Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My oppinion is that everyone has something to offer and contribute to society. We all have a purpose regardless of how big or small. Just because we don't recognize or understand the impact we have on each other doesn't mean it's not beneficial. It seems like this is an issue of putting a $dollar sign on the value of human life.
I am not an overly religious person by any means, but deciding whether a disabled child should live or not is playing God. You hear all the time from parents of severly disabled children what a blessing they are to them, how much they have learned from them and that they would never change having that child. Also, who draws the line on "how disabled" a child has to be to be killed? One parent may think a baby with Down's Syndrome should be killed and one may not, one may think a simple loss of a limb is enough, one may not. I think the bottom line is that child is here for a reason and we should not play God in deciding whether that baby should live or not.
I kind of disagree. There's a difference between disabled and severely disabled.
We ARE playing God when, through the use of technology, we cause these children to live.
When there is no recognition, no learning, no memory, why do people insist that these children live?
I don't know what the cutoff point should be. I do think that any person with any ability, function, hope, should be given a chance. If a person is going to be 'warehoused' for the duration of their life and does not have the support of, or is cared for by a loving family, or receive any loving, personal care, then they should be allowed to die.
I find it quite sad that a number of these people, cases, are only file numbers and used for the determination of the viability of those to come. Someone has to do the research; someone has to push the envelope. I wouldn't want it done at my expense.
Killed or left to die? ie given no treatment or sustenance.
I have heard similar policies existed here in the past.
Many years ago my mother worked for a family doctor. He did everything from dispensing an antibiotic, piercing ears, right up to removing an appendix or delivering a baby. Even though I was just a kid, Mom and I had many frank discussions about medicine, life and the human condition. The subject of the babies did come up. I will certainly never know exactly what happened to them because I wasn't there. I was led to believe that it was a no resuscitation, no medication, no intervention situation. Considering the condition that most of them were in, that it was just a matter of time, and that time was short. The 'typical' mentally, physically disabled children were not the problem. However, there came a time in the career of some of these Dr.'s, these baby catchers, that they are faced with the extraordinary, the unthinkable. Nowadays, you can find pictures of that sort of thing on the internet if you choose to look. Back then, it was common practice to tell women that their babies had died in childbirth and they were discouraged from seeing them. I would think that any physician worth his salt would have taken matters into his own hands.
The sad thing here is we are actually watching the continued slide of human degredation of the highest order.
First, society decided we can birth a baby- but before pulling the entire body out oft he mother (just the baby's head), the doctor takes a drill and runs it thru the baby's brain a few times to kill him/her. For that, tens of millions of people celebrate unabashedly this "choice" (for the mother, certainly not the baby)and spit venom on those who decry this loss of human life.
Next, (at least here in Oregon) when a person has a dibilitating disease, they have the "right" to kill themselves legally so their heirs can collect on life insurance. Some people are making this "choice" and it is to be celebrated.
Now, we are to kill the babies that are severly disabled.
The sad thing here is we are actually watching the continued slide of human degredation of the highest order.
First, society decided we can birth a baby- but before pulling the entire body out oft he mother (just the baby's head), the doctor takes a drill and runs it thru the baby's brain a few times to kill him/her. For that, tens of millions of people celebrate unabashedly this "choice" (for the mother, certainly not the baby)and spit venom on those who decry this loss of human life.
It's interesting how this sad, pathetic tale gets pulled out every time there's any sort of conversation on euthanasia or abortion. Obviously you do not realize that this type of procedure is performed in very rare instances and only under certain circumstances (non-viability of fetus, gross birth defects, danger to mother's health/life).
Quote:
Next, (at least here in Oregon) when a person has a dibilitating disease, they have the "right" to kill themselves legally so their heirs can collect on life insurance. Some people are making this "choice" and it is to be celebrated.
Yes, it is to be celebrated. Who are you to tell me that I have to suffer from some debilitating, painful, or terminal illness? Who are you to tell me that I do not have the right to choose the time when I die? That's such a completely and utterly selfish attitude to take in regard to someone else's life.
Quote:
Now, we are to kill the babies that are severly disabled.
It's interesting how this sad, pathetic tale gets pulled out every time there's any sort of conversation on euthanasia or abortion. Obviously you do not realize that this type of procedure is performed in very rare instances and only under certain circumstances (non-viability of fetus, gross birth defects, danger to mother's health/life).
Nonetheless, those are the facts. You may not like them. But there they are for all to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuSuSushi
Yes, it is to be celebrated. Who are you to tell me that I have to suffer from some debilitating, painful, or terminal illness? Who are you to tell me that I do not have the right to choose the time when I die? That's such a completely and utterly selfish attitude to take in regard to someone else's life.
Just so you know and understand my position, I have a terminally ill daughter. She's in her last year of life. She, with my approval, removed herself from the heart/double lung transplant list. Aside from that, I expect the doctors to do for her everything they can to keep her comfortable. That said, when her time of death arrives and if at that time the doctors cannot offer her relief, we may have to consider hastening her death. I get that.
What I'm talking about are the hundreds of people choosing to commit suicide long before the issue of death is settled. It's this chipping away that disturbs me. Many people have chosen legal suicide years prior to their death and in a few occassions they later found out they weren't even going to die. So how much further will society go? At what point in time will an 80 year old's kids who can't wait for their inheritance just up and have them killed for senility? For being over 80? For having dimentia? There is clearly no argument we're on a slippery slope. The only question is where will it take us?
Nonetheless, those are the facts. You may not like them. But there they are for all to see.
'Tis you who are not seeing the facts. But...that's another thread for another day.
Quote:
Just so you know and understand my position, I have a terminally ill daughter. She's in her last year of life. She, with my approval, removed herself from the heart/double lung transplant list. Aside from that, I expect the doctors to do for her everything they can to keep her comfortable. That said, when her time of death arrives and if at that time the doctors cannot offer her relief, we may have to consider hastening her death. I get that.
What I'm talking about are the hundreds of people choosing to commit suicide long before the issue of death is settled. It's this chipping away that disturbs me. Many people have chosen legal suicide years prior to their death and in a few occassions they later found out they weren't even going to die. So how much further will society go? At what point in time will an 80 year old's kids who can't wait for their inheritance just up and have them killed for senility? For being over 80? For having dimentia? There is clearly no argument we're on a slippery slope. The only question is where will it take us?
Any adult person of sound mind should be able to choose the method and time of his or her own death, if they so wish. I would present the opinion that many minors are also capable of deciding this for themselves, when coupled with the advice of their loving parents.
As far as your assertions go that people have incorrectly chosen legal suicide -- I'm sure you wouldn't mind backing that up with some solid sources, now would you?
And for that fictional person being "killed" for having dementia -- that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about selective euthanasia of infants who are utterly disabled and have no hope of any sort of useful, happy, productive life. A decision of this weight would and should of course be left in the hands of the parents. As far as the dementia goes, however...if it were legal to request euthanasia for such a person, I would hope that my children would have the balls to put me out of my misery and theirs. If I could write a euthanasia clause into my living will to deal with a circumstance like that, I absolutely would.
Theoretically, I think it's a slippery slope and any society has to be extremely careful in these matters. But, personally up close, I worked years back in a facility where many young adults and adults were severly disabled--couldn't talk, only mumbled and groaned, couldn't eat or toilet themselves, couldn't change positions (barely);were basically brain stem alive only with no higher cerebral functioning. When their tube feeding lines came out, they'd put them back in, treat their infections, etc. I used to feel sick because they were prolonging their lives, but for what? To sit in a chair, in a nearly vegetative state. This, to me, was cruel and inhumane.
This is probably the best post in the thread and is pretty close to my own views.
On one side you have people who will never function in any shape or form. Not talking about minor health problems or moderate mental retardation, but rather extreme mental disability. Retarded in the most extreme form of the word or so sick they will require constant treatment and care costing millions in their lifetime. The kinds of disabilities that are so rare and so horrific that some rather tasteless websites (fellow internet warriors know which ones I am referring to) use photos of them to shock and disturb viewers.
On the other hand, there is a slippery slope with this kind of thing and although that is logical fallacy, experience and history tells us the precedent opens the door for policy that were once thought impossible. We are talking about the most extreme birth defects and illnesses, but there are some people who would gladly bring about a modern day version of the T4 program if given the chance and would enact a mandatory euthanasia program for anyone with an incureable illness on a cost-benefit analysis.
It's a very tough thing, I think parents should be given the decision and allowed to choose. I think it's a really hard decision to make, but in my personal world if we were looking at a child who was severally disabled, require medical care that would cost so much to bankrupt us or nearly so, unable to live a life they would even be conscious of let alone participate in...we would terminate the pregnancy.
I think if some one forced my family to keep a child in that condition, I think everyone who votes for that should be forced to help pay for the care the child receives (either by donations or higher taxes). It's easy to say yes, I want some one else to keep a child like that because I think taking a life is immoral...it's hard to be responsible for the child for the rest of your natural life, day in and day out. If some one chooses to I think that's great, but if they didn't it's their choice for their reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
killing babies!!!!
