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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Will somebody please think of the chidlren!!!!




posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Okay, logic dictates that if you have unprotected sex something is either going to happen or not. It's russian roulette. If something does happen, it's a gamble that the baby will be a perfect specimen. If you don't want to have the burden of such a responsibilty, don't get pregnant, thataway there will be no question when the baby is born that you want to take care of it, regardless of how it turns out. If you don't want a baby or don't want an imperfect baby, you either need to practice safe sex using prophylatics (spelling?), or be creative so the x and y don't have an unarranged meeting. So in the end, it IS the same subject because it deals with not doing it to begin with if you don't want to deal with the results of less than perfection.

In the course of the life of a human being, they may or may not have all manner of physical trials. These can range from deformities to debilitating diseases, and we certainly wouldn't want to throw away our sick friends and relatives because they were burdens. It's not a burden when you realize the potential for personal growth involved in thinking about and caring for someone other than yourself.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by djohnsto77

As pro-life as I am, I have to say that euthanasia of profoundly retarded people who can never, ever take care of themselves is something that should at least be discussed.



So you're NOT pro-life.

Life is a mysterious thing - and we do not know the value of experience, or kinases, until we are deprived of their benefits.

And many things that cause great pain are, in the end, beneficial.
.


Well maybe not 100%, but I certainly feel that euthanasia, if it happens, should be carried out by a lethal overdose injection of barbiturates or opioids or something. The practice of withholding a feeding tube and starving/dehydrating the person to death used now in the U.S. like in Schiavo case I find to be absolutely barbaric!


[edit on 11/8/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The practice of withholding a feeding and starving/dehydrating the person to death used now in the U.S. like in Schiavo case I find to be absolutely barbaric!



Oh no doubt. I was horrified when I heard they were starving her to death on national TV.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Medicine is quickly discovering that terms like "persistent vegetative state" are not as clear cut as they used to be. Patients previously thought of as being in PVS with significantly minimal brain activity, are showing signs of understanding, to an extent hithertofore unimagined or understood. This means, PVS patients who have been starved to death or had their life support cut off, may have been aware of the events transpiring around them and were totally helpless to stop their own gruesome deaths.

So this whole ... "oh he only had 1/3 brain function and was PVS" is not going to be an excuse much longer, as medical studies reveal the brain is a remarkable device that acts almost holographically/ (think about what I just said)



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Medical science is clearly in the process of placing a monetary value on human life. The next step will be to euthanize Grandma and Grandpa if their medical care gets expensive. After that I expect they will start talking about euthanizing the mentally ill. But for God sakes don't execute a murderer. That would be wrong. Handicapped yes - Murderers no. Isn't it strange how the same people argue both?

I can see it now -

Title: Sue Saves the Gene Pool

Stage right - Marge and her friend Sue enter the Kitchen.

Marge -"Sue, hows the new baby doing?"

Sue - "Oh her, she had one leg shorter than the other, so we had the doctor dispose of her."

Marge - "Lucky you noticed the leg in time! A few more days and she would have been a real human being."

Sue - "Yeah, I guess we were lucky to notice at that. Imagine the cost of the special shoes and no way could she compete in sports with that leg!"

Marge - "Can I have the clothes or did you put them down the disposal with it, the pre-human I mean."

Sue - "Sorry I did. Having a kid without a defect is just to hard and I'm getting tired of paying to have them destroyed. I'm not going to have any more. It's such a waste of good money.'

Marge - " Did you hear about Doris? She actually kept a kid with a deformed pinkie toe! Some people will raise any old child and they just don't care about the gene pool!."


DISCLAIMER - The names were chosen randomly and are not real people. This has been a dramatic presentation of the future. All rights reserved. No animals were harmed in the creation of this production.

News Flash! Everyone with genetic deficiencies is to report to your local Euthanasia Clinic for extermination or sterilization. A new colony has been formed to separate you from the normal people so they don't have to look at you. Food will be provided from the waste treatment plant recycling project. That way you won't be such a burden on society. Please choose euthanization. It is your civic responsibility!



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
What can society afford ?


Sorry NumberCruncher, but this Freudian Slip makes my point. I won't be able to sleep tonight. I wish I would have stuck to the UFO threads.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Well, there is nothing I can personally do about the euthanized. Therefore I will just set a prayer now for all future planned deaths involving birth defected children and move on with my life. They are all in God's hands after that.

Whatever the case, these are decisions being made by us humans, and God has given us the opportunity of the freedom to choose the way things work in our society. So I do not want to hear any "What kind of God would let this happen" bs, because this is ALL the work of Man. for all we know He is kicking himself in the behind for giving us that freedom.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Or maybe, just maybe (I am going out on a limb here....) He doesn't exist?

Religion is a personal choice and yes, you can use it to guide you own moral precepts, but please don't assume the rest of us believe in ancient myths and bedtime stories.

Your all getting hung up on the pro-life or religious values. 20 years ago, these children that are born with such severe defects would have died anyway. They are only kept alive (usually for the sanity of the parents than anything else as there is little to no benefit to the poor child) by extrem medical intervention for the rest of their lives, causing pain and misery, if they are even aware of it.

As I stated earlier, if my own daughter became so profoundly ill she was kept alive by machines, with no hope of recovery, I would let her go in peace rather than prolong her agony for my own selfish reasons.

[edit on 9/11/06 by stumason]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Or maybe, just maybe (I am going out on a limb here....) He doesn't exist?

Religion is a personal choice and yes, you can use it to guide you own moral precepts, but please don't assume the rest of us believe in ancient myths and bedtime stories.

Your all getting hung up on the pro-life or religious values. 20 years ago, these children that are born with such severe defects would have died anyway. They are only kept alive (usually for the sanity of the parents than anything else as there is little to no benefit to the poor child) by extrem medical intervention for the rest of their lives, causing pain and misery, if they are even aware of it.

As I stated earlier, if my own daughter became so profoundly ill she was kept alive by machines, with no hope of recovery, I would let her go in peace rather than prolong her agony for my own selfish reasons.

[edit on 9/11/06 by stumason]


Fine, if you don't believe in God, just believe in the endgame of euthanasia. And don't gimme no -- there's no evidence it would slippery slope, when every indication is that most leniences on issues people as a general rule know to be wrong, are abused envitably and to the detriment of whatever sector of the populace happens to be unpopular atm.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
On Oct. 7, 2004, 9-year old Devon Rivers became sickened with a mysterious illness that left in a coma:

Eventually, he was moved to a pediatric nursing care center, where he received daily physical therapy that kept his muscles from atrophying and his joints from locking up.

Yet every time doctors checked on him, they had the same prognosis: Devon was in a persistent vegetative state, and it was doubtful that he would ever recover.

His family continued to care for him and after two years Devon began breathing on his own and has "awakened" from a PVS state.

Believe it or not, some bioethicists, including the euthanasia fanatics who sponsored Terri Schiavo's death via dehydration, believe that those in a PVS state are dead and want to experiment on them. (emphasis mine)

Yet, it should be noted that along with Devon many others have come out of a PVS state. Louis Viljoen awoke from a three year coma after he was administered a sleeping pill. Note that doctors had diagnosed Louis as being in a permanent vegetative state (PVS). They told his mother he would never recover.

Doctors gave Haleigh Poutre a death sentence by characterizing her as "virtually brain dead" and in a "permanent vegetative state". Less than three weeks later, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services pushed to remove Haleigh's feeding tube and respirator and won approval from the State Supreme Court to so. Despite her "hopeless" condition, and her status as "virtually brain dead", she began showing signs of improvement and was weaned off her ventilator. She is now in rehabilitation, able to eat scrambled eggs and cream of wheat, and has tapped out drum rhythms during physical therapy.

South African researchers, writing in the NeuroRehabilitation, showed effective treatment of three PVS patients through the administration of Zolpidem. (BBC Report here)

A study of 84 patients having a "firm diagnosis" of PVS which found that 41% regained consciousness by six months, 52% by three years:

* Out of 40 patients diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state, 17 (43%) were later found to be alert, aware, and often able to express a simple wish. The study is one of the largest, most sustained analyses of severely disabled people presumed to be incapable of conscious thinking, communication, or awareness of their surroundings. The author, London neurologist Dr. Keith Andrews, said, "It is disturbing to think that some patients who were aware had for several years been treated as being vegetative.

* Studies show PVS patients feel pain -- indeed, a Univ. of Mich. neurologist, in one of the most complete studies, concluded that, when food and fluids are withdrawn [to impose death], the patient should be sedated.

* A study of 84 patients with a "firm diagnosis" of PVS found that 41% regained consciousness by six months, 52% by three years. These statistics certainly discredit the terms "persistent" and "permanent".

In practice, the terms of PVS have become so elastic as to categorize Christine Busalacchi, a young Missouri woman, as PVS -- even though she said "Hi" to a doctor, made sounds to indicate which soap opera she wanted to watch, pushed buttons on a cassette recorder to play tapes and recognized her father on TV.

www.blogsforterri.com...
----------

Slippppery slope.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
On Oct. 7, 2004, 9-year old Devon Rivers became sickened with a mysterious illness that left in a coma:

Eventually, he was moved to a pediatric nursing care center, where he received daily physical therapy that kept his muscles from atrophying and his joints from locking up.

Yet every time doctors checked on him, they had the same prognosis: Devon was in a persistent vegetative state, and it was doubtful that he would ever recover.

His family continued to care for him and after two years Devon began breathing on his own and has "awakened" from a PVS state.


undo,

Thanks for the great example of an unexpected recovery! For all the doubter on this list, who are promoting euthanasia, read the above story again. Even though you may say this was an exception, it still happens! Because Devon's family hung onto him when everyone though he was "gone", he had a chance to recover and go on with life! Now this boy will have a chance to chase his dreams again.

Was hanging on to him selfish? I'd say no!

Oh, and speaking of selfish thinking, can one of the"supporter" of euthanasia answer this question for me:

How is taking away any chance your child will ever have of getting better or even experiencing life, just so you can get on with your OWN life, NOT an act of Selfishness?

Tim



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Oh, and speaking of selfish thinking, can one of the"supporter" of euthanasia answer this question for me:

How is taking away any chance your child will ever have of getting better or even experiencing life, just so you can get on with your OWN life, NOT an act of Selfishness?

Tim


For me, the loss of my only daughter is something I do NOT ever want to go through. I do not even like thinking about, or even reading stories on the news about other little rugrats who have died.

But, if my daughter was so profoundly ill that her only way of living would be bedridden, kept alive by machines and with 0 chance of recovery, I would consider turning it off.

Now, hear me when I say this is not something I would take lightly. I am well aware of many medical advances, so would be accutely aware if anything could be done to save her or give her a chance. It's only after exhausting all avenues and faced with the possibility of her being bedridden for life and vegetative would I consider disconnecting the power, so to speak. It would at least let her go in peace rather then cling on to her shell in the vain hope that one day, maybe, she might have a miracle and recover. That is selfishness.

As for afterwards, how can you assume that ANY parent would just "get on with their life". I would be devastated and, very probably, be rather suicidal at the prospect of life without me little chicken. But at least I would know that, in the end, I gave her some peace rather then have her body hooked up to machines for years on end, but her being effectively brain dead.

If I was in that sort of position, I would request they turn me off as well. I do not fear death and would prefer it to a lifetime of vegetation because someone was misguided enough to cling onto me when it is quite clear I was FUBAR.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
You say that now, but common sense kicks in when you're an emotionally stable individual and prefer life to death. Michael J. Fox wants to live, even when it is incredibly painful and embarrassing for him to be in his current condition. That's a sign of a healthy mind who appreciates his life, even with its unforeseen dilemmas, and isn't going to throw it away if he has anything to say about it.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

But, if my daughter was so profoundly ill that her only way of living would be bedridden, kept alive by machines and with 0 chance of recovery, I would consider turning it off.
...It would at least let her go in peace rather then cling on to her shell in the vain hope that one day, maybe, she might have a miracle and recover.




This thread is about euthanasia - not withdrawing life support. Two different issues and questions.

The recommendation made in the title article is that disabled babies be killed - even if they hang on to life without life support, despite their disablilites.

These recommendations for euthanasia do NOT apply to babies who require life support - who of course, can be easily killed by turning off the machines.

FYI - I have a brilliant, accomplished friend who would not be alive today if this recommendation had been made law 50 years ago, and applied to children with polio. In fact, if the law applied to adults, his father would have him put down today because he's still ashamed to have a parapalegic son who has to sleep in an iron lung. Despite his son's brilliant accomplishments.

Go figure.

.





[edit on 9-11-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

This thread is about euthanasia - not withdrawing life support. Two different issues and questions.
[edit on 9-11-2006 by soficrow]


Without wanting to be pedantic in return to your comment, that is still euthanasia. Suggest you familiarise yourself with the definition:



euthanasia
noun [U]
the act of killing someone who is very ill or very old so that they do not suffer any more:


But to be pedantic, how do you know I was referring to the "present" or future. All I said was "if my daughter was (past tense) profoundly ill......", hence, I could have been (and, in fact, was) talking about if my daughter was born in such a condition.

Please, try and read what was actually written before attempting to impose what you believe was written.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Michael J. Fox wants to live, even when it is incredibly painful and embarrassing for him to be in his current condition. That's a sign of a healthy mind who appreciates his life, even with its unforeseen dilemmas, and isn't going to throw it away if he has anything to say about it.


Now this is an example of what this thread isn't about....

Michael J Fox was, until recently, perfectly healthy. Not a good example, chap. Even so, if he deems his suffering to be too much to bear one day, who are we to stop him ending it?

Anyhoo.... Like I said, wrong topic for this thread....



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
stumason,

Thank you for your pedantic clarifications of your terminology.

I do however stand by my use of language and my post.



Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by stumason

But, if my daughter was so profoundly ill that her only way of living would be bedridden, kept alive by machines and with 0 chance of recovery, I would consider turning it off.
...It would at least let her go in peace rather then cling on to her shell in the vain hope that one day, maybe, she might have a miracle and recover.




This thread is about euthanasia - not withdrawing life support. Two different issues and questions.




Further explanation: Euthanasia is actively killing, taking specific action to terminate a life; withdrawing life support is passively allowing to die, without taking other action.

The recommendation made in the title article is that disabled babies should be killed, by active intervention - even if they hang on to life without life support, despite their disabilites.

These recommendations for euthanasia do NOT apply to babies who require life support - who can be killed simply by turning off the machines.

FYI - I have a brilliant, accomplished friend who would not be alive today if this recommendation had been made law 50 years ago, and applied to children with polio. In fact, if the law applied to adults, his father would have him put down today because he's still ashamed to have a parapalegic son who has to sleep in an iron lung. Despite his son's brilliant accomplishments.

Please note: If my friend were NOT allowed the use of his iron lung, he soon would die.

Legally, this is NOT considered euthanasia - insurance providers make medical decisions all the time NOT to provide essential medical treatments.

I do agree with you however that morally, such non-provision of treatment IS euthanasia.

.


euthanasia
1. A quiet, painless death.
2. The intentional putting to death of a person with an incurable or painful disease intended as an act of mercy.

Under Dutch law euthanasia is the termination of life by a doctor at the express wish of a patient. The request to the doctor must be voluntary, explicit and carefully considered and it must have been made repeatedly. Moreover, the patient's suffering must be unbearable and without any prospect of improvement.

.


[edit on 9-11-2006 by soficrow]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Stu,

Nah, Mr. Fox has been suffering with parkinson's since before 1991. That's (at the very least) 15 years of suffering to varying degrees. The reason I brought it up is if you recall his heartfelt video regarding finding a cure for parkinson's, you'd realize that even the very sick, frequently want to live, regardless of their disabilities.

Personally, I don't get this push to exterminate those who aren't perfect genetic specimens. Many times people who have disabilities excel in other areas that are just as legitimate as any other area of expertise and just as useful to society. Take a gander at Stephen Hawkings:

"Despite enduring severe disability and, of late, being rendered quadriplegic by motor neuron disease (specifically, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or, "Lou Gehrig's Disease"), he has had a successful career for many years, and has achieved status as an academic celebrity. He is considered by most as one of the greatest scientists in modern times."

en.wikipedia.org...

Now imagine what would happen to him were he born in an euthanasia society! No more "greatest scientist in modern times" ...



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow


This thread is about euthanasia - not withdrawing life support. Two different issues and questions.



Soficrow,
Actually, The proposal by the Royal College included the sugesstion that withholding of treatment, and withdrawal of life support be considered along with other options in the ending of newborn lives complicated by severe disabilities. This is not aimed at you as a slam, since we both share the same opinion on the subject; it is simply a clarification. I would also like to point out to everyone, that when the proposal uses the term "severe disability", it does not qualify that term in any way, except to offer an example, "severe spina bifida", a condition that is routinely corrected by surgery shortly after birth, many many times a year here in the US. My point is that since they do not define what constitutes a severe disability, it allows them to apply it to any disability that a physician/parent may wish. That is my most serious concern.

Also, as I posted earlier, this thread is concerned with the subject of euthanasia of newborns with disabilities, not children or adults who later develop debilitating illnesses or injuries. Let's please, try to keep our focus on the issue at hand; it is surely imprtant enough in it's own right to keep us on topic.

Thanks




[edit on 11/9/2006 by Stormrider]




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join