Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocko

By Tony's reckoning, you don't have to be terminal. You don't even really have to be suffering.

This is either a lie or a very perverse misunderstanding.

[Jocko]

Tony, your arguments have become so circular I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, let's try again, taking into account your safeguard:

Person in pain: Argle fwaw! Axle snoooofph cornflakes my smwuffm wife! Pfffttt sknixx? Errr....(f...f...f...a...a...a...r...r...r..r....r ....r....r....t..t..t..t.!) Ahhhh!

Wife: He doesn't understand anything you're saying. but I know he wants to die.

Doctor: Could I please see the living will?

Wife: Here it is...

Doctor: Hmmm... this was done three weeks ago. Are you sure that's his signature?

Wife: Are you calling me a liar? Look, he's suffering; do I have to call my malpractice lawyers to get you to do your job?

Doctor: Okay. okay...

Wife: Hurry up, this place ain't cheap, you know!



That's just one off-the-top-of-my-head objection. And don't tell me this would never happen.

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?

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocko
Tony, your arguments have become so circular...

How?

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocko
Tony, your arguments have become so circular...

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
How?

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]

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!

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
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!

Sure, why not? Didn't seem to do Tony too much harm.

[rdtjr]

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!

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Terminally ill ones.

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]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
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!

You joke because you are uncomfortable with the issue, or just basically insensitive?

[kimiko]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocko
Everyone is terminally ill. Life is inherently terminal. Let's just rename murder to euthenasia, and bingo - your urban crime problems are solved.

The whole idea of euthenasia is based on individual selfishness. The excuses are legion, the blame nowhere to be found. No one wants to tend for a sick child, an infirm parent or a paralyzed spouse. Too much time, too much effort, too much emotional investment.

To make ourselves feel better, we rationalize that the infant wouldn't really WANT to live that way, the geriatric would ASK to die if he had the mental capacity to do so, and the spouse would WANT us to just "get on with our lives." The worst part is, those attitudes lay guilt on the ill and disabled, compounding their suffering.

Maybe they would be more interested in living if the people who are supposed to give a sh*t about them actually did.

You want to end your own suffering? Fine. But don't pretend it's noble. And may God protect you from trying to end the "suffering" of anyone I care about.

Life is suffering and it goes beyond what is convenient for you. Deal with it.

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 sh*t 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]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
So when Dad's in the nursing home drooling porridge on his lap and soiling his diapers and he seems to always have a couple of fresh scabs on his head and face from scratching himself and speaks in no language anyone can understand, can we kill him, too? Oh, and he's terminally ill, too, but not actually suffering yet - say he's got a slow-growing but always fatal cancer.

Decide quickly: That nursing home he's in costs about a hundred bucks a day and the old guy's chewing up your inheritance at terrifying speed.

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.

[Skeptic]

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.

[Darat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic

...snip...


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.

Any references?

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic


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)

Any evidence that it was "conservatives" only that raised objections to this type of law?

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic

...snip...

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.

References?

In

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
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.

References?

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic

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.

Define "progressive" groups please and any references to show that killing babies is commonplace?

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic

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.

What on earth Muslims have to do with this subject is beyond me.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic


snipped

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.

I think that you have already travelled your slippery slope in your mind, but do not address what actually happens in reality.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Elind
You joke because you are uncomfortable with the issue, or just basically insensitive?

You do me an injustice by suggesting it can't be both.

[AtheistArchon]

Quote:

You joke because you are uncomfortable with the issue, or just basically insensitive?

- 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.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by kimiko
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 sh*t 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.

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.

[AWPrime]

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.

[Elind]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
You do me an injustice by suggesting it can't be both.

Touche.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
I don't have a problem with it, as long as parents aren't being forced to euthanize their terminally ill child or baby.

At what age would the parents loose the right to decide euthanasia for the child? IMO, I think it should be fairly young, like 3, or 4.

Yikes. I was thinking 3 or 4 weeks should be the cutoff. If the kid has a chance to live to be 3 or 4, then I would say that the kid should not be eligible for being killed.

[shuize]

My understanding of Groningen Protocol is that parents' wishes may be respected but it's ultimately up to the doctors. Said another way, the doctor's don't have to get consent at all.

Which means I can revise my list of things never to ask from the Dutch:

1) Peacekeeping (See Srebrenica)

2) Life-saving medical treatment (See Groningen Protocol)

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by shuize
My understanding of Groningen Protocol is that parents' wishes may be respected but it's ultimately up to the doctors. Said another way, the doctor's don't have to get consent at all.

Which means I can revise my list of things never to ask from the Dutch:

1) Peacekeeping (See Srebrenica)

2) Life-saving medical treatment (See Groningen Protocol)

where did you get that understanding from?

[shuize]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
where did you get that understanding from?

This article Is it not a good source?

From the Article:

Quote:

The Groningen Protocol is the proposal of doctors in the Netherlands for the establishment of an "independent committee" charged with selecting babies and other severely handicapped or disabled people for euthanasia. The original article provides some of the key details:

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.

"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no
hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

[kimiko]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jocko
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.

Well, I don't really see where in my post you think I was projecting my personal morality; I was just trying to point out another side. But this is happening in the Netherlands and I thought you were an American. It doesn't really affect you or your loved ones.

Just a side rant to no one in particular. This is the second thread about Dutch end of life decisions. I just want to mention that the highest expenditure in Dutch national healthcare is for the mentally retarded. When I compare that to Texas, which ranks near the bottom in the US and still has tens of thousands of retarded people on waiting lists for services, it breaks my heart. Anyone want to hate the world, just look up the rates of female sexual abuse of the retarded in group homes in the state of Texas- it's over 80%. I had occasion to learn of this when a family friend's daughter, who can't even speak, was diagnosed with chlamydia within months of going to a group home. But hell, that's what you get in a low-tax, low-service state. Compare that to the euthanizing of 10-15 hopeless patients yearly in the Netherlands and who really gives a sh*t about the most vulnerable members of their society? If I had to guess which nation's health system would be more open to abuse of the severely disabled, I would pick the American. If I got to pick which health system I would want myself and my family in, I would pick the Dutch.

[shuize]

Quote:

Originally posted by kimiko

... I just want to mention that the highest expenditure in Dutch national healthcare is for the mentally retarded...

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?

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by rdtjr
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?

If you're brain dead, then whatever they do to you is not euthanasia. You can only do euthanasia to someone who's alive, and brain dead people are, well, dead.

Quote:

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.

These are all issues about how much treatment you want - how much you want doctors to work to keep you alive. There's an important difference between doctors allowing you to die at your own request and doctors hastening the process.

Quote:

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.

And I don't think anyone is proposing that. What they are proposing (in the Nertherlands) is that the doctors and family be allowed to say, "This is a lost cause, so let's finish it up."

If a child is going to die in a short time with or without a doctor's help, why should it be with the doctor's help? Why should not the doctor instead do whatever can be done to make the child as comfortable as possible for the short time it has on earth?

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
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.

And there's nothing unreasonable about a living will - we have them here in the U.S., too. But a living will simply specifies how far you want the docs to go in treating you - not under what conditions they can give you a lethal injection. Don't confuse the issue.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
If someone can tell a real zinger about me at my own funeral, I'll be well pleased.

I bet you won't, unless you're actually 1inChrist's sock puppet...

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by AWPrime
-At least one independed must have been consulted and he/she must have given the patient the opinion in writting.

"Go see Doctor van den Hoff - he'll certify anyone as being hopeless..."

Quote:

-It must have been shown that the patient has no chance of recovery and is serverly suffering.

Shown by whom? Shown to whom? And what is the standard of proof?

Quote:

-All cases must be reported to a commission and judged by them.

Before or after the deed is done? Who appoints this commission? How do you get on it? How do you make sure the commission doesn't get stacked with Doctor van den Hoff and his buddies?

[BPSCG]

Apropos of nothing: U.S. Social Security payments are made the month after the month of entitlement, e.g., the payment for February would be made in March.

When I was a claims representative at the Social Security Administration, it was commonly observed that people tended to die more often on the first day of a month than on the last day.

There is no Social Security payment made for the month of death, i.e., if you die a few seconds before midnight on February 28, the Social Security check that would come on March 3 would have to be returned.

Of course, nobody ever asked the survivors, "Did you tell the doctors to keep your dad on life support for an extra day so you could get that last Social Security check, you disgusting piece of filth?"

[AWPrime]

Quote:

Originally posted by shuize
My understanding of Groningen Protocol is that parents' wishes may be respected but it's ultimately up to the doctors. Said another way, the doctor's don't have to get consent at all.

Wrong

http://www.azg.nl/azg/nl/nieuws/persberichten/43604

The parents must give consent.

[Circon]

Link to longer discussion of same article
Slightly interesting.

See especially:

Quote:

However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.

"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."

So the "slippery slope" cry is actually a reason to be open and pass laws on this subject. This happens, start dicussing it.

Babies in hellish pain. No chance of surviving longer than, say, two weeks. Horrid, incurable rotting disease. Every moment is also a suffering for the parents, who must watch their child inevitably slip closer towards a death where it will not even be recognizable as a human being.
Do you really want to force them to suffer this?

I'm not saying there is no slippery slope. I'm saying there is a very valid case for this law, and a blanket ban is inappropriate.

I support this, but it will need clarification, which will unfortunately only come after somebody abuses it...


Does suicide belong in here, or is that too tangenital? I have some things to say, but I'd rather not derail the thread too much.


-Circon,
who just remembered that he registered here at some time in the past.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Circon
However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.

"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C.

Stopping treatment that would only prolong the dying process is not euthanasia.

Quote:

Does suicide belong in here, or is that too tangenital? I have some things to say, but I'd rather not derail the thread too much.

Start a new one - you're allowed.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Start a new one - you're allowed.

But be sure to put "Palestine", "Israel", or "Guns" in the thread title to ensure participation. Although you do run the risk of seeing your thread become a debate over the probability of finding a hypothetical Starbucks. I'm not kidding. If a thread on kidnapped exotic dancers can turn into that, anything can.

[richardm]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Stopping treatment that would only prolong the dying process is not euthanasia.

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.

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?

[Tony]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
Yikes. I was thinking 3 or 4 weeks should be the cutoff.

Keep reading, I explained what I meant in a later post.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by richardm
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.

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

Quote:

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 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.

[AtheistArchon]

Quote:

I bet you won't, unless you're actually 1inChrist's sock puppet...

- HEY! I'm not dead yet, okay? See, you wasted that one.

[Jocko]

Quote:

Originally posted by kimiko
Well, I don't really see where in my post you think I was projecting my personal morality; I was just trying to point out another side. But this is happening in the Netherlands and I thought you were an American. It doesn't really affect you or your loved ones.

True, but precedents are precedents. When I mentioned projected morality, it was not intended as an insult, but saying "a baby shouldn't suffer like that" is a value-based comment based on your own experiences and tolerance for suffering. It's still a personal standard, arbitrary by nature (as is mine, I concede). On charged issues like this, truly emotionless arguments are probably impossible.