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.
I don't believe actively killing an infant or a child is acceptable under any circumstance (even if it's in the name of "mercy"). If a child is born w/o the organs needed to survive... like a brain... then I can see PASSIVELY letting them go. But if they are born with a severe handicap then it is what it is - I have compassion for the parents but they (or anyone for that matter) don't have the right to kill a child, IMO.
But then WHO gets to make the decision as to whether the disability is "severe" enough to warrant the child being killed? What are the exact criteria for making the decision?
See the slippery slope...
Slippery slope; where did that come from?
That would have to be determined. Parents would have to consider the brutal truth, and together with the doctors and specialized people, come to a conclusion.
I don't believe actively killing an infant or a child is acceptable under any circumstance (even if it's in the name of "mercy"). If a child is born w/o the organs needed to survive... like a brain... then I can see PASSIVELY letting them go. But if they are born with a severe handicap then it is what it is - I have compassion for the parents but they (or anyone for that matter) don't have the right to kill a child, IMO.
Nothing was said about children, only newborns with severe disabilities.
I haven't read this entire thread (just too many pages), but I'd like to throw my 2 cents in (for what it's worth).
I had a college professor who's wife gave birth to a daughter who was born without arms or legs. She also had a very serious heart defect. Doctors said with the heart defect, she might live to six or seven years, at best. But she would need multiple surgeries and would probably spend more time in the hospital than at home.
I lost track of my professor, but last I heard the little girl was alive (she would have been about 3 years old) but had already gone through 11 surgeries.
Okay...so here's what we have:
1. A child with a head and torso only...no limbs.
2. A child with such a severe heart defect that her life expectancy was 6 or 7 years, at best.
3. A child who, by the age of 3, had already had 11 surgeries.
4. A child who, spent more time in hospitals than at home.
If she had been my child, and it would have been legal for me to humanely have her euthanized, I would have done it. Because it would have truly been the kindest, most compassionate thing to do. And there is no amount of lopsided logic anybody can throw at me that will convince me otherwise.
This whole thread left me feeling as though I was being talked about. On one hand, the parent of a disabled child is characterized as an insensitive manipulative psychotic sort of attention grabber, using the child for attention. On the other hand, the parent of a disabled child is characterized as a holy saint for fulfilling God’s will against the evil world. Well, as an actual parent of a real multiply handicapped child, I can tell you that all of you are all washed up on this. Jose Fernandez is the only one who came close: this is not a mere philosophical discussion, this is a truly horrible thing that happened, yes, to me, the parent. And as the parent I am the only one whose business this is.
First of all, you forgot the scene where, because of the Hippocratic Oath, doctors are under a sworn duty to keep their patients alive. I myself was not asked about the life- supportive feeding tube that was surgically placed in my infant’s neck; the excuse given was that they could not contact me at 4:30 pm and it had to be done in the 45 minutes between when I was at work and when I would have arrived at the hospital. Because the doctor said that time was of the essence (it was not) naturally my husband gave his OK, over the phone, to what we figured out (only later) was a crucial decision. We also figured out that the time that was essential was that the Doctor leave at quitting time. It did not go unnoticed by me that it was the Father of that girl standing there in the news item, because I’d bet money he was the one that insisted on continuing the heroic life saving methods; which I’ll bet is why they divorced. The burden of a child is still mostly on the mom unless she is a CEO before she gives birth.
Second, it is NOT true that society supports a handicapped individual. This of course varies by country, but where I live, the parent supports the child totally until age 21 and then after that, the state provides a subsistence living, something they do for many other types of people that we don’t kill. If the person is able to work at all that amount of money is subtracted from the subsistence, thus thoughtfully guaranteeing the person a long life of lonely poverty. The family paid all the medical bills, extra costs, and support for the child and will until the child is dead unless we leave him penniless. True, the extra costs of medical care do go to the insurance costs—just like I pay for people’s medical costs that are alcoholic, or smoke cigarettes, or beat each other up.
And you are also wrong that the child “doesn’t know†what they are missing: they may have perceptive abilities beyond their expressive ones, and they certainly have the ability to feel rejection. As a result, the responsibility for such a life is sort of like having your child die, not just on the day of birth, but every day thereafter for the rest of your life, as you hear and watch the terrible thoughtless things that are done and said to someone you love, because of the disabilities. And no amount of maternal love or self-satisfied sense of “charity†makes up for that repeating sense of loss. You do feel responsible for that because somehow you did not make the decision that protected your child from harm. It is the other people who make the sickening comments about how “you must be so patientâ€, etc.
So you see, I can joke about being talked about, but unless anyone of you is going to have such a child then you have no business talking about it. And if you ask, as I have been asked, “Would you talk to my friend’s husband and convince him that the best thing to do is to give birth to this baby with a known disability?†or “Do you think it’s a good idea if I adopt a special needs child†or “Would you recommend adopting a child with these _______problems?†Our answer is: NO. You would be crazy to take it on voluntarily. On the other hand, how dare you say that you have never learned anything from a person with a disability—I would say, you probably have not spent much time around them, preferring to avoid them as most people do. It’s more fun just to talk.
No way. I myself was born at 26 weeks and weighed less than 2 pounds. I am blind in one eye and my good eye is not that great (20/50) but I feel that I have led a fairly productive life.
Absolutely not ,,,I know the deal here ,and who are we to decide to kill an absolutely innocent human being ? No matter at all what is wrong with it ! We are suppose to have doctors now days that can practically perform miracles ! What's up with that ,and also just giving up on the absolutely innocent to these people who want to kill them for their handicap?
#1 As I read the article -- I think the reporter is a little misinformed; the issue is not an active euthanasia -- the issue is not intervening and stopping nature take its course. There are times where being aggressive in the care of a patient, young or old, is inappropriate. This is the issue.
#2 As a doctor -- no we do not perform miracles, wish we did, but no. We can keep newborns alive and leave their parents with a burden for years dealing with a disaster that doesn't correspond to anything any reasonable person would consider to be human life. We subtract from the quality of life of those who are capable of having a decent quality of life.
#3 "Handicapped people" -- this is fine -- keep them alive -- but there is a spectrum here -- the severe cases who do not have any possiblity of meaningful mental functioning and require major medical inteventions to keep them alive -- is it really the right thing to do this to them and their caregivers. My opinion is No.
Incidentally -- the Hippocratic Oath -- Is "First do no harm" -- and in such situations - I'd not be eager to resusciate as I'm not in any way certain I'm not causing harm. Actually I'm pretty sure I would be causing harm.
For 5 years I worked with multihandicapped young adults (ages 16-21). Every day I saw the torment they lived with. Every day I saw how we worked harder to see the slightest bit of improvement or reaction in a meaningful way.
They were in wheelchairs and had to be lifted in and out of bed, dressed, cleaned by staff. They needed their noses wiped, their food wiped off their faces, they needed to be fed (most by tube), they had no control over any function, they had no control over their movement (if there actually was movement), they wore diapers that had to be changed by staff people, they didn't recognize anybody, including parents (on the rare occasion a parent would visit), they didn't care if any of us were there, they got ulcers and sores from not moving - ever, they were shuffled between a care facility to a 'work' environment every day although they had no idea they were in either place and weren't capable of doing the simplest task.
And these are the lives we're talking about. How humane is it to allow this? Where is there any quality of life for these people? I am certain that most, if not all, would end it themselves had they possessed the simplest faculty to do so.
If they could speak, they would most likely beg to be put out of their misery. But they can't communicate in any way.
For 5 years I worked with multihandicapped young adults (ages 16-21). Every day I saw the torment they lived with. Every day I saw how we worked harder to see the slightest bit of improvement or reaction in a meaningful way.
They were in wheelchairs and had to be lifted in and out of bed, dressed, cleaned by staff. They needed their noses wiped, their food wiped off their faces, they needed to be fed (most by tube), they had no control over any function, they had no control over their movement (if there actually was movement), they wore diapers that had to be changed by staff people, they didn't recognize anybody, including parents (on the rare occasion a parent would visit), they didn't care if any of us were there, they got ulcers and sores from not moving - ever, they were shuffled between a care facility to a 'work' environment every day although they had no idea they were in either place and weren't capable of doing the simplest task.
And these are the lives we're talking about. How humane is it to allow this? Where is there any quality of life for these people? I am certain that most, if not all, would end it themselves had they possessed the simplest faculty to do so.
If they could speak, they would most likely beg to be put out of their misery. But they can't communicate in any way.
I understand what you're saying. But how do you decide who is "miserable" enough to kill?
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.
Jose is the only one who got it right
Mercy killing - disabled babies
