Euthanasia

[Ned Flanders]

link

I just caught this story on yahoo news regarding newborn euthanasia. I've always been for this practice and would have myself axed if ever afflicted with something 'terminal' accompanied with 'extreme untreatable pain'. I suppose given my personal feelings on this sensitive subject, the story shouldn't strike such a chord, but euthanizing newborns is a little unsettling to me. I'm not certain how I feel about this given I just read the story but I thought it was worth throwing a volatile topic out there seeing as page one is a little placid for content and now that Buck is married, nothing beats bitterness like the sweet taste of banning members. Let the argument, if any, begin.

[Paranitis]

To hell with the youth in Asia..we need to worry about our own young people..wait..oh yeah, I read that story..if the kid has a terminal disease and it will only get worse..I would say let em go, keeping em around is worse than offing em.

[HighLordDave]

I guess the question is this: Who decides whether an infant is "terminally ill" or what the threshhold is for having such a poor quality of life that it is in the better interest of that child to be put to death than allowed to live with its condition(s).

For instance, who's to say that one day, children with Down's Syndrome won't be euthanised?

You or I can make that decision for our self, either by committing suicide ourselves or using an assisted suicide method. We can also make a living will so that if we are ever reduced to a persistent vegatative state, instructions may be given to remove life support.

But for a newborn? Who makes that decision? A doctor? The parents? A judge?

This issue is an ethical minefield; what would you do if it were your child?

I'm not saying that children who are born with no brain activity outside the hypothalamus should be kept alive in perpetuity, but it seems to me that there should be some sort of oversight and much, much more discussion.

[dragon wench]

I think my initial impression is a jolt, followed by a reaction of, "I'm not sure how to respond."

I've always been a strong supporter of euthanasia... but there are so many messy issues...
Eight years ago I watched my mother die of terminal cancer. Till the very end, until the moment she slipped into a coma, she struggled against the disease, even though the doctors had said they had done all they could. Having witnessed my mother fight tooth and nail like that... really caused me to re-evaluate my own opinions on euthanising those who are unable, for whatever reason, to speak.

Are we in a position to assume that such individuals would not also cling to life were they able to form and state a decision? But equally, are we in a position to assume that people who cannot speak for themselves would opt to endure lifelong (for whatever period that is) pain or a vegetative state?

When individuals elect to end their pain or misery themselves that is one thing, and I feel it is something to which everyone should have a right.

But in the case of those who do not have a voice? I don't know.... there are no easy answers...

[C Elegans]

I think the issue of euthanisia of infants is a difficult question from an ethical perspective of rights, but a less difficult issue from a medical and humanitarian perspective, at least presently.

Children who are born with very severe, irreversible brain injuries to a degree that development of self-awareness is impossible, or in states of such pain that they need to be in a coma in order not to suffer, should IMO be allowed to die for their own sake and for their parents sake.

Media has a tendency to describe cases like this in a vague way that is aimed to appeal to people's emotion, but the infants who are given euthanesia are so incredibly injured so most people cannot imagine. We are not talking about Down's syndrom or other retardation here, we are talking about children born with brain damages that will not ever allow for a state of consciousness that is able to do anything else than respond automatically to sensory stimuli.

I understand the argument that infants have no free will and that we cannot say what degree of pain or handicap a person would be willing to suffer in order to live, but you have to understand that the children given euthanisia (at least in Western Europe) will never be able to develop such a thing as free will, or any will.

For those who believe in a transcendent level of an individual, the problem is of course that something "spritual", a soul or similar, could be alive since it has no connection to the brain, and thus, the "soul" is because the brain is dead. For us who do not believe in human life outside the human brain, the issue is less difficult I think.

The issue of euthanesia has arisen as a consequence to the development of techniques that makes it possible to keep children alive who were born far, far earlier than they would have survived naturally. Only 10-15 years ago, many of these children would not have survived more than a few days or weeks.

I understand the concern for a "slippery slope", ie if this happens now, what will happen next? One day we may kill children because they are born deaf or with minor diseases? This can be avoided with strict ethical laws. It's like saying we shouldn't disallow rape because who knows what happens next, maybe sex between consenting adults will be prohibited one day. The slippery slope can be avoided with precise definitions that are kept updated to include problems that arise from new technological advancements. Also, I think only medical professionals should take the decision. Parents do not know the diseases and injuries of their children better because they are parents. Being a parent is not being an expert. I don't think parents should have ultimate rights to their children, children is not a material possession.

In the UK, there was a recent case where parents who were Jehova's witnesses or similar took the case of their prematurely born baby daugther to court. AFAIK it was the first case ever in the UK where parents had actually opposed the doctor's. The baby had severe irreversable brain and lung damage and was dependant on life sustaining support. The parents realised the girl's suffered immensely and that she had severe irreversible injuries, but they believed a miracle could happen, and thus did not want the life support to be switched off.

[HighLordDave]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

HLD has posted a post with an incomplete sentence!!!???

Call for an ambulance, quickly!!!!

I promise to post something serious here soon..

I know not of what you speak.

::waves hand hypnotically in front of SYM::

You don't need to see his identification. You will take me to Jabba now.

You did not see me post a fragmented sentence.

Buy an MSI motherboard.

[C Elegans]

Only at SYM can time be non linear...

[Weasel]

Originally Posted by HighLordDave

For instance, who's to say that one day, children with Down's Syndrome won't be euthanised?

And one day we as humans will reach this level. No matter the ethical laws laid down, some will go around them, or time will erode them down to nothing. And some will say this could never happen, look to the 1930 and 1940 and see it did happen once already.

I can only hope I'm dead before the whole world reaches this point. My personal stance, might as well legalize it and get the ball rolling.

[The Z]

Euthanizing newborns because of a terminal disease may no longer be an issue in the future. By then it will have become "Is modifying a fetus' genes in order to save its life a good or a bad thing?" Likewise, is eliminating minor diseases before birth good or bad? Whether we like it or not, those are problems that will, without a doubt, will spring up in the future (likely in our lifetime).

I'd agree with CE on this, ethically it's wrong, but humanitarian-wise it's better to not let one go through an entire life of misery, unable to fit into society, unable to compete in the modern world. Some would even hazard to say that they'd be a burden for their caretakers. Brutal, but true in a sense.

Do people that injured even understand the concept of death? Do they understand their rights?

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by The Z

Do people that injured even understand the concept of death? Do they understand their rights?

Perhaps from a philosophical perspective it might be a thought to define those rights.....

I definitely do see the humanitarian argument, and I am inclined to lean this way myself.. but beyond any personal feelings.. I have also studied the Eugenics that occurred during the 30s, 40s and beyond.... I recognize this is a separate issue... but putting the State and doctors into that position of control.. that they can quite literally determine life and death.... disturbs me profoundly. I know we can introduce strict legislation that prevents abuses... but what is to say that somebody cannot come along and overturn it?
Of course, the thing is... since the can of worms is open we have no recourse but to deal with it.... I can only hope that it is always employed strictly for humanitarian purposes...

I think as well... I would like to respond from the perspective of a parent.... I have always been so deeply grateful that my son is as normal and healthy as could be expected....
I can't even begin to imagine the grief parents must undergo when they discover their newborn child is terminally ill, or very seriously mentally disabled. I would like to think that I would, in such a situation, make the choice that would ultimately be the kindest for my child.. which is to say.. that I would agree it would be far better not to subject it to such utter pain and misery.. if it could even be conscious of that...
But.. I have found from other experiences that it is utterly impossible to be hypothetical about life/death situations. In reality, I truly can't speculate at how I would react. But, I can say.. that when you have carried a child for 9 months... and when it is born.... there is an overwhelming sense of protectiveness...
Such feelings, likely biological in nature, are perhaps irrational when the child is effectively braindead.. when protecting it would, paradoxically, be to end its life...
Yet......

As I said before, I really do not know.....

[Chanak]

Usually, infants born with terminal defects don't survive very long after birth. One might define a terminal defect as something beyond the scope of medical science to correct. This ground only becomes shaky, I believe, when legislation becomes involved. There are many things that need to be left to the discretion of both the parents and the doctors of the child...and I think this is one of them. In other words, it's better left alone. Nothing should be enacted in governmental levels to prevent it, but nothing should be enacted to support it, either. It would be unfortunate to see it come to that...and if it did, I would certainly side with supporting it.

I don't think most medical professionals would prefer to see the euthanasia of infants become "standard procedure", so to speak, in response to certain devastating birth defects. Certain defects have a chance to be corrected that otherwise would be terminal. Most physicians would want to exhaust their options before that arose as an alternative. I think that it should indeed be an alternative for the parents and doctors of the suffering child.

@Weasel: As unfortunate as it is, Downs Syndrome is not a terminal birth defect. While it's true that persons with Downs live shorter lives on average, they do not require unusual measures to prevent unbearable pain or exposure of internal organs like a child who is born with spinal bifida, for example.

I understand what you're saying, however (at least I think I do). If the euthanasia of infants is left alone as the last measure of kindness and decency doctors and parents can offer an infant beyond any hope of survival or means of self-awareness, then the risk of it turning into such a thing as you suggest is minimal.

[Ekental]

okk... on one hand you have the killing babies is wrong
on the other you have the causing pain to babies who will live their days in agony is wrong
soo... unless there is a possibility of life... one that would justify the pain being visited on the newborn (and I know that justifying pain is an awkward phrase) then infants born this way should be put out of their misery as it were. It would be cruel to try to keep them alive no?

[CM]

To take someone's life is murder. Why is this any different?

[CM]

edit i have no idea how i got a double post.

[Vicsun]

Originally Posted by CM

To take someone's life is murder. Why is this any different?

Because the alternative is a horrible life?