Netherlands to Euthanize Babies

I may have missed it here, but IMNSHO, there's a tremendous difference in "letting someone die", and "making someone die"!

By "making", you are playing God by your deciding "the right time"

By "letting" you are just trying to make comfortable, but letting God decide the time.

 

What was wrong with him? How much pain was he in? Did opiates relieve the pain or not?

Same questions.

Same questions.

I don't know.

 

That's a good question.

Not wanton, of course not. Many patients agree to be experimented upon.

This law is not about a "meaningful" life. It's about infants in severe pain with no real chance of recovery.

I agree with you - if it were my decision, I'd go with that with great emphasis on comfortable.

 

This is a pointless thread. If you're in favor of euthenasia of the terminally ill, then you'll likely not have a problem with this. If you'are against euthenasia, then you'll have a problem with this.

That makes the real point of discussion one of euthenasia of terminally ill in general, not one of just the underaged.

 

Daisy,

In all three of the cases of the babies they were born so premature that internal organs had not fully formed, they couldn't receive opiates because at their body weight, and given problems associated with respiration and heart, they would have died from the opiates.

However, in all honesty, I find your questions irrelevant. The fact is, despite being in pain for the first few weeks of their life, despite medical doctors declaring them "hopeless," they all had fulfilling lives, the pain ended, they are not massively handicapped invidiuals today.

The doctors were wrong, and had someone decided to "be merciful" and murder my spouse the two children I have would never have been born.

Doctors will ALWAYS make errors.
There will ALWAYS be miracle cures - IF - we don't take things into our own hands and decide it is "more merciful" to kill them.

Since the dawn of time men have thought they knew what was "best" and "who could survive" and they have been wrong! Babies who are born without limbs were, in some socities, considered "better off dead." We know that handicapped individuals can have fulfililng lives. Mentally handicapped individuals were considered "a burden," and "unable to enjoy life," and "not worth keeping." But a lot of people found out they are loving, viable members of society.

I have no problems with "comfort," but I have TREMENDOUS problems with, "killing in the name of comfort."

 

Johnv,

I disagree with you.

There is a difference in euthenasia of a baby and in euthenasia of an adult.

For one thing, whether you think it is right or wrong, the individual involved, at some point in their life, gets a vote on whether they are going to die or fight to live.

The babies don't get that vote.

 

Babies never get a vote, whether it's this or any other procedure. So to single that out in this case is a bit moot, imo.

Just for the records, I'm against euthenasia in general. I am, however, in favor of allowing the terminally or gravely ill to die naturally. I've never been one to equate quantity of days with quality of life. I prefer adding life to a person's years rather than years to a person's life.

 

I agree SICK and may I add EVIL!!! Some people are really messed up and disturbed!!!

Those of you who support this…are you parents?

 

Oh, they were premature...that's not a terminal condition by any definition I've ever heard. Serious and complicated, yes, but terminal?

We're not so far off as you seem to think.

 

You're assuming that those who are not militantly against it are overtly in favor of it. That's not true.

I previously said that if you're in favor of euthenasia of the terminally ill, then you'll likely not have a problem with this. If you'are against euthenasia, then you'll have a problem with this.

That makes the real point of discussion one of euthenasia of terminally ill in general, not one of just the underaged.

 

You're assuming that those who are not militantly against it are overtly in favor of it. That's not true.

I previously said that if you're in favor of euthenasia of the terminally ill, then you'll likely not have a problem with this. If you'are against euthenasia, then you'll have a problem with this.

That makes the real point of discussion one of euthenasia of terminally ill in general, not one of just the underaged. </font>[/QUOTE]There is no assumption in my direct question. Interesting how you can take a direct question and turn it into something else. What are you even talking about, lol.

If the questions applies to you feel free to answer.

 

You must not have read my presious post. I already stated that I'm against euthenasia in general.

I am, however, in favor of allowing the terminally or gravely ill to die naturally. I've never been one to equate quantity of days with quality of life. I prefer adding life to a person's years rather than years to a person's life.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 11:30 pm ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

From the article in the OP:

There is a difference in euthanasia and letting someone die without artificially prolonging life. Euthanasia, which means "the good death," is actively ending a person's life. So the life is ended unnaturally -- before the natural end.

I worked for 2 yrs. in a prolife office specifically with an attorney who dealt with euthanasia issues. Holland started this euthanasia stuff back in the 90's. Ironically, this is how Germany got so desensitized about killing the Jews. They started off in the 30's, I believe, by euthanizing older people, deformed babies, the mentally handicapped, then seriously sick people, and finally, it was not big deal to kill healthy people.

Euthanasia is just a euphemism for killing someone whose life you have determined should end.

 

Closed per 3-page warning.