Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

The UK goes over the cliff: Euthenasia for Sick Infants


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 132 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 1, 2012 11:04:11 AM PST
neonpisces says:
I've felt for a long time that liberalization of abortion would eventually lead to this. Once the door is open to ridding society of inconvenient fetuses, the day would come for infanticide as well.

It's here, at least in the UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html#ixzz2DcUKj73D

Per the article, apparently children are also subject to this treatment. There is an ongoing investigation into this practice.

At the risk of being subject to Godwin's Law, it's worth revisiting Bishop Clemens von Galen, an outspoken opponent of the Third Reich's policy of euthenasia. What he describes is at the bottom of the slope.

"These are people, our brothers and sisters; maybe their life is unproductive, but productivity is not a justification for killing."

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 11:12:03 AM PST
Kevin Bold says:
We already have President Obama supporting the killing of babies who survive abortions.

No doubt he'll favor this, too.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 11:51:10 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 1, 2012 11:57:47 AM PST
A Customer says:
Neo, I'm a bit surprised you are strongly pro-life.

I agree with Kevin too, we have the most strongly pro-abortion president we've ever had in the Oval Office, while in the Illinois legislature he voted four times against "born alive" protections for babies that survived attempted abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwFIEprF_9Y&sns=em

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 12:26:53 PM PST
Neonpisces,

I'm confused, it would seem that if abortion was available there would be fewer children who would face removal of life support, not more.

I don't agree that if it is okay to remove an embryo or a non-viable fetus that it follows that it is okay to remove life support. This appears to be a case where the dignity to die has been brought down to a younger age and not at all related to abortion. As our technology gets better and better at keeping non-viable births viable it becomes more common for children that would have "naturally" died only a few years ago are now experiencing "extraordinary means" to keep them alive regardless of what that life might be. While I'm certainly not in favor in euthanasia, it appears that the slippery slope is from the elderly's right to dignity in death is where this practice has come from and not from any pre-life decisions. The logic doesn't flow any other way.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 2:30:31 PM PST
M. Galishoff says:
neon

So it starts again - and next National Socialism and another genocide. When one human life, no matter how humble, is devalued then all human life is likewise and becomes fair game for the caprice of evil men in the guise of false messiahs.

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 5:05:25 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 2, 2012 8:09:41 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 5:42:46 PM PST
TheWindMoves says:
Here the preferred "solution" is a little more insidious. They are denied or provided with limited coverage health insurance, and sent home from hospitals well before they should be.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 5:46:47 PM PST
jpl says:
The UK goes over the cliff: Euthenasia for Sick Infants

jpl: I don't read sites to other pages. If you're unable to distill the thoughts behind your post, you lose my vote.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 5:56:08 PM PST
Amon says:
Abortion and murder are NOT the same thing. These two things are not synonymous. Learn the difference Neon. Before anyone says I'm defending these "doctors", I am not. They are murderers and should be subject to the law like everyone else.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 6:22:41 PM PST
Astrocat says:
Reed, I'm wondering if this is really "euthanasia". It doesn't seem to be, in any way, overtly "killing" the child, but rather the withdrawing of life support, so that the infant or child is allowed to die naturally.

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 6:31:10 PM PST
Nancy,

I'd agree that euthanasia is normally more overt, I'd have to find my Scott Peck book to see how he distinguished them in some places and not in others. DNR is easy, but withholding food etc as has happened for comatose patients is harder to claim as DNR type actions.

I truly have a problem with understanding how withholding food, oxygen etc. isn't close to euthanasia. Certainly it seem to be more "killing" than not reviving someone. If these children are preemies the problem seems more troublesome as extraordinary means are already being taken. Have you go a better word?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 8:04:14 PM PST
Astrocat says:
No, Reed, I don't have a better word right now. I do think that, in general, keeping people alive who would die naturally without intervention is not always a good thing. I say "not always" because sometimes, of course, it is good, because while some people recover on their own, others need the extra help to overcome whatever problems they're experiencing. I can't really judge on the morality of allowing these children to die because I don't know the circumstances.

I suppose, if one thinks that there is only this one lifetime, almost any intervention would be seen as needful, and the lack of intervention might even be considered murder. I have my own ideas on the subject, which would not be popular nor understood by some.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 8:23:36 PM PST
Note: The Daily Mail, online or print, is a British tabloid

So, take this article with a Lot's wife-sized grain of salt.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 8:26:25 PM PST
Astrocat says:
I wondered about that, Michael. I went about looking to see if the story had been debunked but couldn't find anything. I'll look again later.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 8:30:21 PM PST
Amon says:
LMAO...I hope I understood that correctly lol.

Posted on Dec 1, 2012 8:51:58 PM PST
The Daily Mail in England is akin to the National Enquirer in the United States. Sensationalism is their bread and butter.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 9:12:21 PM PST
S. Kessler says:
For heavens sake, what does Obama have to do with hospital policy in Britain? Ridiculous to conflate them.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 9:14:02 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 1, 2012 9:21:33 PM PST
No, it's not. The Sun is the salacious and sensationalist newspaper in the UK.
Also the Daily Star, Sunday Sport etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Sport

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 10:22:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 1, 2012 10:24:21 PM PST
neonpisces says:
> Neo, I'm a bit surprised you are strongly pro-life.

I seriously have to ask:

Why does this suprise you?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 1:44:23 AM PST
neon -- At the risk of being subject to Godwin's Law...

I don't think this applies here. If it walks like a duck...

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 1:48:03 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 1:49:41 AM PST
jpl -- I don't read sites to other pages. If you're unable to distill the thoughts behind your post, you lose my vote.

What makes you think (apart from your over-inflated ego) for one tenth of a nanosecond Neon was LOOKING for your "vote"?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 6:21:51 AM PST
A Customer says:
I just had the impression that you were politically liberal.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 6:38:54 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 7:15:36 AM PST
A Customer says:
"For heavens sake, what does Obama have to do with hospital policy in Britain? Ridiculous to conflate them."

The main point expressed in the OP was that the culture of abortion devalues human life to the point that the step to infanticide becomes a small one instead of a giant leap. The fact that anyone would vote to deny basic human rights and protections to infants that survive outside the womb after an attempted abortion shows a utter lack of value for human life. The step between killing babies "born alive" after failed abortions and what's in the OP is so small as to be nonexistent.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225404/why-obama-really-voted-infanticide/andrew-c-mccarthy

As a State Senator Obama voted 4 times against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. A couple of years later Born Alive passed at the federal level unanimously in the U.S. Senate 98-0. Not a single US senator voted against it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 7:01:38 AM PST
Vicki says:
Dear neonpisces,

I'm really shocked to read that end of life care in the UK for infants includes withdrawing hydration. When I was the hospice care giver for my mother as she died from cancer, even though her organs were failing, hydration was part of her care.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 7:15:24 AM PST
Vicki says:
Dear Nancy,

I read the article, and from what the doctor said, this is more than pulling the plug on life support. This is denial of adequate medical care and condemns the child to a slow death by dehydration.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  132
Initial post:  Dec 1, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 3, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions