NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1940510,00.html

Doctors in the UK are calling for an open, wide debate on the subject of the ethics of euthanasia for severely ill newborn babies.

The debate appears to focus on the quality of life for any child born with severe disabilities/abnormalities. Doctors say that we should '"think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are means of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns"'.

In my opinion, if a child is born severely disabled or with a significant abnormality it would make sense to at the very least consider euthanasia as a sensible option. The burden the child would place on the parents is an extremely high one, not to mention the resources the government (through the NHS) would have to spend to keep alive a child who is never going to give anything back to the state, and would likely have a very poor quality of life.

Further - the article raises the issue that a woman can have an abortion at 28 weeks if she finds that the fetus has a serious abnormality, but if the baby had been born at 24 weeks with the same abnormality, euthanasia would not be an option. This is extraordinarily inconsistent as an approach to this matter. If abortion is allowed at 28 weeks euthanasia should definitely be allowed if the child is born before that point.

I'm in favor of letting parents decide to euthanise infants with severe defects. Parents can usually be trusted to weigh the suffering that's involved in living with those defects with the value of their infant's life.

I'm in favor of letting parents decide to euthanise infants with severe defects. Parents can usually be trusted to weigh the suffering that's involved in living with those defects with the value of their infant's life.

I agree. Nobody could make that kind of choice but the parents.

I think the question of the matter should rely soley on what the child's quality of life would be and the parents' ability to care for their ill child. I do not think it should focus on the "resources the government would have to spend...who is never going to give anything back to the state...", in the words of Akiranium. With that statement, you're basically calling for the execution of all mentally and physically retarded babies at birth. An inevitable consequence of the line of thinking that surrounds abortion, but not a path I believe we should start down without clearly thinking about the ramifications of doing so.

I personally think it's quite simple: If they are in a state where they can't even move, kinda like a plant or vegetable, even if they can think (in fact especially if they can think), it's kinder to kill them. If they are not in such a state, let them decide in later life.

I'm in favor of letting parents decide to euthanise infants with severe defects. Parents can usually be trusted to weigh the suffering that's involved in living with those defects with the value of their infant's life.
I don't know if they could - and the doctor is likely to be in a better place to judge the effect the child's disability would have on the family, because he or she will have experience of seeing other families with disabled children. More power should be given to the doctors in these situations, as they are more able to detach themselves and look at the situation objectively.

I don't know if they could - and the doctor is likely to be in a better place to judge the effect the child's disability would have on the family, because he or she will have experience of seeing other families with disabled children. More power should be given to the doctors in these situations, as they are more able to detach themselves and look at the situation objectively.

That's just my point. The situation should not be looked at with callous objectivity. This is a human life we're discussing, not a piece of machinery whose only purpose is to "give back to the state." The doctor should make his or her recommendation to the parents based on the quality of life the child will have based on his or her defect(s) and the parents' ability to support him or her, and the parents should make the final decision (as it is their child and their responsibility) based on these facts and these facts alone.

So, we're not talking about the ones that are gonna live for like, a few minutes right?

I don't know if they could - and the doctor is likely to be in a better place to judge the effect the child's disability would have on the family, because he or she will have experience of seeing other families with disabled children. More power should be given to the doctors in these situations, as they are more able to detach themselves and look at the situation objectively.

The doctor should obviously tell the parents the effect the child's disability is likely to have on them. They do that already.

I think the question of the matter should rely soley on what the child's quality of life would be and the parents' ability to care for their ill child. I do not think it should focus on the "resources the government would have to spend...who is never going to give anything back to the state...", in the words of Akiranium. With that statement, you're basically calling for the execution of all mentally and physically retarded babies at birth. An inevitable consequence of the line of thinking that surrounds abortion, but not a path I believe we should start down without clearly thinking about the ramifications of doing so.
I believe I'm perfectly justified in looking at it from a resources/return point of view. Besides, I did not call for the 'execution of all mentally and physically retarded babies at birth'. It would depend on the level of disability. If the child will have to be cared for every second of every day of its life, then it has no life to speak of. Also, you seem to have missed that that wasn't the only point I made - one has to consider the burden the child places on the parents, and the quality of life of the child.

That's just my point. The situation should not be looked at with callous objectivity. This is a human life we're discussing, not a piece of machinery whose only purpose is to "give back to the state." The doctor should make his or her recommendation to the parents based on the quality of life the child will have based on his or her defect(s) and the parents' ability to support him or her, and the parents should make the final decision (as it is their child and their responsibility) based on these facts and these facts alone.
It's not callous objectivity. It's simply practical. I see no difference between this issue and that of euthanasia for severely ill adults who are in no position to give their own opinion (for example, those in a coma). In a situation such as that the removal of treatment or non-resuscitation is a decision that can be taken by a doctor. If there is the technology to keep a patient alive in that situation, and the decision is taken not to use it, how is that different to killing a child who will have such a low quality of life?

I believe I'm perfectly justified in looking at it from a resources/return point of view. Besides, I did not call for the 'execution of all mentally and physically retarded babies at birth'. It would depend on the level of disability. If the child will have to be cared for every second of every day of its life, then it has no life to speak of. Also, you seem to have missed that that wasn't the only point I made - one has to consider the burden the child places on the parents, and the quality of life of the child.

I think the question of the matter should rely soley on what the child's quality of life would be and the parents' ability to care for their ill child.
First sentence of the post of mine that you quoted. Clearly I did not miss either of those points. I was simply objecting to the one point that you raised about monetary compensation to the government and so forth. I think that raising such an issue is disrespectful of the fact that a baby is a human life, and stating my opinion that this fact alone should be looked to when making a decision about his or her future.

I'm not in favour of euthanising disabled children, but I am in favour of mandatory sterilisation of all disabled adults. Our genome must be protected.

Touchy subject...

Now, I agree that it shouldn't be banned or anything, because, well, years of mental torture in a society as unkind as ours would be cruel, simply put.

However, I must raise the point that "severely disabled" people don't "never give back to society". Look at Stephen Hawking. He's not as disabled as it gets, but had his parents euthanized him, none of his reasearch would have been performed.

I guess it does rest with the parents, ultimately.

It's not callous objectivity. It's simply practical. I see no difference between this issue and that of euthanasia for severely ill adults who are in no position to give their own opinion (for example, those in a coma). In a situation such as that the removal of treatment or non-resuscitation is a decision that can be taken by a doctor. If there is the technology to keep a patient alive in that situation, and the decision is taken not to use it, how is that different to killing a child who will have such a low quality of life?

First of all, at least in the United States, the final decision to pull the plug rests with the person's family or spouse (with some loony exceptions in some states, of course), and rightfully so. That's not a decision that should be made objectively by a doctor who has no interest in the human life at hand.

There is little difference between the adult and child situations. That's not my point. My point is that the final decision should be about the person's quality of life and their ability to be cared for alone, and not his or her ability to "give back to the state" or be a productive citizen.

First sentence of the post of mine that you quoted. Clearly I did not miss either of those points. I was simply objecting to the one point that you raised about monetary compensation to the government and so forth. I think that raising such an issue is disrespectful of the fact that a baby is a human life, and that that fact alone should be looked to when making a decision about his or her future.
I apologize. However, you did say that you did not think it should "...focus on the "resources the government would have to spend"". I did not say it should focus on that, I said that was something that should be taken into consideration. And you may object all you like, but it's a fact that governments do make decisions based on the resources they would use and the return they get back from them, even if a human life (or lives) are at stake.

A baby is a human life, but a human life is only equal to that of any other animal. Disabled animals are frequently killed at birth without any regard to the mother, simply because they will be a waste of resources to keep alive.

I don't know if they could - and the doctor is likely to be in a better place to judge the effect the child's disability would have on the family, because he or she will have experience of seeing other families with disabled children. More power should be given to the doctors in these situations, as they are more able to detach themselves and look at the situation objectively.
I don't want to live in a world where a doctor gets to tell me that I should kill my kid.

I'm not in favour of euthanising disabled children, but I am in favour of mandatory sterilisation of all disabled adults. Our genome must be protected.

define disabled....


as far as the topic, I agree with DCD, it should be up to the parents.

Touchy subject...

Now, I agree that it shouldn't be banned or anything, because, well, years of mental torture in a society as unkind as ours would be cruel, simply put.

However, I must raise the point that "severely disabled" people don't "never give back to society". Look at Stephen Hawking. He's not as disabled as it gets, but had his parents euthanized him, none of his reasearch would have been performed.

I guess it does rest with the parents, ultimately.
Although I see your point, Hawking was only diagnosed with motor neuron disease at the age of 21, and is therefore a bad example.

A baby is a human life, but a human life is only equal to that of any other animal. Disabled animals are frequently killed at birth without any regard to the mother, simply because they will be a waste of resources to keep alive.

I really hope that you're being facetious somehow, because that is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. A human life is worth far more than an animal's life, and I don't think I should even have to explain myself in this regard.

A baby is a human life, but a human life is only equal to that of any other animal. Disabled animals are frequently killed at birth without any regard to the mother, simply because they will be a waste of resources to keep alive.
you think that human life is the same worth as an animal? :confused:

I'm not in favour of euthanising disabled children, but I am in favour of mandatory sterilisation of all disabled adults. Our genome must be protected.
I would also be in favour of that, in principle. I'd also say that prospective parents should have to meet all the requirements needed for adopting a child before they are allowed to have their own children.

I would also be in favour of that, in principle. I'd also say that prospective parents should have to meet all the requirements needed for adopting a child before they are allowed to have their own children.

Forced sterilization? Why not just start the eugenics revolution right now?

And as for your latter proposition: would you advocate arresting couples who accidentally conceived a child without "meeting the requirements" mandated by the government to be allowed to do so?

define disabled.....

Genetically disabled; i.e., suffering from a genetic disease that has a high chance of being passed onto the next generation if the person was to reproduce. I am not denying the person their humanity (because I wouldn't advocate killing them), but I would deny them their right to procreate and weaken the human gene pool.

Genetic disease: any disease inherited which causes undue physical suffering.

I really hope that you're being facetious somehow, because that is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. A human life is worth far more than an animal's life, and I don't think I should even have to explain myself in this regard.
I see no reason to put humans on a pedestal above other animals. We are very closely related to animals. Just because we have created so much and advanced our species so much, we are still, at our basest, animals.

Sure, no other species has done so much as we have, but then again, nor has any other species so dramatically harmed the planet. All other animals live in some sort of harmony with their environment - we don't. We use and abuse all available resources with scant regard to the wellbeing of our own kind, any other kind, or the environment. We wage war on our fellow man. We are guilty of so many perversions of life that I sometimes find it hard to justify ranking humans even as highly as other animals.

Forced sterilization? Why not just start the eugenics revolution right now?

And as for your latter proposition: would you advocate arresting couples who accidentally conceived a child without "meeting the requirements" mandated by the government to be allowed to do so?

Yes. We need a forced eugenics program. You're prejudiced against it because of its Nazi connections - even though the USA had a program before they did.

I think it's pretty awful. I mean, didn't Britian and the allied forces defeat the Nazis just so we wouldn't have eugenics? I mean, I will concede that the motivation seems different but that the means and result are the same.
Killing the weak to strengthen society and not be a drain on their families.

I thought that mercy and humanity would put us above such things.
I saw a documentary about a man who was born with a horrible condition, where his skin was extremely delicate and constantly falling off. Because of this his skin was constantly creating scar tissue and trying to heal so it eventually grew over his hands to he had no use of them.
He died fairly young (mid 30's) because of a medical complication that was aggravated by his condition, but he was a unique individual who valued his life. I'm sure he suffered a lot but he had the strength to live. I think if his parents had been allowed to kill him instead of care for him they might have decided it would be easier for everyone if he was not allowed to live.

I just think parents killing the child is abominable. Imagine what you are doing in your own life. Going to university, taking care of your family, working at your career, enjoying your hobbies. Imagine if you had never been a part of the world.

Imagine if it goes full on to what it fully is, which is eugenics.
"Well, we've done some tests and you're child has a genetic predisposition to poor vision and male pattern baldness. He's also not going to be terribly tall, maybe 5 foot six inches with good nutrition. Now this is a decision only the parents have the right to make."
"Oh yes, I couldn't imagine my son having to go through the hardship of baldness and being short. Think of the ridicule! No no, I must be strong and merciful and think of the good of the child. We'll just have to euthanise this one and hope the next one is better."
That is the path that this will lead to. Seriously, why have we fought against eugenics so much just for it to have a revival?

And as for your latter proposition: would you advocate arresting couples who accidentally conceived a child without "meeting the requirements" mandated by the government to be allowed to do so?
Yes, I have this brilliantly thought through plan to put into place my ideas. :rolleyes: It is nothing more than that - an idea.

The question whe should be asknig is:

Does the baby have the same rights as adults? Or even 10 month old babies?

I think it's pretty awful. I mean, didn't Britian and the allied forces defeat the Nazis just so we wouldn't have eugenics? I mean, I will concede that the motivation seems different but that the means and result are the same.
Killing the weak to strengthen society and not be a drain on their families.

And here's me thinking it was because we didn't want to be taken over by and subject to another country's government...

In my opinion, if a child is born severely disabled or with a significant abnormality it would make sense to at the very least consider euthanasia as a sensible option. The burden the child would place on the parents is an extremely high one, not to mention the resources the government (through the NHS) would have to spend to keep alive a child who is never going to give anything back to the state, and would likely have a very poor quality of life.


Right so the reason that we outlaw murder is because people provide benefit to the state in the form of tax. That is an absurd principle. The idea that there is a quality of life below which it is not worth living turns us into Gods. Who are we to decide who lives & who dies?

Yes, I have this brilliantly thought through plan to put into place my ideas. :rolleyes: It is nothing more than that - an idea.

It'd be nice if you thought your idea through a little bit before putting it out in public, where it is meant to be debated.

Hiemria, you've done a good job of illustrating why eugenics is a dangerous and inhumane practice, without even detailing the implications of racial and religious genocide. Favoring eugenics is just about as great an idea as favoring killing all people with brown hair...oh wait, that is eugenics.

It'd be nice if you thought your idea through a little bit before putting it out in public, where it is meant to be debated.
I wasn't the one who raised the issue in the first place. I just agreed with another poster.

Right so the reason that we outlaw murder is because people provide benefit to the state in the form of tax. That is an absurd principle. The idea that there is a quality of life below which it is not worth living turns us into Gods. Who are we to decide who lives & who dies?
That was not the main point of my argument, yet you're the second person to infer that it was. Why? Because it's the most controversial part? Because that way it's easier to attack the argument? That's pathetic.

It does not turn us into gods. If anything, I think it shows a more compassionate side to humanity. I would not want to force anyone to go through a lifetime of suffering just so I could think that I'd done the right thing by keeping them alive.

That was not the main point of my argument, yet you're the second person to infer that it was. Why? Because it's the most controversial part? Because that way it's easier to attack the argument? That's pathetic.

It does not turn us into gods. If anything, I think it shows a more compassionate side to humanity. I would not want to force anyone to go through a lifetime of suffering just so I could think that I'd done the right thing by keeping them alive.

No one said that was the "main point" of your argument, but it was a highly flawed point and one worthy of debate and dismantling, while the others were not.

Compassion? Maybe the other two arguments about the child's quality of life and the parents' ability to support the child (which tie together, really) are about compassion, but when you start discussing the person's ability to compensate the state for keeping them alive, you do a complete 180 and are as far from compassion as possible.

That was not the main point of my argument, yet you're the second person to infer that it was. Why? Because it's the most controversial part? Because that way it's easier to attack the argument? That's pathetic.

At no point did I suggest that it was the main thrust of your argument, however it is a part that I have objected to and thus I have objected to it. That does not make me pathetic. It makes me critical. Choose your words with care


It does not turn us into gods. If anything, I think it shows a more compassionate side to humanity.

Since when does behaving like Gods and behaving compassionately become mutually exclusive


I would not want to force anyone to go through a lifetime of suffering just so I could think that I'd done the right thing by keeping them alive.

Wouldnt it be better to keep them alive and do your best to make their life less suffering. And before you say "What if we cant solve the problem of their suffering" that again puts you in the position of God, IE you can prophesy the future and know that we will never be able to solve this probelm. We are not Gods. It is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies, and it is not up to us to decide if a problem will be solved in someones lifetime.

That was not the main point of my argument, yet you're the second person to infer that it was. Why? Because it's the most controversial part? Because that way it's easier to attack the argument? That's pathetic.

It does not turn us into gods. If anything, I think it shows a more compassionate side to humanity. I would not want to force anyone to go through a lifetime of suffering just so I could think that I'd done the right thing by keeping them alive.

I think the question is, how can we presume to make a choice for that person?

And where do you draw the line? Okay, a proclivity towards asthma isn't enough but one towards diabetes is? How can we know that the person will not live a happy life despite the hardships? We all have our hardships in life, they are a part of life.

We should do our best to ameliorate suffering, not to eliminate those who are suffering.

It is not up to us to decide who lives and who dies, and it is not up to us to decide if a problem will be solved in someones lifetime.

I hadn't even thought of that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1940510,00.html

Doctors in the UK are calling for an open, wide debate on the subject of the ethics of euthanasia for severely ill newborn babies.

The debate appears to focus on the quality of life for any child born with severe disabilities/abnormalities. Doctors say that we should '"think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are means of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns"'.

In my opinion, if a child is born severely disabled or with a significant abnormality it would make sense to at the very least consider euthanasia as a sensible option. The burden the child would place on the parents is an extremely high one, not to mention the resources the government (through the NHS) would have to spend to keep alive a child who is never going to give anything back to the state, and would likely have a very poor quality of life.

Further - the article raises the issue that a woman can have an abortion at 28 weeks if she finds that the fetus has a serious abnormality, but if the baby had been born at 24 weeks with the same abnormality, euthanasia would not be an option. This is extraordinarily inconsistent as an approach to this matter. If abortion is allowed at 28 weeks euthanasia should definitely be allowed if the child is born before that point.

i'm strongly against this. i have friends that would hospitalised you for even suggesting this.
disabled people are usefull.

That's just my point. The situation should not be looked at with callous objectivity. This is a human life we're discussing, not a piece of machinery whose only purpose is to "give back to the state."

And it equally as importantly should not be looked upon by ignorant and thick-headed subjectivity.

i'm strongly against this. i have friends that would hospitalised you for even suggesting this.
disabled people are usefull.

Yes they are. For example quadriplegics make excellent paperweights and doorstops. [/Tasteless, tactless comment]

I'm in favor of letting parents decide to euthanise infants with severe defects. Parents can usually be trusted to weigh the suffering that's involved in living with those defects with the value of their infant's life.

no thats silly. parents often make the wrong mistakes. some parents molest thier children. soem people force thier religion on thier kids. some parents raise thier children with silly political beliefs; like racism, communism, fianna fail;)

I personally don't see anything wrong with that, as long as the choice belongs with the parents.

Yes they are. For example quadriplegics make excellent paperweights and doorstops. [/Tasteless, tactless comment]

i have a radical solution to the disabled problem, but shouldnt air it. hard to explain. some even say unethical.

No one said that was the "main point" of your argument, but it was a highly flawed point and one worthy of debate and dismantling, while the others were not.

Compassion? Maybe the other two arguments about the child's quality of life and the parents' ability to support the child (which tie together, really) are about compassion, but when you start discussing the person's ability to compensate the state for keeping them alive, you do a complete 180 and are as far from compassion as possible.
Flawed, maybe. Highly flawed, certainly not. It is perfectly valid to assess an issue or situation on a resource/return basis, whether it is a child's life or the building of a supermarket.

It is not 'as far from compassion as possible'. If that were the sole reasoning behind a decision to allow euthanasia in these circumstances, then yes, I would agree. But that's not what I was advocating.

i'm strongly against this. i have friends that would hospitalised you for even suggesting this.
disabled people are usefull.
Some, even most, are. But not all.

Some, even most, are. But not all.

no. all are. not allowed explain fully.

Flawed, maybe. Highly flawed, certainly not. It is perfectly valid to assess an issue or situation on a resource/return basis, whether it is a child's life or the building of a supermarket.


Disgusting. You are suggesting that a human life is comparable to a supermarket, in that it shouldnt be allowed to live it it makes a loss. Whether its the main part of your argument or not it is repulsive. The very notion implies that part of humans purpose in existing is to give money to the government. You constantly make the suggestion that we are Gods, and this is yet another example.

We are not Gods - We do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies
We are not Gods - We do not have the ability to see into the future
We are not Gods - Other humans do not exist purely or even partially to benefit us with their offerings to us

Disgusting. You are suggesting that a human life is comparable to a supermarket, in that it shouldnt be allowed to live it it makes a loss. Whether its the main part of your argument or not it is repulsive. The very notion implies that part of humans purpose in existing is to give money to the government. You constantly make the suggestion that we are Gods, and this is yet another example.

We are not Gods - We do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies
We are not Gods - We do not have the ability to see into the future
We are not Gods - Other humans do not exist purely to benefit us with their offerings to us

clap clap.

Some, even most, are. But not all.

Whether or not someone is of use is of no relevence to their right to life. It may affect their quality of life and the quality of others lives, but that does not give anyone the right to kill them. To suggest so is to suggest that if you inconvience me to a certian extent (without actually harming me), I have the right to kill you.

Depends on what you consider 'disabled'. There are some people who are considered disabled yet can do almost anything that 'normal' people can. For example Deaf people are considered disabled yet with technology to replace their disadvantage thay can be as good and as useful as hearing - for example flashing doorbells and firealarms, emails, text messaging, deaf alerters etc etc. Same with blind people, both groups of people are considered disabled yet can work and pay taxes the same as us - paying for their technological aids with their own pocket due to lack of funding.

Also people in wheelchairs can, with the advent of wheelchair ramps etc can work and pay taxes like the rest of us. So do you advocate euthanising them?

This is without considering the human aspect, that they bring as much joy and happiness and love to the lives of their friends and family as 'normal' children do and can make just as good parents and work just as hard.

For the vast majority of people disability is a social problem not a physical one

To sum up no i dont beleive in euthanising disabled people or sterilising them, euthanising older people dying in pain is ok

Well, here's a question: How can we determine from birth beyond a doubt that a given condition deserves euthanasia? I mean, not only is there the very real possibility that a good number of genetic conditions will have cures in the near future, but there's also the possibility that they could lead a fulfilling and meaning life even with their disability. This is a life and death question, and so what happens if you are wrong?

What if you've taken away someone's right to life when the problem you killed them for was curable or less severe than anticipated?

Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Medicine should be devoted to promoting and enhancing life, not destroying it.

Killing someone without their consent is not right. And yes, this is a human being we are going to kill; as far as I know, killing someone without their consent is no different than murder. Human beings are not Gods, we are mortal and we do not have the power to decide who lives and who dies, especially according to the "cost to society"...that kind of greed and selfishness is disgusting.

Well, here's a question: How can we determine from birth beyond a doubt that a given condition deserves euthanasia? I mean, not only is there the very real possibility that a good number of genetic conditions will have cures in the near future, but there's also the possibility that they could lead a fulfilling and meaning life even with their disability. This is a life and death question, and so what happens if you are wrong?
What if you've taken away someone's right to life when the problem you killed them for was curable or less severe than anticipated?

Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Medicine should be devoted to promoting and enhancing life, not destroying it.

Killing someone without their consent is not right. And yes, this is a human being we are going to kill; as far as I know, killing someone without their consent is no different than murder. Human beings are not Gods, we are mortal and we do not have the power to decide who lives and who dies, especially according to the "cost to society"...that kind of greed and selfishness is disgusting.

here here.
why is it the liberals that are always in favour of murdering the defensless children?

here here.
why is it the liberals that are always in favour of murdering the defensless children?

Well, I'm pretty liberal myself.:p

It's the people who try to reduce human life to some commodity, or a raw material for social engineering that terrify me. There have been few greater evils than the idea that human beings are a resource to be shaped and molded according to some definition of what is desirable, and when they do not fit that definition they are abandoned and destroyed.

Human life has value, and no human being in existence can determine that worth for us. (it's also why I oppose the death penalty)

Well, I'm pretty liberal myself.:p

It's the people who try to reduce human life to some commodity, or a raw material for social engineering that terrify me. There have been few greater evils than the idea that human beings are a resource to be shaped and molded according to some definition of what is desirable, and when they do not fit that definition they are abandoned and destroyed.

Human life has value, and no human being in existence can determine that worth for us. (it's also why I oppose the death penalty)

Life has no intrinsic value.

If a baby needs special equipment directly after birth, it should die. This can be flexible to allow modern techniques used today in hopsitals, but would prevent babies that really shouldn't be kept alive alive.

Life has no intrinsic value.

That is revolting. So presuambly you will have no objection if I just send a gamma radiation spike down the phone line and kill you and everyone within a mile radius of your computer. I'm sorry but life is precious, for obvious reasons

- It cannot be replaced
- Every one is unique
- Each person (as far as can be objectively demonstrated) only gets one

I'd like to go into a screaming rant right now, but I'm at a loss for words. :mad:

That is revolting. So presuambly you will have no objection if I just send a gamma radiation spike down the phone line and kill you and everyone within a mile radius of your computer. I'm sorry but life is precious, for obvious reasons

- It cannot be replaced
- Every one is unique
- Each person (as far as can be objectively demonstrated) only gets one

Of course I'd object - I want to live. I'm not saying that we can'y apply value to life, I'm saying it has no intrinsic value. Simply being alive doesn't give you value. You must earn it.

I think it's pretty awful. I mean, didn't Britian and the allied forces defeat the Nazis just so we wouldn't have eugenics?

Actually no we didn't go to war because of Eugenics.



I just think parents killing the child is abominable. Imagine what you are doing in your own life. Going to university, taking care of your family, working at your career, enjoying your hobbies. Imagine if you had never been a part of the world.


Kind of like trying to force your "moral" code on everybody else.

It's the families choice; not yours.

Well, here's a question: How can we determine from birth beyond a doubt that a given condition deserves euthanasia?

I can think of a few definites. Trisomy of any autosomal chromosome other than 21 (which, when found in triplicate, causes Down's Syndrome) causes disorders in which infants are in a great deal of pain, and have pretty much a 0% chance of surviving beyond a year. They are not going to live full lives. The little life they have will be nothing but pain.

Anencephaly is another. There is no forebrain in this disorder. The infant will never have conciousness, and cannot possibly live a "full life", as it will never even be aware of itself.

And then there are the infants that aren't going to survive. Those who have physical defects that make it near impossible for them to breathe, but are kept on machines for what little life they have, dying over and over again and being resuscitated, over and over again. Once again, what little life is available is nothing but pain and a lack of human contact. In these cases, the only humane thing we can do is choose not to resuscitate.

Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Medicine should be devoted to promoting and enhancing life, not destroying it.

The bolded is the problem. By keeping some patients alive, we aren't enhancing their lives. We aren't promoting life. We are doing nothing but putting that patient in a living hell, because we have decided that life is inherently better than death - forgetting that death is a part of the life cycle. When we can prevent it to the good of the patient, we absolutely should. But when preventing death does nothing but bring the patient more pain and suffering, we can hardly say we have helped them.

Killing someone without their consent is not right. And yes, this is a human being we are going to kill; as far as I know, killing someone without their consent is no different than murder. Human beings are not Gods, we are mortal and we do not have the power to decide who lives and who dies, especially according to the "cost to society"...that kind of greed and selfishness is disgusting.

Is every woman who takes her husband off of life support murdering him? Is every parent who chooses to give their dying child more morphine, rather than keep them around for a few days longer, murdering her?

Well, here's a question: How can we determine from birth beyond a doubt that a given condition deserves euthanasia? I mean, not only is there the very real possibility that a good number of genetic conditions will have cures in the near future, but there's also the possibility that they could lead a fulfilling and meaning life even with their disability. This is a life and death question, and so what happens if you are wrong?


It's simple. The family makes the choice. Religious people seem to think that people that decide to terminate do so without any thought.

Take one womans case. She had a brother and an uncle that had severe downs that required 24/7 care. Both case broke the families involved.

What was gained by that?

She terminated 2 pregnancies because she didn't want to go through what her parents and grandparents went through.

The argument of possible cures sounds sweet but reality says that is not a good guideline as it takes years for them to reach the public.

It's also a little condescending since just about all people faced with this choice would opt for the cure if they knew it would fix the problem.

What if you've taken away someone's right to life when the problem you killed them for was curable or less severe than anticipated?

Genetic mappings and past experiences tell a great deal. If a family has a history of severe downs, then you have a safe bet the cycle continues.

It's the families choice.


Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Medicine should be devoted to promoting and enhancing life, not destroying it.

And how is life served when it destroys a family financially.

You make medicine cheap then we can talk.

You make medical procedures cheap then we can talk.


Killing someone without their consent is not right. And yes, this is a human being we are going to kill; as far as I know, killing someone without their consent is no different than murder.


Sounds neat but not practicle. How many years would it take before they can make an informed concent.

Now what about the situation where they decide death?

Wait Religion says that's a bad thing and guess what the Religous community will do at the suggestion of medical assisted suicide.


Human beings are not Gods, we are mortal and we do not have the power to decide who lives and who dies, especially according to the "cost to society"...that kind of greed and selfishness is disgusting.

Aren't you decided that all should live? ;)

here here.
why is it the liberals that are always in favour of murdering the defensless children?

Because they taste good barbequed!

Genetically disabled; i.e., suffering from a genetic disease that has a high chance of being passed onto the next generation if the person was to reproduce. I am not denying the person their humanity (because I wouldn't advocate killing them), but I would deny them their right to procreate and weaken the human gene pool.

Genetic disease: any disease inherited which causes undue physical suffering.

I am glad you are not in charge

I am glad you are not in charge

Frankly, so am I. If I were, I fear history would remember me as worse than Hitler.

Of course I'd object - I want to live. I'm not saying that we can'y apply value to life, I'm saying it has no intrinsic value. Simply being alive doesn't give you value. You must earn it.

No, you don't have to earn it. Those things are true regardless of whether you earn it or not

- Life is irreplaceable
- Each life is unique
- Each person only has one life

Take one womans case. She had a brother and an uncle that had severe downs that required 24/7 care. Both case broke the families involved.

What was gained by that?

She terminated 2 pregnancies because she didn't want to go through what her parents and grandparents went through.

It is not up to her or anyone else to decide who should live and who should die. Just because their life inconvience hers, does not mean she has the right to kill them


The argument of possible cures sounds sweet but reality says that is not a good guideline as it takes years for them to reach the public.

Irelevent. We are not Gods and we do not know if a cure will be found. By your logic should we have killed all the children with polio before the vacine was developed?


And how is life served when it destroys a family financially.

You make medicine cheap then we can talk.

You make medical procedures cheap then we can talk.

Three letters. NHS

We ARE gods.

We ARE gods.

No we are not. We are not omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent or any of the the other qualities.

We do NOT have the right to decide whose life is no longer worth living
We do NOT have the ability to see into the future to determine if someones condition will never be made better
We do NOT have the right to consider other humans as mere entities for our own benefit

The bolded is the problem. By keeping some patients alive, we aren't enhancing their lives. We aren't promoting life. We are doing nothing but putting that patient in a living hell, because we have decided that life is inherently better than death - forgetting that death is a part of the life cycle. When we can prevent it to the good of the patient, we absolutely should. But when preventing death does nothing but bring the patient more pain and suffering, we can hardly say we have helped them.

The hippocratic oath - do no harm

Medicine is not ever about killing. Medicine is always about the preservation of life first and its enchancement second. In this case, the presevation of life is the key factor. The enhancement comes from medicine searching for a way to solve their problems.

The hippocratic oath - do no harm

Keeping the suffering alive, just so that we can say we did it, does more harm than good.

Medicine is not ever about killing. Medicine is always about the preservation of life first and its enchancement second. In this case, the presevation of life is the key factor. The enhancement comes from medicine searching for a way to solve their problems.

If this were true, then medicine would be barbaric. In many cases, it would be legalized torture - and it would most definitely be harm.

Nearly every doctor in the position to do so has euthenized a patient. Do you know why? Because doctors are human beings, often very compassionate ones (hence, their choice of profession). Prolonging suffering is not helping anyone - it is only doing harm. And thus, many doctors, legal or not, have chosen to help end that suffering, rather than prolong it. In doing so, they are much closer to keeping to the hippocratic oath than those who would keep patients alive at all costs.

((Meanwhile, the quote is wrong. The Mindset didn't say that, I did - only the "we are gods" part was him.))

Keeping the suffering alive, just so that we can say we did it, does more harm than good

Since killing can never truely be good, and its possibly the worst form of bad I would say your wrong. We are not gods, and we do not have the right to decide whose life is worth living and whose isnt.


If this were true, then medicine would be barbaric. In many cases, it would be legalized torture - and it would most definitely be harm.

More harm than killing them


Nearly every doctor in the position to do so has euthenized a patient. Do you know why? Because doctors are human beings, often very compassionate ones (hence, their choice of profession). Prolonging suffering is not helping anyone - it is only doing harm. And thus, many doctors, legal or not, have chosen to help end that suffering, rather than prolong it. In doing so, they are much closer to keeping to the hippocratic oath than those who would keep patients alive at all costs.

Suffering is harm, but killing is more so.

Since killing can never truely be good,

Says who? That seems like an awfully big assumption to leave unsupported. Care to support it?

More harm than killing them

Yes, more harm than quietly ending their pain. If any continued existence we can give them is nothing but pain, we do more harm by keeping them alive than by letting them die, or even by speeding that process up a bit.

Suffering is harm, but killing is more so.

Not necessarily true. Once again, you are making completely unsupported assumptions. Death, to someone whose life is nothing but suffering, can be a blessing - a gift. They are going to die anyways. Allowing them to do so quietly and relatively painlessly is not a bad thing. Continuing their suffering for no other reason than to do so, on the other hand, is cruel.

Frankly, so am I. If I were, I fear history would remember me as worse than Hitler.

if you were in charge I wouldn't exsist.

It is not up to her or anyone else to decide who should live and who should die. Just because their life inconvience hers, does not mean she has the right to kill them

Ever live the "inconvenience?"

It's simple to sit on the side lines and judge now isn't it?


Irelevent. We are not Gods and we do not know if a cure will be found. By your logic should we have killed all the children with polio before the vacine was developed?


Polio victims can function in society. The downs cases mentioned require 24/7 care.

Hmmm?

You seem to be declaring all shall live so why right have you there?

It's a family choice. Not yours.....


Three letters. NHS

Make it happen then we can chat again.

No we are not. We are not omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent or any of the the other qualities.

We do NOT have the right to decide whose life is no longer worth living


You also do not have the right to force your "moral" code on everybody else.


The hippocratic oath - do no harm

Medicine is not ever about killing. Medicine is always about the preservation of life first and its enchancement second. In this case, the presevation of life is the key factor. The enhancement comes from medicine searching for a way to solve their problems.

The Hippocratic oath doesn't mean much today.

If it did, you wouldn't be asked about insurance and the ability to pay. There wouldn't be patient dumping.......

if you were in charge I wouldn't exsist.


Probably me too. They thought I was hydrocephalic.

Hmmm I am a CF carrier so guess what that means.

I'm not in favour of euthanising disabled children, but I am in favour of mandatory sterilisation of all disabled adults. Our genome must be protected.

And I'm in favor of mandatory sterilization of idiots. Our genome must be protected.

Probably me too. They thought I was hydrocephalic.

Hmmm I am a CF carrier so guess what that means.

my mom is a CF carrier and my dad had MS.

I wouldn't even want to know if they consider the auto-immune disorder I have (and passed to my kids) or the one my husband has (and luckily didn't pass to the kids) is worthy of denying our right to reproduce.

OK, here's the rant I promised:

To all of you advocating this I would ask; do any of you really know what you're talking about, or are you just blowing smoke out of your asses? Are any of you disabled? Do any of you have disabled children? If not, then you have no clue what kind of a burden it is. Who are any of you to decide that I should have been euthanized or that I should now be sterilized so that I "can't pollute the gene pool"? No quality of life, eh? We'll never be contributing members of society? Just drains on the taxpayer? Who the hell do you think you are? How dare you attempt to assign meaning or value to my life? And how dare you say that any disabled person should die just so you can save a buck? For your information, I'm about a year from finishing my BA, then I will have a job, and I won't be such a terrible burden to you. So here's one disabled person who will be a contributing member of society. I will thank you all to refrain from such sweeping generalizations in the future. Have I had a rough life? Rougher than most of you can imaine, I assure you. Object of pity as a child, invisible as an adult. Tormented at school, abused at home by parents who couldn't accept "that abomination" (their words). Would I trade my life with yours? No. I wouldn't wish it on any of you. Not one of you, I venture to guess, would do too well with a disability. Most of you wouldn't last a month. You're not nearly strong enough. But you know what? I'm still here.

OK, here's the rant I promised:


You didn't define your disability.

There is the question of a severe dibilitating disease and terminal diseases.

Take my parent-in-laws. They had another daughter with a super severe form of CF. This was back when they were only starting to understand it. The kid lived 2 weeks all of it medicated and with machines. My mother in law once said she doubt she even knew whom she was. My father-in-law left the church due to this event and a dick head priest. All these years later, they still haven't gotten over it. I will also add they had to beg the hospital for a payment plan because the costs wiped them out.

So what was accomplished by all this?

I think it's pretty awful. I mean, didn't Britian and the allied forces defeat the Nazis just so we wouldn't have eugenics? I mean, I will concede that the motivation seems different but that the means and result are the same.
Killing the weak to strengthen society and not be a drain on their families.


Heh. Basic high-school level history at it's finest. The allies were pulled into the war by a rather complex series of diplomatic aggreements with each other, and aggressive events by Germany(among many other factors), not by eugenics. We were trying to stop an empire. Really, most of the allies didn't give a rat's ass about the Jews, for example, pre-WWII. Infact, they were pretty well hated and despised throughout much of the west.

And it is quite different than the Nazi's idea, as the Nazi's, under Hitler, were advocating the purity of the "master race"(Aryan), whereas this is for "strengthening" the gene pool. However, after studying much of evolutionary functions and traits, I'm not bought on this particular reasoning, as it removes diversity, which may have a future beneficial effect. For instance, sickle cell anemia is considered in much of the world as a very debilitating disease, however in areas with high rates of maleria, it is actually beneficial to have, as it acts as an "immunity" of sorts to maleria. If we were to completely remove sickle cell anemia from the world, and were to suffer a massive maleria outbreak(quite possible), it would be devastating to humans overall. So, from this reasoning, "weeding out" of undesirable genes is not actually desirable.

Heh. Basic high-school level history at it's finest. The allies were pulled into the war by a rather complex series of diplomatic aggreements with each other, and aggressive events by Germany(among many other factors), not by eugenics. We were trying to stop an empire. Really, most of the allies didn't give a rat's ass about the Jews, for example, pre-WWII. Infact, they were pretty well hated and despised throughout much of the west.

I think that we have had enough people correct Hiemria. If anyone else wants to comment they should start another thread about it. ;)


Actually, the US is home to the second largest eugenics program in history. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations by citing the United States as their inspiration.

OK, here's the rant I promised:

To all of you advocating this I would ask; do any of you really know what you're talking about, or are you just blowing smoke out of your asses? Are any of you disabled? Do any of you have disabled children? If not, then you have no clue what kind of a burden it is. Who are any of you to decide that I should have been euthanized or that I should now be sterilized so that I "can't pollute the gene pool"? No quality of life, eh? We'll never be contributing members of society? Just drains on the taxpayer? Who the hell do you think you are? How dare you attempt to assign meaning or value to my life? And how dare you say that any disabled person should die just so you can save a buck? For your information, I'm about a year from finishing my BA, then I will have a job, and I won't be such a terrible burden to you. So here's one disabled person who will be a contributing member of society. I will thank you all to refrain from such sweeping generalizations in the future. Have I had a rough life? Rougher than most of you can imaine, I assure you. Object of pity as a child, invisible as an adult. Tormented at school, abused at home by parents who couldn't accept "that abomination" (their words). Would I trade my life with yours? No. I wouldn't wish it on any of you. Not one of you, I venture to guess, would do too well with a disability. Most of you wouldn't last a month. You're not nearly strong enough. But you know what? I'm still here.

what do you work as?
what ba do you have?
and if you dont mind, how are you disabled?
dont mean to pry, but i'm trying to promote the idea that disabled people are usefull.

The Mindset... how can you be in favour of sterilising all disabled adults but not in favour of allowing euthanasia for disabled children? HOW????? IT MAKES NO DAMN SENSE!!!! GAH!!!
*ahem*
Well, anyway... I don't believe anyone is advocating mandatory euthanasia for severely disabled babies. But the reality is a lot of them will have a very substandard quality of life, and perhaps also destroy the lives of family. The parents should be allowed to euthanise disabled children if they so choose.

Kind of like trying to force your "moral" code on everybody else.

It's the families choice; not yours.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA x 100,000,000,000


Yeah, how dare people try to "force their moral code" on someone by not letting them make the choice to live or die, for someone else! :rolleyes:

I'm completely with Dempublicents1 on this thread. Strange, since we're completely opposed on another.

Some people have got overly emotional and missed the point. The OP is not saying kill all slightly "wrong" babies. It is about euthenasing babies who will have nothing but pain and suffering. The children who wont see their 1st birthday, and will be in near constant pain, with no knowledge of anything but pain. No quality of life! None. That's the point. The parents, after a consultation with the Doctor are the best to make this decision.

It's also not saying Disabled people can't contribute financially. They can. But Severly disabled people can be a huge emotional and financial burden on their family. If the family is incredibly well off, they hire nannies, carers, the lot, great. When you can make that happen in every case get back to me.

What happens to poor people, and most middle class people, is one Severely Disabled person has an incredibly poor quality of life. To achieve this non-life he severely drags down the quality of life of all those he would love if he had the ability to discern such things.

My stance on Forced Sterilisation. It's wrong. But if people with Severe Genetic Problems choose to have a child, they should be prepared to take care of that child completely. Once the child is born you can't say "Oh it's severely disabled, put it back." This doesn't contradict my previous stance. These people know in advance there is a very high chance the child will only know pain, and yet knowingly gave birth to a baby.

If they aren't willing to care for a disable child, they must be willing to abort the foetus when they find it is disabled, euthenase the baby, or, at worst, adopt it out. If they did choose to still have the child when they know it is disabled, and then adopt or euthenase, I'm this close to saying "Sterilise the selfish bastards, will they keep trying till they get a good one, and keep dumping them if the child is 'wrong'" but I can't take that fianl step to encroach on their personal freedoms to that degree. I am a big believer in State Intervention, so I can't say "the state can't afford that baby, kill the baby".

Right so the reason that we outlaw murder is because people provide benefit to the state in the form of tax. That is an absurd principle. The idea that there is a quality of life below which it is not worth living turns us into Gods. Who are we to decide who lives & who dies?

That's rather debatable. Every day we decide what lives and what dies. Every day every living thing decides that. Do you drive? You choose whether or not to endanger everyone you pass on the road. You choose whether or not to attempt to kill them with your behavior there. Every time you eat, you have choosen to support the death of whatever it is you are eating, be it cows or plants. This is no different in any other creature. Just by sitting and reading this your life is causing the death of millions of bacteria and virii which otherwise might have been interfeering with your body's ability to live.

The question is not if we choose who lives or dies, we constantly are doing that. The question is if we can witness and accept the conciquences of our decisions and actions, and to what scope we limit them.

This doesn't mean I advocate harming people however, since I see lessening suffering as a great goal, but the ramifications of what we do on a daily basis are as important to keep in perspective as our tendency to attempt to interfeer with eachothers free will.

Of course I'd object - I want to live. I'm not saying that we can'y apply value to life, I'm saying it has no intrinsic value. Simply being alive doesn't give you value. You must earn it.

By that kind of statement, you would imply that because you haven't seen what someone's done to improve the world, they have no value. If one person has the right to make that kind of call then everyone has the right. That means random strangers could declare your life without value. Are you really open to conciquences like that?

That's rather debatable. Every day we decide what lives and what dies. Every day every living thing decides that. Do you drive? You choose whether or not to endanger everyone you pass on the road. You choose whether or not to attempt to kill them with your behavior there. Every time you eat, you have choosen to support the death of whatever it is you are eating, be it cows or plants. This is no different in any other creature. Just by sitting and reading this your life is causing the death of millions of bacteria and virii which otherwise might have been interfeering with your body's ability to live.

I was talking about human lives and you know it. Do not be a pedant

We decide every day to keep people alive. We do not have the right to end other humans lives. All humans are born equal thus to kill someone is to say they are either not a human or they are not equal to you. We are not above other people, we are not Gods. We do not have the right to decide that someone else should die.

So what was accomplished by all this?

She lived

Life itself has intrisic value, to deny that is to assert my right to kill you and yours to kill me. That is a bad road to go down. And medicine shouldnt cost like that. Had it happened in Britain it wouldnt have been like that. Why did you leave the church?

Life itself has intrisic value

I disagree.

to deny that is to assert my right to kill you and yours to kill me. That is a bad road to go down

Untrue. I simply hold the position that I am the one that can ascribe value to my life. Which means I have the right to end it, but also to prevent you from ending it.

I was talking about human lives and you know it. Do not be a pedant

We decide every day to keep people alive. We do not have the right to end other humans lives. All humans are born equal thus to kill someone is to say they are either not a human or they are not equal to you. We are not above other people, we are not Gods. We do not have the right to decide that someone else should die.

That is just repetition. I am not implying we are gods. We however do make decisions on a daily basis that end up determining whether other humans live or die. This isn't saying we have the right to mess with their free will by ending their lives. This isn't saying we know the conciquences of all actions. This is not saying that any human exists merely for the betterment of any others.

But the life and choices of every person does determine the survival of those around them regardless of our blindness to the conciquences of our own actions. That all beings are equal and all beings are connected means we are responsible for actions we do not even always note we are making and they determine who lives and who dies even though only indirectly most of the time.

Before deciding if there is a right to choose who lives and dies, don't we need to understand what such a thing would mean, and how it applies?

By that kind of statement, you would imply that because you haven't seen what someone's done to improve the world, they have no value. If one person has the right to make that kind of call then everyone has the right. That means random strangers could declare your life without value. Are you really open to conciquences like that?

You can also choose to say that the person living his or her life should be allowed to determine its value. The question is if a baby would prefer being in intense pain 24 hours a day, 7 days a week or not existing at all.

That is just repetition. I am not implying we are gods. We however do make decisions on a daily basis that end up determining whether other humans live or die. This isn't saying we have the right to mess with their free will by ending their lives. This isn't saying we know the conciquences of all actions. This is not saying that any human exists merely for the betterment of any others.

But the life and choices of every person does determine the survival of those around them regardless of our blindness to the conciquences of our own actions. That all beings are equal and all beings are connected means we are responsible for actions we do not even always note we are making and they determine who lives and who dies even though only indirectly most of the time.

Before deciding if there is a right to choose who lives and dies, don't we need to understand what such a thing would mean, and how it applies?

We make choices implicity, not explicty. Every day the choices we make should be to keep others alive not to kill them. Yes we make choices like that but those factors are beyond our control.


I disagree.

- All lives are unique
- All lives are irreplaceable
- Every person only gets one life (as far as it is possible for us to objectively demonstrate)

Because of those things life has intrinsic value.

- All lives are unique
- All lives are irreplaceable
- Every person only gets one life (as far as it is possible for us to objectively demonstrate)

Because of those things life has intrinsic value.

Which would you prefer: a life that only contains pain and sufffering or death ?
If you choose the painful life, explain why it would be wrong of a couple to have a baby for the explicit purpose of torturing it. (I can actually do this for you, but I want to see your reasoning).

Which would you prefer: a life that only contains pain and sufffering or death ?
If you choose the painful life, explain why it would be wrong of a couple to have a baby for the explicit purpose of torturing it. (I can actually do this for you, but I want to see your reasoning).

The diffrence between actually torturing someone and keeping them alive when their condition is torturing them is that you yourself are not doing the torturing. People should not harm other people and killing is a form of harm. People should always be doing their best to preserve life and eliminate harm

The diffrence between actually torturing someone and keeping them alive when their condition is torturing them is that you yourself are not doing the torturing. People should not harm other people and killing is a form of harm. People should always be doing their best to preserve life and eliminate harm
So if you don't torture someone personally, is that all right? If I sat back and watched someone else torture another person, would that be morally acceptable? Killing is not always a form of harm, not when it is used to alleviate greater suffering in the future.

The diffrence between actually torturing someone and keeping them alive when their condition is torturing them is that you yourself are not doing the torturing. People should not harm other people and killing is a form of harm. People should always be doing their best to preserve life and eliminate harm

You're tossing it around a lot; define 'harm'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1940510,00.html

Doctors in the UK are calling for an open, wide debate on the subject of the ethics of euthanasia for severely ill newborn babies.

The debate appears to focus on the quality of life for any child born with severe disabilities/abnormalities. Doctors say that we should '"think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best-interests test and active euthanasia as they are means of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns"'.

In my opinion, if a child is born severely disabled or with a significant abnormality it would make sense to at the very least consider euthanasia as a sensible option. The burden the child would place on the parents is an extremely high one, not to mention the resources the government (through the NHS) would have to spend to keep alive a child who is never going to give anything back to the state, and would likely have a very poor quality of life.

Further - the article raises the issue that a woman can have an abortion at 28 weeks if she finds that the fetus has a serious abnormality, but if the baby had been born at 24 weeks with the same abnormality, euthanasia would not be an option. This is extraordinarily inconsistent as an approach to this matter. If abortion is allowed at 28 weeks euthanasia should definitely be allowed if the child is born before that point.
One-if it has a working brain and is out of the mother, it is alive. No one has any right to change that. The baby is not capable of asking to be euthanized. That's my opinion: it's murder. Sorry if it sounds like I'm calling anyone who supports this a murdered, I just feel strongly about this.
Two-In the UK, the medical costs would be covered by the state, so being a burden financlly is an issue.

The diffrence between actually torturing someone and keeping them alive when their condition is torturing them is that you yourself are not doing the torturing. People should not harm other people and killing is a form of harm. People should always be doing their best to preserve life and eliminate harm

That is not my question - let me rephrase it.
"Is the intrinsic value of life so high that the quality of said life is irrelevant ?"
Or, to put it another way:
"Is it always better to be alive and miserable than not being alive ?"

If so, why would it be wrong to create life that is miserable ? It after all lives.

That is not my question - let me rephrase it.
"Is the intrinsic value of life so high that the quality of said life is irrelevant ?"
Or, to put it another way:
"Is it always better to be alive and miserable than not being alive ?"

If so, why would it be wrong to create life that is miserable ? It after all lives.

It is wrong to intetnionally cause misery. The child being disabled means that the misery is not caused directly by anyone. However torturing a child is diffrent, that is directly causing misery

It is wrong to intetnionally cause misery. The child being disabled means that the misery is not caused directly by anyone. However torturing a child is diffrent, that is directly causing misery

But the child does live. What would be better - it not living, or it living like this ?

That is not my question - let me rephrase it.
"Is the intrinsic value of life so high that the quality of said life is irrelevant ?"
Or, to put it another way:
"Is it always better to be alive and miserable than not being alive ?"

If so, why would it be wrong to create life that is miserable ? It after all lives.

I think the point someone made earlier, that we can not KNOW with absolute certainty that certain disabled will live in misery, or that they will be disabled later in life because of medical science advances.

Also, who determines what is 'pain' or 'misery'. I mean, having terrible vision can be pretty miserable. Or how about being really ugly?

And if the parents have the right to choose if their child lives or dies can they also euthanize babies if their skin is a little too dark? If they have down syndrome?

Once it become acceptable in a society to kill a child because of the strain it would cause on the parents and we think (although we can't ask it yet!) it will be unhappy, who knows how far it will go?



Also, someone explain how this is any different than going on a spree-killing in which the seriously disabled are targeted. The killer is simply 'mercy killing'. He didn't ask them, but their lives are probably fairly miserable.

I think the point someone made earlier, that we can not KNOW with absolute certainty that certain disabled will live in misery, or that they will be disabled later in life because of medical science advances.

I agree that this is a good argument - and it is also the reason I in principle place this decision witht he individual in question him/herself. It is their life, they can decide what to do with it - and that includes the right to choose to end it. Unfortunately this is a bit problematic where babies are concerned.

However, I am now focussing on the question if the viewpoint that being alive is always better than not being alive is valid.

Also, someone explain how this is any different than going on a spree-killing in which the seriously disabled are targeted. The killer is simply ‘mercy killing’. He didn’t ask them, but their lives are probably fairly miserable.
In the name of the wee man......

How in any way is a doctor, with permission from the courts and the parents, the same as a psychopath unlawfully killing?

As CBG would say, "biggest straw man, ever".

It is wrong to intetnionally cause misery. The child being disabled means that the misery is not caused directly by anyone. However torturing a child is diffrent, that is directly causing misery
Some would say that keeping it alive to endure a life of misery is torture.

You didn't define your disability.

There is the question of a severe dibilitating disease and terminal diseases.

Take my parent-in-laws. They had another daughter with a super severe form of CF. This was back when they were only starting to understand it. The kid lived 2 weeks all of it medicated and with machines. My mother in law once said she doubt she even knew whom she was. My father-in-law left the church due to this event and a dick head priest. All these years later, they still haven't gotten over it. I will also add they had to beg the hospital for a payment plan because the costs wiped them out.

So what was accomplished by all this?


Spina Bifida, if you must know. I've been in a whelchaeir since birth. And believe me, I understand financial hardships. Did you think I was trying to deny that things like that happen? I sympathize with these people, but my point is that advocating euthanasia or forced sterilization for the disabled to simply remove us from the gene pool so that "normal" people don't have to look at us is not the answer.

what do you work as?
what ba do you have?
and if you dont mind, how are you disabled?
dont mean to pry, but i'm trying to promote the idea that disabled people are usefull.

I don't have the BA yet. I will a year from now. I'm an actor, and plan to work doing theater projects involving the disabled. I have Spina Bifida and I'm in a wheelchair.

Here is a question – which is the better choice?

1) a child born without a developed brain – barely has a brainstem keeping the heart beating. Needs 24x7 care and constant trips to the hospital. Costs about $200k per year to keep alive.

2) using the same money to feed and care for thousands of children in poverty stricken parts of the world who would otherwise die of starvation of easily prevented diseases.


It is a simple matter of resource allocation - the child in the first option is not even aware of its own existence. It has never and will never have any higher brain function. Ever. It has practically no brain – only medical science is keeping this lump of flesh alive.

Where do you draw the line? We can, with comparative ease, take a pound of flesh and keep it alive in a nutrient fluid for years. Eventually medical science will be able to keep more and more degenerated bodies ‘alive’ so where do you draw the line. We could conceivably animate just about any corpse for years after the brain is dead and gone. So where do you draw the line – just what attributes of a corpse makes it worthy of being kept ‘alive’ by machines?

Terri Schiavo is a great example of the unquestioning focus on denying that death is part of life.
Why do some people refuse to admit that everyone is going to die? Is it simply an unreasonable fear of their own death? If so, then why are those most convinced that they are going to ‘a better place’ so terrified of going there?

"Outrageous, says a lot about the age we live in if the decision to resuscitate somebody even becomes an issue."

And this monsterish idea takes things one step even further!


In the name of the wee man......

How in any way is a doctor, with permission from the courts and the parents, the same as a psychopath unlawfully killing?

As CBG would say, "biggest straw man, ever".
*coughfuckingcough* (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/4466855.stm)

Nope! Try again.

How long do you think it's going to take before they would apply the same rules. If not from the start.

TPeople should not harm other people and killing is a form of harm. People should always be doing their best to preserve life and eliminate harm

Let me use your reasoning.

People should not harm other people and cutting is a form of harm. Therefore, surgeons should not be allowed to do their jobs.


One-if it has a working brain and is out of the mother, it is alive. No one has any right to change that. The baby is not capable of asking to be euthanized.

So you would have no problem with infants with anencephaly being euthanized?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly


I think the point someone made earlier, that we can not KNOW with absolute certainty that certain disabled will live in misery, or that they will be disabled later in life because of medical science advances.

Like I said earlier, we can be pretty damn sure in some cases. Medical science is unlikely, in the next month or so, to determine how to grow an entire brain, so I think we can determine the fate of infants with anencephaly pretty easily. Medical science is unlikely, in the next few months to a year, to figure out how to remove an extra chromosome from every cell in the body, or even most of them, so trisomy (other than trisomy 21) is pretty clear. I don't think medical science is going to learn, in the course of a few months, how to expand a chest cavity so that all of the stunted organs can grow and an infant can actually breathe, so the do-not-resuscitate form of euthenasia, in many cases, is probably the best course.


Spina Bifida, if you must know. I've been in a whelchaeir since birth. And believe me, I understand financial hardships. Did you think I was trying to deny that things like that happen? I sympathize with these people, but my point is that advocating euthanasia or forced sterilization for the disabled to simply remove us from the gene pool so that "normal" people don't have to look at us is not the answer.

I don't think anyone is advocating euthenasia for all disabilities (at least no one that should be taken seriously).

I don't think anyone is advocating euthenasia for all disabilities (at least no one that should be taken seriously).
there have been in this very thread people calling for the sterilization of all people who carry a genetic disability.

Most in the thread that really annoy me are the ones who say "well, those with disabilities cost a bunch of money, so let's kill them" like their life isn't worth anything anymore because things are cheaper without them around.

(like you said though nobody that should be taken seriously, unless of course you realize that they might get their warped thinking off the ground and start passing laws and such)

there have been in this very thread people calling for the sterilization of all people who carry a genetic disability.

Most in the thread that really annoy me are the ones who say "well, those with disabilities cost a bunch of money, so let's kill them" like their life isn't worth anything anymore because things are cheaper without them around.

(like you said though nobody that should be taken seriously, unless of course you realize that they might get their warped thinking off the ground and start passing laws and such)

You are absolutely right. Monetary issues should not be a concern here. If they were, it would be much easier to let someone with an awful illness or injury die as well, since it will cost a lot to get them back to normal or semi-normal.

The only issue I see her is quality of life. If an infant's life will be painful and short, I can see where it would be more humane to up the morphine and let them go or refuse to resuscitate when they die for the second/third/fourth/etc. time. At that point, we aren't keeping them around for their own sake, but for ours - essentially torturing them to make ourselves feel better.

You are absolutely right. Monetary issues should not be a concern here. If they were, it would be much easier to let someone with an awful illness or injury die as well, since it will cost a lot to get them back to normal or semi-normal.

The only issue I see her is quality of life. If an infant's life will be painful and short, I can see where it would be more humane to up the morphine and let them go or refuse to resuscitate when they die for the second/third/fourth/etc. time. At that point, we aren't keeping them around for their own sake, but for ours - essentially torturing them to make ourselves feel better.

which is why I said it should be up to the parents. I can't say that if I had a chlid in severe pain with no hope of it ever ending that I would do much more than keep them comfortable, but I don't want doctors, politicians, or idiots telling me what I must do based on their "bottom line" or what they think is right for my family.

although, I did have a doctor tell me once to take my kid home and let her die, it pissed me off, 3 years later she is here, and while her life isn't exactly like everyone else's she isn't a "drain" on society and she will probably contribute more than most of the people around here (even me)