Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

[Jocko]

This reminds me of the old immuring technique that the church used to use on nuns they wanted to kill. They didn't want to spill their blood, so they walled them up and let them get on with dying.

Yeah, that was the policy of Pope Edgar Allan Poe VII. Crazy bugger, he was. I second the call for a little backup on this one.

Fundamentally, what's the difference between giving someone a fatal injection and letting somebody die that you could otherwise keep alive? Don't they boil down to the same thing?

One is terminating a life, the other is allowing the expiration of life. It's almost impossible to draw lines here, I admit, but as I stated before I find a solid, functioning foundation in the distinction between ceasing to artificially extend life (living wills, DNR requests, etc.) and ending life through positive, deliberate actions. The more religious would call this leaving it in God's hands, perhaps, others might call it letting nature run its course. However you define/justify it, that's the only reasonable distinction I can make.

Natural causes may be a broad definition of ways to die, but I don't think you'll find lethal injection among them.

 

[richardm]

Never heard of this. Assuming it's true (trans: got proof?), how did the church distinguish this from murder?

Beats me. Sophistry in action. I'll try to sort out something better than this quote from Brewer . (It's possible that it rarely happened outside of novels).

One starts you down the slippery slope that leads to killing anyone who enough of the right people decide is too expensive/inconvenient to keep alive. The other does not.

But by saying "This treatment is too expensive" or "It is very inconvenient to keep treating this person" and withdrawing that treatment you are just as effectively killing that person as if you gave them an injection. In some cases it could even be worse than getting a nice, easy injection; in the UK people have been "allowed to die" by having feeding tubes withdrawn so that they effectively starve to death. Once you've decided that the person is going to die, and you withdraw treatment to ensure that they do, is there really a difference? I'm not sure there is, in all honesty.

It's worth noting that the UK courts agree with you, BTW - withdrawing treatment is allowed (and it sometimes ends up in a court battle if parents want to keep treatment going), but actively killing the person is not.

Where it is different, of course, is cases where the individual would live on in a poor condition even without treatment; I'd say that it's up to that individual. But that's different to what we're arguing about (I think!)

 

[richardm]

Yeah, that was the policy of Pope Edgar Allan Poe VII. Crazy bugger, he was. I second the call for a little backup on this one.

Snopes has a bit to say about it, but doesn't go into much detail about where they got their info.

 

[TragicMonkey]

On the subject of immurement, there may have been the confusion of two separate practices. The first is that very devout religious of both sexes would sometimes choose to be immured, usually inside a monastery or abbey cell. It wasn't fatal--they just bricked up the door, leaving a slot for food and water to be brought in. The holy person was then isolated and able to concentrate on prayer and meditation for the rest of his life. If you don't have a desert handy, it was an alternative to becoming a hermit or stylite. It wasn't a form of execution, since they got fed. Some of them lived for decades like that, in a cloud of mystical wisdom (if you're religious) or a cloud of madness and stink (if you're not).

Immurement was sometimes used as a method of imprisonment/execution, in cases where the condemned was considered unsuitable for execution--women of noble birth would be candidates for this. The most famous example would be Countess Bathory, who was immured into a closet in her own castle. Perhaps the spectacular nature of the crime warranted a punishment of this nature as well. I'm not sure that they starved her to death, either--they might have just left her there to go mad and die of old age eventually. They might have been frightened of her, considering the lady's history.

I don't recall hearing that nuns were ever immured for punishment reasons, but if convicted of a crime in the Middle Ages, they might have been possible candidates for a method of execution like that. For some reason, I dimly recall hearing that nuns were smothered...? Although that might be just my subconsious telling me that "Smothered Nuns" would be an excellent name for a rock band.

 

[richardm]

... To add to the confusion convents which allowed no access to the outside world were/are sometimes referred to as "immuring" there inhabitants. The word just means "Behind a wall", after all.

 

[Skeptic]

The slippery slope here is very simple: first, they claim that only people who expressed a desire to die of their own free choice can be killed. Then, that also people who cannot express a desire to die of their own free choice--like babies or comatose people--can be killed. The next step is that people who expressed a desire not to die can be killed as well, as long as the killer doesn't think he (or "society") would like the patient to go on living that way.

You think the laws which forbid the killing of those who don't want to die will be enforced? Think again. In an interview with NPR, Dr. Edward Verhagen, the head of Pediatric Clinic of the University Hospital in Groningen, was asked if what his hospital had done-euthanaize babies--was legal. He openly said that it isn't legal. This means that what the doctors have done is, in fact, murder: the illegal, non-consensual killing of a human being. Of course, it goes without saying that nobody will be prosecuted, let alone punished, for these murders. If the laws against murder have not protected those infants now, what makes you think "strict laws" that "severely limit" when someone can be killed will protect the helpless later on--once "mercy killing" of babies will become routine?

You think the wishes fo those who don't want to be killed will be respected? Think again. In the same interview, the good doctor was asked if parental consent, at least, is needed. Do parents have veto power over the killing decision? No, he said. Of course, he added, the parents are always "very much involved", but, ultimately, "we prefer to have it [the euthenasia decision] tested or assessed by a committee of experts". If parents have no veto power over saving their babies' lives now, this is horrible enough; but even worse, what makes you think the next step will not be the killing of those who openly deny they want to die? As long as they were "very much involved" in the decision of the "committee of experts" that declared they would be better of dead, of course.

 

[AtheistArchon]

The slippery slope here is very simple: first, they claim that only people who expressed a desire to die of their own free choice can be killed. Then, that also people who cannot express a desire to die of their own free choice--like babies or comatose people--can be killed. The next step is that people who expressed a desire not to die can be killed as well, as long as the killer doesn't think he (or "society") would like the patient to go on living that way.

- Gee, that is simple. Can you demonstrate that it would occur? I see nothing except your word that this slope does, in fact, slide.

You think the laws which forbid the killing of those who don't want to die will be enforced? Think again. In an interview with NPR, Dr. Edward Verhagen, the head of Pediatric Clinic of the University Hospital in Groningen, was asked if what his hospital had done-euthanaize babies--was legal. He openly said that it isn't legal. This means that what the doctors have done is, in fact, murder: the illegal, non-consensual killing of a human being. Of course, it goes without saying that nobody will be prosecuted, let alone punished, for these murders. If the laws against murder have not protected those infants now, what makes you think "strict laws" that "severely limit" when someone can be killed will protect the helpless later on--once "mercy killing" of babies will become routine?

- References? I like NPR, but I've never heard this interview.

You think the wishes fo those who don't want to be killed will be respected? Think again. In the same interview, the good doctor was asked if parental consent, at least, is needed. Do parents have veto power over the killing decision? No, he said. Of course, he added, the parents are always "very much involved", but, ultimately, "we prefer to have it [the euthenasia decision] tested or assessed by a committee of experts". If parents have no veto power over saving their babies' lives now, this is horrible enough; but even worse, what makes you think the next step will not be the killing of those who openly deny they want to die? As long as they were "very much involved" in the decision of the "committee of experts" that declared they would be better of dead, of course.

- Sounds like a heck of a bad situation.

- References?

 

[Skeptic]

References from NPR's web page:

Dutch Hospital Euthenizes Incurably Ill Newborn

Note that I didn't press on the "listen" button so I am not sure that complete interview is available online.

As for not having "any evidence except for my word" that what I said will occur, I suggest that the fact that Dr. Berhagen had publicly admitted that his hospital had knowingly committed illegal killing of innocents, and said that the parents won't get to veto such killings if the "experts" wish otherwise, is pretty strong evidence in favor of my position.

It means that the good doctor is slightly less committed to observing the "strict legality" of euthenasia and "protecting the right to life" of the would-be victims than his high-flying rhetoric claims. It means he thinks that it is ultimately "society" or "expert committees" who have the right to decide who lives and who dies, not those directly concerned. It means that he thinks that if the law does not allow him to kill someone he thinks is better off dead, well, that's no objection for killing them anyway--which he already did.

Why think such flaunting of the law, and ignoring of the right of others to life (if the experts say otherwise) would stop when dealing with older children?

 

[AWPrime]

Note that I didn't press on the "listen" button so I am not sure that complete interview is available online.

As for not having "any evidence except for my word" that what I said will occur, I suggest that the fact that Dr. Berhagen had publicly admitted that his hospital had knowingly committed illegal killing of innocents, and said that the parents won't get to veto such killings if the "experts" wish otherwise, is pretty strong evidence in favor of my position.

I have listen to the interview, and that was never said.
And it seems to be the complete interview.

would stop when dealing with older children?

Read some of my earlier posts about the rules dealing with older children.

 

[Skeptic]

As for the parents not having a veto:

He was asked, "Is it just up to the parents?". His reply? "No." But he quickly caught himself, and magnanimously allowed that parents are "always very much involved."

his MIGHT be construed as meaning merely that the parents get "expert advice" on whether to kill the baby or not from "society"... but, in that case, why the flat denial? The context of the question "is it just up to the parents?" was not "if parents decide to kill the baby, can they just do it?", and the doctor saying they need to get more advice. The context of the question was "when a decision about a newborn dying is made, do the parents get the final say?". Clearly, he considers the parent's view, either way, as less important than the expert opinion.

In theory, this means both that the experts can overrule a parent who wants the child dead and a parent who wants the child to live... but since this leading "expert" had already "illegally euthenaized" (e.g., murdered) a few babies this year, we can get a good guess on what "society"and the "experts" would usually recommend, can't we?

As for it being "society's" choice:

Listen to what he says here: "Let's see how society thinks of it... what we would like to happen here in Holland is that we put the spotlight on such decisions because they need to be extremely secure. And instead of taking these decisions in a kind of gray area, we want them to be in the spotlight…The culture in Holland is a culture where euthanasia for adults has been legalized in 2002 by the Parliament."

Clearly, the point of this reply is that since the "culture in the Netherlands" has already legalized euthenizing adults, he fully expects "what society thinks about it" to be that of accepting baby euthenasia, too. It is this conviction in the fact that society agrees with what he does that gave him the confidence to murder those babies illegally in the first place, after all.

 

[kimiko]

Not for long.

Dutch Doctor: Who in their right mind would want to continue to live in that condition?

Dutch Politician: I don't know, but it sure is getting expensive.

Dutch Protestor: Hey, don't look at me. As long as you're not executing convicted murderers -- we all know that's wrong -- I really don't mind. We already euthanize "defective" babies now, don't we?

They're already a step above us- at least they care whether all the mentally retarded in their country are getting services. They don't have to go around killing them to decrease their expenditures, they could just cut what kinds of care they'd cover. Or leave thousands of them out, like the US.

 

[Skeptic]

They're already a step above us- at least they care whether all the mentally retarded in their country are getting services. They don't have to go around killing them to decrease their expenditures, they could just cut what kinds of care they'd cover. Or leave thousands of them out, like the US.

Indeed so. But, if one had to choose the lesser of two evils, "not spending enough money taking care of the retarded" is preferable to "killing the retarded to save taxpayer's money".

 

[BPSCG]

Indeed so. But, if one had to choose the lesser of two evils, "not spending enough money taking care of the retarded" is preferable to "killing the retarded to save taxpayer's money".

Hey, I have an idea! Why don't we execute murderers and with the money we save on their room and board, take care of the severely handicapped?

See, there's room for social liberals and social conservatives on this issue!

 

[kimiko]

Indeed so. But, if one had to choose the lesser of two evils, "not spending enough money taking care of the retarded" is preferable to "killing the retarded to save taxpayer's money".

Yeah, if you -had- to. But they're already succeeding in offering high-quality services to their retarded citizens. If they need to cut it, there's no reason to think they'll jump straight to knocking them off. The US on the other hand hasn't even reached that level of care; we don't have a lot of room to be self-righteous about the possible abuse of their system.

 

[AWPrime]

As for the parents not having a veto:

He was asked, "Is it just up to the parents?". His reply? "No." But he quickly caught himself, and magnanimously allowed that parents are "always very much involved."

his MIGHT be construed as meaning merely that the parents get "expert advice" on whether to kill the baby or not from "society"... but, in that case, why the flat denial? The context of the question "is it just up to the parents?" was not "if parents decide to kill the baby, can they just do it?", and the doctor saying they need to get more advice. The context of the question was "when a decision about a newborn dying is made, do the parents get the final say?". Clearly, he considers the parent's view, either way, as less important than the expert opinion.

Well the bold is more logical from a dutch p.o.v. and it is backed up by the rules.

 

[Jocko]

Hey, I have an idea! Why don't we execute murderers and with the money we save on their room and board, take care of the severely handicapped?

See, there's room for social liberals and social conservatives on this issue!

Forget it, both smack of value judgments and God knows liberals can't stomach those. They'll insist you try (endlessly) to convince them why a convicted murderer has any less right to life than the handicapped*.



* Unless he hasn't been born yet. Then they're cool with icing him/her with no further ado. There are no values to be applied when the other side isn't capable of speech yet, see.

 

[shuize]

Well the bold is more logical from a dutch p.o.v. and it is backed up by the rules.

Dutch Parent: Doctor, I'm getting really tired of this taking care of a sick child bit. Isn't there anything you can do under the rules ... (wink wink)?

Dutch Doctor: Well, the baby might not live more than a few years ...

Dutch Parent: Close enough. We've got places to go and people to see. In fact, we're planning a trip to the holocaust museum shortly. And when we're done, we have anti-death penalty rally to attend. We Dutch have to keep up appearances, you know.

 

[AWPrime]

Logical as concerning the used language.

Is it just up to the parents?

When translated into dutch, it can only be interpreted as asking if the parents may do whatever they want.

 

[Skeptic]

When translated into dutch, it can only be interpreted as asking if the parents may do whatever they want.

That's very nice, but the interview was in English.

 

[AWPrime]

And the doctor dutch.