It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Physicians Propose Euthanasia of Newborns

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists has recommended the open debate and implementation of euthanasia of disabled newborns. The proposal states that euthansia of severely disabled newborns and infants would lessen the financial and emotional strain on families rying to raise children born with disabilities. The practice of euthanising newborns with certain severe disabilities such as spina bifida is already being carried out in the Netherlands.

 



www.upi.com
In a request to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the college says active euthanasia should be considered for the overall benefit of families, who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial stress.

"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family," the college writes in its letter to the council.

"We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests, tests and active euthanasia," the letter says.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So, we have finally come to the point as a species where we are actively looking to erase life because it is not pretty or completely healthy. What's next, the euthanasia of newborns with the "wrong" color eyes or hair? When you start down the slippery slope of "bio-ethics", it is important to have guidelines. Where do we draw the line on who should be euthanised? Just newborns who can not speak for themselves? How about the elderly; they put a real damper on the economy, why not just euthaniize everyone over 65; think of the savings to the national economy. We could totally eliminate Social Security and Medicare!

I find it particularly distasteful that these doctors, who swear a Hippocratic oath that says: "First do no harm", are actively calling for state sponsored infanticide and then cloaking it in words about "best interests" and "good of the family." In fact, one report states a source reporting that euthanasia is already being used in the UK, it's just not being talked about. Talk about man's inhumanity to man; this is just tragic.

Related News Links:
www.telegraph.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’
Should Severely Disabled Children Be Kept Small?
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11/6/2006 by Stormrider]

[edit on 11/6/2006 by Stormrider]




posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
You are correct to call it infanticide, because that's what it is. and, eventually, it will be entirely legal to kill infants for any reason, including convenience, which is what this argument is really all about.

Just wait.

[edit on 2006/11/6 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   
i cant believe there are countries out there that already do this. please tell me that great britian will not lower herself to this kind of horror.

you know, there was another country that did this once. they claimed it was for the purity of the aryan race... and we hung or inprisoned most of its leaders in 1945 for crimes against humanity. how exactly is it that killing babies with defects has gone from being something so horrible that it warranted death by hanging to something so normal that no one bats an eye? have we, as human beings, sunk so low that we will no longer care for our lame and infirm? funny, because i thought that was what separated us from the rest of the animal kingdom. what's next...kill off our grandparents when they are no longer capable of living by themselves? how about "normal" citizens who are injured in accidents? cant walk or talk, so just put them out of their misery? the same for returning war veterans in the same condition?

am i the only one who thinks that the gene pool could maybe use a little chlorine? this is just sick folks.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
This crosses a line here. They are doing this in the Netherlands?

I support voluntary euthinasia for people who are suffering from terminal illnesses and who want to end their suffering on their own terms. Why? Because its THEIR choice. Because they are adults who decide when they have had enough suffering.

But killing a kid because he has birth defects is sick. The child, who is living and born, does not get to decide if he lives or dies. If you dont like your kid, you can dispose of them. Will they start raising the age, so that kids who become disabled by sickness and injury will can be put down? Like an unwanted animal?

How about spending more tiem and research finding out how to treat or cure or prevent these problems in the first place?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You are correct to call it infanticide, because that's what it is. and, eventually, it will be entirely legal to kill infants for any reason, including convenience, which is what this argument is really all about.

Just wait.




First, infanticide.

Then voter competency tests, "mercy" killings, sterilization, and euthanasia of particular offenders.

All Heil the New Order.





posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Well, if there's no cure, and the disease is bad enough,
than I don't have a problem with this.

I do have a problem with it being used as a kind if designer
baby/society thing.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
In this sort of case it seems like a tough decision, but an idea that should be considered. The problem I see is the same that Grady see's, that being that this is probably going to be the gateway to allow infantcide out of convinience. Although I suppose a similar arguement could go for abortion, so I'm just going to hope this issue doesn't come to the US. Otherwise we'll have yet another issue for the politicians to use to distract us from the real issues.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
This is hardly a new concept, the Spartans did this regularly for things a lot less than deformation. Not that this is a good thing but things like major deformations might want to be considered. Although i think the parents should make that desicion not the doctors.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
if a child will never be able to function and has perminate brain damage, I think it should be considered. I know for a fact that if I were a quadripilegic I would want an assisted suicide possibly. If I weren't mentally capable to make the decision, then Id want it definately.

To me the most important things are independence, and to have that completely restricted, I would want an assisted suicide, yes. Should we do it to newborns? Well it depends on the sickness. If that baby is born with a heart defect, no, because that is definately something thats within grasps of curing. Perminate brain damage...thats non curable, so it should be considered.

You say if they were adult its different, but what if the disabled person is incapable of even being able to have the process of thinking about that. So mentally disabled they don't really have any conscious thoughts?



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I agree with giving people the choice to do this



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
For Christ's sake people...how can you be so shock and horrified by this. Why is this so suprising when abortions are performed on healthy babies for the same reason...for the benefit of the so called parents.

Is this not a logical extension of abortion of demand? Why would you expect a handicapped or sick child to be valued and cherished more than a healthy child?

All of you who support the right of a woman to have a abortion on demand should comfortable and completely in agreement with this type of policy...you should see it as more for a could thing.

I for one see it as just one more thing that this damned society will have to eventually answer for.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by btho5888
I for one see it as just one more thing that this damned society will have to eventually answer for.


I'm not sure about this part, but everything else I agree with.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
well in abortions an unwanted child is usually aborted, now let me put it in the cold hearted truth for you.

Unless you want to adopt the kids, your basically saying were going to force these people to take legal custody of the kid.

Then you wonder why kids come raised so messed up these days, you got a bunch of irresponsible parents who dont want them, how do you expect the kids to react. Unless you want to go and adopt the kids they are aborting the cold hard truth of the matter is that nobody wants these kids, and by forcing them to be born, your making sure they grow up in a world of neglect.

my personal opinion is that unless your adopting these kids, what right do you have to say its wrong? Sure you can sit there and say its wrong, but who is going to care for these kids, the state? We need to face the fact that population is getting completely out of control, mainly because people are having children left and right. So what do we do, do we punish them, send them to jail for having a kid when they didnt plan to? Well then they will just say they planned to.

The problem isnt abortion, its the irresponsibilty of people, but your making the children suffer for it. its a lose lose situation. You abort the child and its morally wrong, you keep the child and the child suffers for it by living a life usually of neglect.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   
No the problem is abortion and the problem is irresponsible people. And the problem also is people like you who fail to see that. You see abortion as an answer to a problem. If we put as much time, money and effort into trying to solve the problem of irresponsible people then maybe abortion wouldnt have to seen as the only answer to this problem.

And to answer your question...I have...twice. And will again if I have too!



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by btho5888
No the problem is abortion and the problem is irresponsible people. And the problem also is people like you who fail to see that. You see abortion as an answer to a problem. If we put as much time, money and effort into trying to solve the problem of irresponsible people then maybe abortion wouldnt have to seen as the only answer to this problem.

And to answer your question...I have...twice. And will again if I have too!


when you have a solution to make people more responsible, be my guest. I have my own way to make people more responsible, but most people dont like it because it means more consequences if they screw up and no one to bail them out of a jam.

I dont see abortion as the answer to the problem as much as a temporary option until we can solve the actual problem which is irresponsibility.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
this story is pretty damn disturbing, but, based on the way the article is written, i dont know if i necessarily disagree with the rationale.

however Stormrider, i have a bone to pick with your comments. while i agree there needs to be "guidelines", you mention the issue of the slippery slope. now is it just me, or did you already fall down the slippery slope, and then write the bolded sentence? (in other words, it seems to me that youre being a bit hypocritical).


Originally posted by Stormrider
So, we have finally come to the point as a species where we are actively looking to erase life because it is not pretty or completely healthy. What's next, the euthanasia of newborns with the "wrong" color eyes or hair? When you start down the slippery slope of "bio-ethics", it is important to have guidelines.


[edit on 7-11-2006 by prototism]

[edit on 7-11-2006 by prototism]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
If you want to kill yourself, don't leave a mess for the EMTs. It's your choice.

If you want to make the decision to kill someone else's child because you don't think they are equipped to care, and love, the child, you're a monster.

This is post-birth abortion, and it makes you a murderer. Whether you recognize a God, Fate, or just a government who says it's okay, you are still killing a child. There is no loophole, no "well but..."; you are killing a disabled child.

So how to do it? Toss the baby in an incinerator? Or something more "humane", like cutting it to pieces while alive, like a "traditional" abortion? Or a "lethal but painless" injection that shuts down the lungs and allows them to suffocate, "painlessly?"

Yeah, let's not go the route of "well astygia it's burth contrul LOL!!11" because if you want birth control, you can keep your damn legs closed and your dick rolled up. Breaking news, the most common side-effect of sex is pregnancy.

However you "euthanize", congratulations, you are below me. That takes a lot.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia
If you want to make the decision to kill someone else's child because you don't think they are equipped to care, and love, the child, you're a monster.


where did you get the idea that it would be up to other people, and not the families of the children in question?

[edit on 7-11-2006 by prototism]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Maybe I misunderstood the concept of "active" euthenasia. So replace "someone else's child" with "your child" and the rest still applies.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I have a by marriage relative that was born with no Eyes, Quadpralegic, Brain damaged, he wheres daipers 24/7 and is in his 30s, full time carers, it costs more to look after him every year than average people earn, enough infact to feed hundreds of people from poorer countrys.

Everyone in the family loves him, he lives in a home and probably spends about 1 week per year all told with family members.

I know what i would of wanted if i was him, what would you want ? What can society afford ? Its obvious what would of happened in less modern times, even 100 years ago.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join