Doctors call for baby euthanasia


'ACTIVE euthanasia' should be allowed to kill seriously disabled new- born babies, a respected medical body. said yesterday. The controversial proposal would spare many families the emotional and financial burden of bringing up such children, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology claimed.
The body claimed killing the most disabled babies would also encourage some parents to go ahead with pregnancies where there was a risk of complications. The parents would take a 'risk on the outcome' of such a pregnancy rather than opting for a late termination.
The proposal has been supported by some geneticists and medical ethicists, but it has outraged many disabled groups. 'A very disabled could can mean a disabled family,' college experts said in a written submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 'if life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions.'
Edna Kennedy, whose son was severely disabled with epidermolysis bullosa, a condition which meant the slightest contact with another human made his skin fall off, has backed the call for a debate. She said in 'very exceptional cirumstances' it should be considered, but added: 'My biggest worry is that it would create designer - families.'
Simone Aspis, of the United Kingdom Disabled Peoples Council, said it sent out the wrong message to disabled children. 'If we start killing disabled babies what message are we giving to dis-bled children with the same conditions whilst they are growing up - that their lives are less valued than non- disabled people?'
She added it was not for medical professionals to determine whether someone else's quality of life would be good simply on the grounds of impair ment or health condition. Ms Aspis said: 'Quality of life is not determined by health condition rather by the love, support and access to an inclusive society that a disabled baby will receive and grow up in.'

Parental pressure 'steals childhood'

CHILDREN are losing their innocence earlier because of the pressure parents put on them to succeed in their studies, a poll claims. While parents said they believed in things such as the tooth fairy until they were ten, today's youngsters lost their faith in such fantasies by the age of six. Two-thirds of parents admitted pushing their children into reading books aimed at older pupils.[Metro Nov6,2006]

Sick babies 'should get right to die'


WITHHOLDING treatment so some sick newborn babies die is not euthanasia, a Christian medical group said yesterday. 'There is a point in medicine where we say enough is enough and sometimes the treatment can be worse than the illness,' Dr Peter Saunders, head of the Christian Medical Fellowship, added. He was responding to a Church of England submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics which said withholding treatment from seriously disabled newborn babies may be right in exceptional circumstances'.

The submission, written by the Bishop of Southwark, the Rev Tom Butler, said that, while the church could not accept the premise that any baby's life was not worth living, there were 'strong reasons' for 'overriding the presupposition that life should always be maintained'. 'There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the rule that life should inevitably be preserved,' the Rev Butler wrote. Dr Saunders said he agreed that, in some cases, withdrawing treatment would be appropriate. 'What's often confused in these debates are decisions about euthanasia where the doctor acts with the deliberate intention of ending life,' he said. 'Intentionally ending life is always wrong, but withholding treatment and allowing people to die is sometimes wrong and sometimes right, depending on the clinical situation,' he added.[Metro Nov13,2006]

I find it maddening that Christians - when people die in a plane crash call it "God's will" and yet when a baby is relieved of medicine because it's life would be of too poor quality they presume that "life should always be maintained". They should figure out what they believe - should people die without help or not? Cases can be made for killing - and no Christian has the right bases for reasoning what is correct,they start from a false premise - "God exists". Therefore everything that follows is erroenous.





Maths Physics Biology Chemistry Computing Science Electronics Belief Art Philosophy

000webhost logo