is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT CASE, because the holy grail, the essence that makes the murder of the old legitimate and moral, is that they will give informed consent. Since babies cannot give consent, went the argument, nobody will ever consider killing them.
But, practice shows, with the legitimizing and spreading of the euthenasia of the old, consent often becomes a mere formality, and that it's legitimate to "convince" the old to die. In some cases, doctors simply kill them without their consent anyway, since when a hospital legitimized killing the old as "therapy", yet another "assisted suicide", even if the paperwork is not completely in order and is missing form REW-#2244, "patient's consent", is not likely to be vigorously investigated. And once consent IS seen as a mere formality and its sanctity is undermined, it is not at all surprising that the idea that the victim needs to consent in the first place becomes to seem quaint and old-fashioned, and various "progressive" groups argue that it isn't really necessary anyway. The result? Killing babies is legitimized. What would "never happen" first begins to happen, and then becomes commonplace.
In theory, I understand, the idea is for a law that would allow euthenasia of children up to age 12. You think the south park episode where an 8-year-old's mother wants to kill him (or as she puts it, to have a "late abortion") is unthinkable? So was killing babies a few years back. As time passes, children who are less and less sick and more and more old will be considered legitimate fodder for murder, excuse me, "euthenasia"... at least until the Netherlands fall under shari'a law due to a growing and radicalized Muslim population and these practices are stopped at gunpoint (together with other infidel ideas like elections, human rights, and voting). I guess the historical lesson the Netherlands wants to teach us is that shari'a isn't all bad.
Skeptic said:
Any references?
Skeptic said:
Any evidence that it was "conservatives" only that raised objections to this type of law?
Skeptic said:
References?
In
Skeptic said:
References?
Skeptic said:
Define "progressive" groups please and any references to show that killing babies is commonplace?
Skeptic said:
What on earth Muslims have to do with this subject is beyond me.
Elind
Philosopher
Skeptic said:
I think that you have already travelled your slippery slope in your mind, but do not address what actually happens in reality.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Elind said:
You do me an injustice by suggesting it can't be both.
AtheistArchon
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 589
- TM is my favorite black humor artist. And I don't mean like Chris Rock black humor.
- Myself, I use humor as a way to deal with grossly obscene, terribly tragic circumstances. There's a limit of course, but hey, we're all amongst friends here. If someone can tell a real zinger about me at my own funeral, I'll be well pleased.
kimiko said:
I don't disagree with you insofar as your repeat a basically goodhearted philosophy. Suffering sucks, I'm with you that far. But my opposition to the practice is not borne out of sadism for the ill, but rather concern for them... the implementation of that philosophy is almost certainly doomed to widespread abuse and misapplication.
This truly is the slippery slope scenario. First the elderly. Now babies. There is a clear movement of the line, and no one (no matter how compassionate they are) can say where it will stop.
The reality is assisted suicides happen. I understand it's a necessary thing. I am against legitimizing it because it should not be so easy to commit. If you are concerned about your rights, draft a living will. Talk to a relative you can trust. Do what you must for your circumstances... but as much as you say I am projecting my morality onto the issue, you are doing the same thing. I don't want that position to shape the circumstances of my life or those I care about.
When I go, it will be kicking and screaming. I have a long history of not going gently into that good night.
I'm from the Netherlands and this article has been going around the net for some time so here are some of the guildlines of the protocol:
-If the subject is 18 or older then the parents don't need to be involved.
-There has to be a consensus between the parents and the child if he/she is between 16 and 18.
-If the subject is 16 or older he/she can refuse treatment even if theat leads to death.
-If the subject is between 12 and 16, he/she will need permission of his/her parents.
Parents may request it for a newlyborn if he/she sufers from servere neurological and immunological defects (Down-syndrom isn't servere enough to be consided)).
-The patient must have been informed about the entire situation and possible futures.
-At least one independed must have been consulted and he/she must have given the patient the opinion in writting.
-It must have been shown that the patient has no chance of recovery and is serverly suffering.
-The patient may only requested it after being informed and onsidering all the options.
-All cases must be reported to a commission and judged by them.
-If the subject is 18 or older then the parents don't need to be involved.
-There has to be a consensus between the parents and the child if he/she is between 16 and 18.
-If the subject is 16 or older he/she can refuse treatment even if theat leads to death.
-If the subject is between 12 and 16, he/she will need permission of his/her parents.
Parents may request it for a newlyborn if he/she sufers from servere neurological and immunological defects (Down-syndrom isn't servere enough to be consided)).
-The patient must have been informed about the entire situation and possible futures.
-At least one independed must have been consulted and he/she must have given the patient the opinion in writting.
-It must have been shown that the patient has no chance of recovery and is serverly suffering.
-The patient may only requested it after being informed and onsidering all the options.
-All cases must be reported to a commission and judged by them.
Elind
Philosopher
TragicMonkey said:
Touche.
