For Jagella

[garraty]

British college urges euthanasia for sick newborns. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20704879-401,00.html)

Personally I'm all for it; but I'm just an misanthropic bastard anyway.....

[Beave]

Uh oh, look out everyone, here it comes.:worried:

[Christina Mirabilis]

*makes popcorn for the show :)

[DougP]

I would like to preemptively remind everyone to stay civil.

[dmarker]

Personally, I'm against euthaniasia for newborns.

First, the parents are in no position to make such a decision. The birth of a baby is a highly emotional event, even for those who've been there, done that several times before. Parents are often rushed into making life-altering medical decisions for their infants at this time.

An example of this: http://www.isna.org/faq/history

This link is about infants born intersexed with ambiguous genitalia, parents were often lied to or rushed into unnecessary surgeries.

Second, conditions thought to be incurable and/or fatal in the past are becoming curable and/or survivable in the present. Our technological advances, especially in biomedicine, are coming faster and faster. If we start killing the sickest newborns now, what would be the motive to cure them in the future?

Third, families coping with disabled infants and children need more social support, especially in the US, than they are getting now. Perhaps the families would not be disabled if they had the support they needed.

[Vandrare]

Well the article said they wanted to open it up for discussion, and I think that's a great idea. Not being sure where I stand either way... I'd love to hear differing opinions!

I imagine that a DNR for children who would just live a short life in extreme pain could be appropriate. Though this is only if we're trying to save the child from a short and excruciating life, rather than just easing the burden on carers. I guess the argument that it may stop some late term abortions is valid too.

I understand that medicine is advancing very quickly, but I'm not sure that would warrant keeping a child alive just in case some miracle breakthrough occurs in the next few years.

Anyway, I hope I haven't offended anyone.

:-D Anna

[dmarker]

Well the article said they wanted to open it up for discussion, and I think that's a great idea. Not being sure where I stand either way... I'd love to hear differing opinions!

I imagine that a DNR for children who would just live a short life in extreme pain could be appropriate. Though this is only if we're trying to save the child from a short and excruciating life, rather than just easing the burden on carers. I guess the argument that it may stop some late term abortions is valid too.

I understand that medicine is advancing very quickly, but I'm not sure that would warrant keeping a child alive just in case some miracle breakthrough occurs in the next few years.

Anyway, I hope I haven't offended anyone.

:-D Anna

DNR is not the same. What the article seems to be endorsing is to take steps to end the infant's life, not to withold extraordinary measures such as breathing tubes and let nature take its course.

[loprogression]

I oppose it, but because its open for discussion I'd definitely be open to hearing the opposition justify their position.

In the meantime, I tend to opt for the option of life as opposed to death, even if that life isn't up to the same standard as another's life.

Who really defines who should live and who shouldn't? What if these babies grow up and a cure is found? What if no cure is found but they grow up happy, despite their health? What if they are misdiagnosed?

Second, conditions thought to be incurable and/or fatal in the past are becoming curable and/or survivable in the present. Our technological advances, especially in biomedicine, are coming faster and faster. If we start killing the sickest newborns now, what would be the motive to cure them in the future?

Very good point.

[Jagella]

British college urges euthanasia for sick newborns. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20704879-401,00.html)

Personally I'm all for it; but I'm just an misanthropic bastard anyway.....

If any of you think that I’m going to spend a lot of time trying to convince people here that there’s something wrong with killing newborns—sick or otherwise—then you’ll find me in the Small Business Forums discussing web development and design.

Well, let me just say one thing. I used to battle Bible-banging bigots over whether the Bible passages such as those that commanded killing a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath were immoral (Numbers 15). As you might imagine, I got nowhere with them. They were totally convinced that such cruelty and murder were justified because they believed that their god is just no matter what he did. I hoped that atheists, skeptics, and critics of religion were better than that and that they, having shed religion and its attendant violence and cruelty, were far above cheapening human life in the name of some dogmatic belief that they would defend beyond all reason. It appears that I may have been at least partially wrong. Be that as it may, I realize that the tie that binds all of us atheists is lack of belief in any god. I’m not an atheist for purely moral reasons: I’m an atheist because I understand the claims of religion to be bunk. As a result, I suppose I need not be too disappointed in what I’ve experienced in this forum. The next time I hear a religionist attempt to counter my criticizing that religion breeds cruel behavior by saying that atheists are also prone to cruelty, I will answer: “You are correct.”

Jagella

[Vandrare]

DNR is not the same. What the article seems to be endorsing is to take steps to end the infant's life, not to withold extraordinary measures such as breathing tubes and let nature take its course.

From the article:

"We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns." (bold mine)

At least in part it seems to be referring to what could be broadly considered DNR. I guess without specific examples it is difficult to judge exactly what they mean.

I am much less convinced about active euthanasia... if the infant manages to survive on its own it, I think it deserves a change to keep on surviving.

:-D Anna

[dmarker]

If any of you think that I’m going to spend a lot of time trying to convince people here that there’s something wrong with killing newborns—sick or otherwise—then you’ll find me in the Small Business Forums discussing web development and design.

Well, let me just say one thing. I used to battle Bible-banging bigots over whether the Bible passages such as those that commanded killing a man for gathering sticks on the Sabbath were immoral (Numbers 15). As you might imagine, I got nowhere with them. They were totally convinced that such cruelty and murder were justified because they believed that their god is just no matter what he did. I hoped that atheists, skeptics, and critics of religion were better than that and that they, having shed religion and its attendant violence and cruelty, were far above cheapening human life in the name of some dogmatic belief that they would defend beyond all reason. It appears that I may have been at least partially wrong. Be that as it may, I realize that the tie that binds all of us atheists is lack of belief in any god. I’m not an atheist for purely moral reasons: I’m an atheist because I understand the claims of religion to be bunk. As a result, I suppose I need not be too disappointed in what I’ve experienced in this forum. The next time I hear a religionist attempt to counter my criticizing that religion breeds cruel behavior by saying that atheists are also prone to cruelty, I will answer: “You are correct.”

Jagella


Sure, we are all prone to cruelty. But in reading this thread, I see three who are against infant euthanasia and only one for it.