washingtontimes.com/world/20 … -6932r.htm
So, pull the plug on the Democrats, er, the disabled? Comments?
This is an economic consideration more than a moral one IMHO.
Ouch. Got a touchy one here Fred. :s
Do not resucitate clauses for newborns? Eek 
On the one hand, I agree with the final statement regarding social engineering. On the other hand, are we not already socially engineering disabled people into society by keeping them artificially alive after birth?
In the old days, a very disabled baby wouldn’t have survived. However, in today’s world medicine allows us to keep alive even the sickest of infants so I think abortion under these circumstances can be justified.
Umm, 
what would you call abortion then?
What’s FredSmith’s take on this?
Abortion of a 2 week old cluster of cells as compared to a newborn baby is worlds apart, IMHO.
This is an economic consideration more than a moral one IMHO.
Do not resucitate clauses for newborns? Eek [/quote]
Nothing new about it. The medical system has been quietly dealing with issues like this without clearly defined legal parameters since the year dot. Some let them die, others adopt what’s called “heroic measures.” Believe me, most terminally ill people are ultimately euthanased. My only wish is that I never meet a “heroic” doctor again, especially if I or anyone I care about is terrminally ill. More often than not blinded by their irrational beliefs the heroic types feel compelled to inflict their dark ages mentality on families and individuals that can very clearly do without it. Therefore putting clear guidelines into a legal framework and removing the lucky dip makes perfect sense.
HG
Has anyone here ever had to sign the “Do Not Rescusitate” papers on a hospitalized loved one?
I have and seen the person pull thru and come back on their own…twice. It not a comfortable thing to have on your conscience. You hope you are doing what is best for the person and not what is easiest for yourself.
Umm, what would you call abortion then?[/quote][/quote]
Uhm, I didn’t write that. Careful with the quote there namalady. 
Not trying to deny your no doubt horrid experience there TC, but forms? That’s amazing. In Australia it would be illegal to deny health care. It is done though, but always through informal consent. It was always done sensibly, in my book, and I think the informal system worked in a less litigious medical system. However, Obs Gynae is now among the most litigious realms of medicine, malpractice premiums are astronomic. I’m therefore not surprised that these doctors are asking the law to support what they have, in most cases, always done.
There are so many conditions where a baby is born and supported by “heroic” measures for one or two more meager months tops, but in a mind numbing, sleepless circus of invasive and painful procedures. The outcome was guaranteed, the difference was that the condition was actively treated.
An extreme example these doctors are no doubt pushing for is anacephalic babies. They’re born without a brain. They can and are carried full term by some, but why? It doesn’t have a brain. it has a heart and survives off the mother. When it’s born you can feed and treat it if you’re obliged by law to save all life, but is there really any point? It is ultimately far more traumatic and costly for the parents. It is also a misuse of a limited resource.
The thing is, you have to be able to trust your doctors are capable of making these decisions, and making them right. In my experience they have, but I can imagine that is changing.
HG
Umm, what would you call abortion then?[/quote]
Uhm, I didn’t write that. Careful with the quote there namalady. [/quote][/quote]
That was cut and paste error. Don’t worry, anyone with intelligence would see that. Or anyone who took the time to read the OP"s Orignial post…
Umm, what would you call abortion then?[/quote]
Uhm, I didn’t write that. Careful with the quote there namalady. [/quote]
That was cut and paste error. Don’t worry, anyone with intelligence would see that. Or anyone who took the time to read the OP"s Orignial post…[/quote][/quote]
new to forumosa??
WELCOME! 
Tough call. Who benefits? The injured/ disabled party? I suppose, at some extreme point, non-existence beats one that consists only of pain. Tough to make that call when it comes to extremely young children. Do those who have to care for the child benefit? They’re not burdened with the opportunity costs associated with the constant responsibility.
A friend had twin boys close to three months early. Extremely underweight, underdeveloped, her preemies suffered from a host of severe medical problems. One died after a couple of months. The other was well enough to be taken home after a half year or so; she says that was the happiest day of her life. He required constant, round the clock care for years. In time, he was well enough to ‘attend’ school part time. One day, seven years on, one of the old issues arose and that was the end of him. My friend grieved, then started to emerge from the shadow she’d lived under all that time without realizing it. The boy experienced a great deal of pain and discomfort. He also experienced pleasure and joy: would just about freak out because of a simple sunbeam. He emoted, thought on a very primitive level; was he an unique individual? Appeared so, even if that individuality never developed. Did his life have a positive impact on many others? Yes. His mother and father grew and matured in ways they would not have otherwise, to their benefit and the benefit of others. The boy also had a positive impact on those outside of his family.
Should euthanasia be seriously considered, despite all the good that came out of even that most limited life?
Yeah, I think it should.
Just to clarify, no one is talking about knocking off pre-term or premature babies, Fred Smiths* or red heads.
HG
- Rather, if you choose the right to euthanase, you can always take the Fred’s out with retrospective abortion.
Perhaps not, but that was the original question:
A premature baby isn’t necessarily seriously disabled. Things can go awfully wrong and they can become seriously disabled, but its definitely a wait and see.
HG
Great, controversial topic.
If your existence consisted only of pain, how would you know what not having pain was?
[quote=“Jaboney”]Should euthanasia be seriously considered, despite all the good that came out of even that most limited life?
Yeah, I think it should.[/quote]
Jaboney, you gave a great example of a reason against euthanasia, so why this conclusion?
Whenever I hear “ethical issue” I prefer to give my trust to a priest or rabbi or monk, etc… The many of the arguments for killing or not trying to save the terminally ill seem to lean on a wall of financial reasons or even worse, IMNSHO, they’ll be a burden for society. This argument assumes that there are no people in society who place a great, great value on life and are willing to work as caregivers to the most meager forms of it. I say, since life is so very special when you really think about it, we should try to keep even the dimmest of flames covered and burning.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]A premature baby isn’t necessarily seriously disabled. Things can go awfully wrong and they can become seriously disabled, but its definitely a wait and see.
HG[/quote]
I think being born without a brain and being a preemie are way different situations. Wait and see if we should decide to kill our preemie?
Wow, that’s too much for me. I hold it against my good friend in the States that he took his 10 year old dog to the shelter, knowing no one would adopt him and left him there to be put down a week later. :fume:
"I changed my mind"should not be an option.
I have no problem with “conducting an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborns.” Inquiries into ethical issues are always welcome. Thinking about ethics is always welcome. It occurs far too little, IMO.
As for whether it is “morally wrong to strive to keep alive babies that are going to suffer many months or years of ill-health”, that’s certainly going to be an extremely controversial topic.
I hope to never be put in a situation where I have to choose between artificially prolonging life despite the near certainty of months or years of anguish, with little chance of any real quality of life, and pulling a plug. I don’t think I can fairly judge another who encounters such a terrible situation.
In the abstract, I think that I would prefer to err on the side of life, hope and opportunity. Then again, sparing a loved one a life of endless pain and suffering… oh, heavens I hope to never face such a terrible choice!
[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]A premature baby isn’t necessarily seriously disabled. Things can go awfully wrong and they can become seriously disabled, but its definitely a wait and see.
HG[/quote]
I think being born without a brain and being a preemie are way different situations. Wait and see if we should decide to kill our preemie?[/quote]
Are you drinking these days? I meant wait and see how things pan out, not wait and see, maybe we’ll off them tomorrow.
Surprisingly, medicine is not rocket science. There are only a finite range of possibilities, organs that work or can not, potential for life and no potential at all. It’s usually very clear. The thing that attracts the non-medical mind is the statistically rare grey line.
By all means, let’s have an informed debate on medical ethics, but I’m sorry, please check your religions at the door. They have no place here. The Christian debate on this subject is as diverse as Mother Theresa’s let 'em die and return to god, it’s god’s desire after all, to pro-lifers life whatever the cost. Neither is helpful or medically informed.
HG