Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MC5NO0.html

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - Raising the stakes in an excruciating ethical debate, a hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures in a handful of cases and reporting them to the government.

No, this isn't pleasant. But is it all that much better, morally, to use every artificial means possible to keep a baby alive & in pain for as long as possible, even if they only live for a week?

in his "spay or neuter your pet" urgings.

prolonging suffering seems cruel to me.
i believe in holland the doctor has to notify the public prosecutor and cant just act alone in deciding anything like this.
i wonder if anyone monitors what doctors do while prolonging the lives of the terminally ill

There is some evil sh*t going on in the Netherlands. The practice of euthanasia is a downward slope that can only end in the killing of individuals who are deemed less than perfect. Less we forget, forced sterilization and eugenics began as a 'quality of life issue' that quickly spun out of control as killing became easier and easier.
Look at the facts; there are already those who doubt the right of a Down's Syndrome child or a paralyzed individual's right to live and be a productive member of society.
Euthanasia is not a mercy, it is death. I know too many progressives who rally against the death penalty for serial killers but see nothing wrong with what is happening in Holland.

This is the slippery slope feared in this country if we go nuts like they have in the Netherlands.

I would never EVER visit that country. They are in the process of throwing out everything the vast majority of people value and consider good.

Here's the second to last paragraph of the article you probably didn't read:

However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States but that such practice is hidden.

"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in the United States. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."

What they are doing in the Netherlands is making a decision to inject chemicals into a child that will KILL the terminally ill child, as opposed to withholding treatment and waiting for nature to take its course with the terminally ill child as we do in the United States.

You put pets to sleep, not human beings. Like I said before, this is the slippery slope we all fear. At what point do we lose control of our live to others that do not want to be "bothered" with our care or right to life.

unless you have a suffering terminally ill child you have no right to judge others that do.

You advocate extension of suffering of another human being for no other reason than to portray yourself as somehow more morally superior.

Your analysis is emotional and not supported by the facts and your moral posturing is, quite frankly, nauseating.

That's freeper talk around here. Everyone has the right to have their death with dignity. Obviously you are either too young or too narrow-minded to take in the entire overview of euthanasia as it exists today.

Do you know how many people would cherish the ability to decide how and when they could die, especially if they are faced with a horribly painful death? I do. There are organizations established around the world to help these people have that dream come true. It's assinine to think that everyone goes to sleep and dies a peaceful death, because it only happens rarely. The rest have cardiac arrest and die within minutes, but agonizingly. Some have cancers which spread to every part of their bodies (like my dad) and their agony is intense. Some wish someone would stab them or they commit suicide in order to get rid of the pain and suffering they're going through. Moreover, those who die from a brain deterioration disorder like Alzheimers or senility leave this world without their facilities and are essentially a shell of what they once were.

Every one I know wishes that they could go peacefully. My best friend died last year from a terminal illness that essentially robbed her of both her dignity and her ability to enjoy life for the last 7 years of her life. And her fucking son allowed her the ultimate indignity by having the state bury her in a pauper's grave.

You have to understand something: everyone is entitled to die in whatever fashion they deem best, especially those with terminal and painful diseases. An infant born with severe spinal bifida for example. Do you know what that entails?

There are three forms of spinal bifida of which the first two are less likely to result in 100% mortality. The third form, myelomeningocele, is the deadliest of the three forms, and here is a passage that gives you death rates:

"Mortality/Morbidity: In the US, the leading identified cause of infant death is birth defects, and myelomeningocele is one of the most common birth defects. Mortality rates reported for infants who are untreated for myelomeningocele range from 90-100% based on several series of studies dating from the turn of the century through recent years. Most untreated infants die within the first year of life. Death in the first 2 years of life for those untreated usually results from hydrocephalus or intracranial infection. The likelihood that a 2-month-old infant untreated for myelomeningocele lives to be 7 years is only 28%."

In addition, here is the description of the resulting birth defects, and the occurrence of such defects:

"Background: Myelomeningocele is a complex malformation of the spinal cord, nerve roots, meninges, vertebral bodies, and skin. This neural tube defect is a common congenital anomaly and typically is referred to as spina bifida. This condition results from failure of the neural tube to close in the developing fetus. Medical, surgical, and rehabilitation issues arise in the patient with myelomeningocele from birth through adulthood.

Pathophysiology: Myelomeningocele is the result of a teratogenic process causing failed closure and abnormal differentiation of the embryonic neural tube during the first 4 weeks of gestation. Abnormal development of the posterior caudal neural tube produces spinal cord damage, or myelodysplasia. The anatomic level of the spinal cord lesion roughly correlates with the patient's neurologic, motor, and sensory deficits.

Abnormal development of the cephalic anterior tube gives rise to central nervous system (CNS) anomalies. The Arnold Chiari Type II malformation is characterized by cerebellar hypoplasia and varying degrees of caudal displacement of the hindbrain into the upper cervical canal through the foramen magnum. This deformity impedes the flow and absorption of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and causes hydrocephalus, which occurs in more than 90% of infants with myelomeningocele. Cerebral cortex dysplasia, including heterotopias, polymicrogyria, abnormal lamination, fused thalami, and corpus callosum abnormalities, also occurs frequently. Mesodermal structures surrounding the neural tube, such as the vertebra and ribs, also may be malformed. Mesodermal structure anomalies may lead to congenital or early onset kyphotic and scoliotic deformities.

Myelomeningocele often occurs with multiple system congenital anomalies. Commonly associated anomalies are facial clefts, heart malformations, and genitourinary tract anomalies. Urinary tract anomalies, such as solitary kidney or malformed ureters, may contribute to increased morbidity in the presence of neurogenic bladder dysfunction."

(All above passages from http://www.emedicine.com/pmr/byname/myelomeningocele.htm)



I think the important aspect of this is that euthanasia is not practiced lightly. If there is a chance at survival, and if there is a chance that something can be done to ease the pain of terminal illnesses, then that should be the first consideration. IF there is neither a chance to survive or a chance to be free from agony, then a person who has clear will should be able to choose their own personal answer. It should have NOTHING to do with their religion, it should only be an option offered when there is no other viable end to an experience as terrifying as facing your own mortality without respite.

As far as an infant is concerned, if you READ the damned article you will see that no incident of euthanasia is done without the approval of all adults involved in the child's life, and without the approval of an independent council. By taking everything into consideration, they are acting in the patient's best interests, and NOT in any way benefitting from the act of compassion they are contemplating.

I do find it hard to see people on DU with suspiciously low post counts coming in and acting like they're the only ones who have a set of moral values. Everyone here has their own experiences, their own reasons for believing in a wide variety of subjects, but one thing about most people at DU is that they know they are NOT the guardians of anyone else's decisions. It's why most are pro-choice, and why we keep the title of "liberal" in our vocabulary. Do what you will with your OWN life, but let me stay in charge of my own decisions, OR, if I am no longer capable of making my own decisions, to have someone willing to handle those deicisions with my OWN best interests in mind, NOT their own.

I intensely dislike when someone presumes to make my decisions FOR me, especially when I have that ability of my own. It's the so-called "moral values" of the radical right that make me angry enough to call a spade a spade when those inherent rights are violated or are threatened.

...to spare the suffering of a family pet?

Tell me again about this "slippery slope" of which you speak.

so by your logic, refusing to feed someone isn't killing them, it's just "witholding treatment". Whenever you make a deliberate decision to act (or not act) that results in somebody dying, you killed them.

You're splitting hairs.

It seems we routinely treat our pets better than we treat our children. The child can die a natural, albeit, horrible death, and that's okay, but you cannot allow a dog to suffer because you could be charged with cruelty. It's such hypocritical bullshit, and those of you spewing this shite should go back to freeper-land where such hypocrisy is not just welcomed, it's encouraged.:puke:

I can't understand how, with all we know about the life span of the earth so far, and how if it were a day, humans show up at about 11:59 p.m., people still want to believe that God is human, and values human life more than animal life. HUMANS value human life more, just as all species are programmed to value the life of members of their own species more than the life of another species. It's a God-given survival instinct, but human superiority is a figment of the human imagination.

And, euthanasia paralyzes the heart muscle resulting in instantaneous painless death. I've seen many animals "put to sleep" held them while it was happening, and I can tell you it is instantaneous, split-second. There may be some agonal contractions, but rarely.
I can't think of a better way to die, really.

but your post made me think about one of our terminally ill cats who was so sick we had to have her euthanized.

It was a painful decision to make because we loved her very much. My husband and I were with her at the end and we both cried the whole time. It was instantaneous and she didn't suffer.

Now we have her ashes in a box on a shelf over the fireplace. We have two other cats and we'll do the same for them when the time comes so they don't suffer.

Humans are another matter but since I've never been faced with it I would never presume to judge another person facing this kind of decision.

Pets in pain? Be kind, put them to sleep.

But humans? No way, no mercy!

for my terminally ill child. The only slipperly slope will be your nose then.

be forced to live for weeks or days? Would it be okay to dope it up and then starve it? C'mon. This is no slippery slope. This is humanity. I would much rather drift off in a chemically induced sleep, if I were terminal, that have my feeding tube cut off and linger. I watched my Mother in Law starve to death and she was on morhine and it still was not a pretty site. Until you are in that position, it is impossible to judge.

die a very slow agonizing death and it was awful. They just cut off his feeding tube -- no fluids, or anything -- and he just starved and suffocated to death. I thought it was inhumane and if it had been me lying there I would want a chemically induced sleep. It would be painless -- I would just drift off into a deep permanent sleep.

When lethal injection is given to a convicted murderer there are three different chemicals injected in their veins and each substance goes in separately. Within 20-30 minutes or so they are dead and it's painless.

That's more merciful than letting someone slowly die.

Allowing a dying person to die isn't euthanasia but a recognition of reality. That's what hospice is all about. If people are dying in pain, we need to check into our crazy drug laws, not mercy killing. Too many doctors still worry about some zealous prosecutor looking over their shoulder if they prescribe enough medicine. As for deliberately overdosing a patient, as a practical matter people do build up a tolerance to morphine. I'd give what a terminal patient what it takes to keep them comfortable with that intent.

and what about when that patient reaches the point of pain that the next morphine dose has to be so high it will take them out of their pain permanently? Then guess what? You've just used euthanasia.

Try reading a bit about pain management and drugs before you go spouting off.

I really can't see how making terminally ill infants suffer in extremes until they die is something the "vast majority of people value and consider good". Everything is a slippery slope when viewed from a certain angle but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. The key is in moderation.

you're just all over the place today, aren't you?

The Netherlands probably doesn't want bush voters there anyway. It's probably a good bet.

Pay attention to his newbie buddies here, too - they'll likely slip up soon enough.

I don't believe the slippery slope stuff... they say the same thing about gay marriage. Freedom should include the option of ending your life through euthanasia if you are terminally ill. This has nothing to do with others killing people, unless it is a child and it probably requires parental consent. It won't go any further.

What a full pant load. You got anything to say that's not straight out of the book? How hysterical can you get? Show us.

Well said! :toast:

You know, 'terrorist infants' like the ones living in Fallujah?

There's an old saying about removing a log from one's eye before you can remove the mote in your brother's eye.

I don't think we here in the US have enough ethical capital to criticize anybody else right now.

sad but true

Both are equally horrific to me.

are two entirely different things. Please think about it for a few minutes and try to understand that these are different situations.

Jeesh, did you even bother to read the article?

I have many times. It is horrible. The suffering is excruciating. Terminally ill means death, euthanasia is mercy. The issue is not as black and white as you would present. Dig a little deeper. This isn't about killing children just to kill them. This is about release from extreme pain and terminal illness.

Think about yourself in this position. Imagine you have terminal cancer and the only thing controlling the pain is Morphine. The amount of morphine increases in an effort to keep up with the pain. There comes a point where the pain is so bad that you need the morphine increased again but to do so means you will be given a lethal dose. What do you want to do? If you choose to suffer, that's your choice.

But a child screaming in pain? Parents should be able to do whatever is needed to release their terminally ill child into the next world.

No one is coming for a child. Children are not being persecuted. This is about terminal illness. It is not about chronic illness. There's a huge difference. Melodramatic mistatements do not add to the discussion. Work in a critical peds oncology unit for a year and come back and tell me you wouldn't do everything you could to end that kind of suffering.

different from ending a life. When one has been in this situation and has to make the choice, it looks a lot different. In the natural world, many of these terminal fetuses would never have carried to term. That is Nature's goodness to the world.

And regarding "starvation" in another post, it's a proven fact that patients have a much easier death if they are not force-fed food. What we have grown accustomed to with all the tubes and machines and even the injections oftentimes isn't the most humane way to do things. It takes enormous strength of character to let a baby go. I've never faced it, and I don't want to. My hat is off to those who have the courage to do it.

Do you give the fatal dose of MSO4 to ease the pain knowing it will bring about death? I can tell you honestly, we always gave the pain meds. No nurse or doctor ever had a problem with it. Parents always consented. The bottom line in this situation is that the MSO4 is the 'cause' of death and not the terminal illness. Though with time terminal illness would have been the cause of death.

This situation is actively ending a life. Do you want to tell parents they cannot do this?

This is the principle of double effect in ethics...The actual action you are taking is relieving pain...a side effect of this action is death by respiratory failure. The intended action is not to harm, therefore this is an ethical practice.

You do realise that, correct? The way euthenasia is practiced in the States is starvation. Starvation is, imho, the *worst* way to go, but because folks get in an uproar about using any other methods, starvation is the one used.

They weren't in pain, but they slowed down and stopped eating and drinking. I kept them warm and clean. The cats hid away in their safe place, but my dog wanted to be right underfoot in the kitchen. Starvation is nature's way in many cases.

I've worked with kids who are developmentally disabled-they are a joy to work with. They are happy and loving and give that love freely to you without expecting anything in return, which is what I think their purpose in life is. They are here to teach us about unconditional love, and if their birth parents can't handle it, there are plenty of people out there who can.

If a child is born with a terminal illness, than it is the responsibility of the doctors and family to give that child the best quality life possible for it's brief time here.

I do think the terminally ill have the right to off themselves, and should be allowed to seek medical assistance in order to do it effectively and painlessly, as long as they are capable of giving consent. But that's an issue of self-determination, not of killing someone because he or she is deemed "defective".

babies... not the ones with developmental problems. Why would you want somebody to live on life support for another week before dying?

Down's syndrome or paralysis.

Engage in histrionics much???

They are talking about babies who will NOT survive, who are in pain, who only have a short amount of time to live.

But I suppose you'd rather see babies like that just suffer until the very end, right?

Babies with Down's Syndrome or babies that are paralyzed usually DO survive and can lead a happy life. No one is talking about euthanizing them, either here OR in that article.

Get a grip, buddy.

Thanks for being the voice of reason around here! :)

All they are doing is saving kids who are going to die from agony. It is immoral not to do this.

you better hope you are never imprisoned in your body, in severe pain 24/7, with no hope of anything getting better.

You might be changing your tune very quickly on euthanasia not being a mercy.

And why the false logic? It's BOTH a mercy and a death. Duh. It's merciful because it ENDS the pain and suffering that medicine and medical technology cannot make better.

because I spent hundreds of hours of research on Nazi medical experiments and eugenics some time ago. I realize this is not like that, but I do think that there are legitimate ethical concerns. Where exactly is the line drawn between mercy and murder?


But do you really think this is indicative of serious problems in the entire nation? I've always thought of the Netherlands as being an exceptional progressive country.

I think the line is whether the person who is dying wants to be let go or not. You do not "euthanize" someone who wants to keep on fighting and living. The person dying must make that conscious decision.

My friend who passed last year had a DNR on her hospital charts. For those who don't know what that is, it's a "Do Not Resuscitate" order--no extraordinary efforts on the hospital's part to keep her alive. It meant NO ventilators, NO life-saving manouevers, NOTHING that would keep her alive physically, even if she was brain-dead. Considering she suffered extreme hypoxia that last week of her life, she would have been in a mentally unresponsive state, essentially without the ability to know anything or anyone, and possibly hooked up to a ventilator forever. Letting her go was HER idea--NOT the hospital's.

I worked with many elderly and terminal patients when I was younger. To be honest, it was a blessing to see some of them go--their pain and suffering was horrible to watch and their dignity slowly died along with them. That alone makes me see death as a welcomed visitor to those in horrible pain.

and you do as the Netherlands does and get medical opinions from both the baby's doctors AND independent doctors AND you talk with the parents.

Let's see: your two week old baby has a terminal illness. They will NOT survive it. They are in LOTS of pain. Eventually they will need more pain medications than their body can handle.

Do you watch them writhe in pain 24/7 and let it slowly kill them?

Or do you use compassion and common sense?

We don't even let our pets suffer like that! Come on!

In successful social species the functions of the individual must be subordinated to the best interest of the race. If surgical interference in a case will be to the detriment of society, such interference would be antisocial. If the progress of surgery is to be used to the detriment of the race... it may conceivably destroy the race. Charles B. Davenport,Director of the Carnegie Station for Experimental Evolution and of the Eugenics Records Office.

Handicapped from birth to death, what but pain, shame, humiliation and distress awaits them. Edward Berwick.

A natural death is its natural right. Edward Clapham, Fulton, New York.

As a Christian and a Socialist, I believe and hope the day of the parasite who eats his bread without earning it will soon pass whether he be mentally or physically incompetent or not. J.C. Howell, M.D., Orlando, Florida.

If we love our friends or relatives, why should we wish them to suffer needlessly? ...If this case had come up a hundred years ago, as it undoubtedly did...death would have followed birth because there was no way of preventing such an outcome.

Science has divinely given rights, but these rights are only for good and merciful ends, and cannot rightly be exercised to prolong human misery needlessly, or to cause unnecessary suffering. Benjamin Walker Saunders, Pastor Congregational Church Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin.

The most conscientious may at times decide from high ethical reasoning that extraordinary measures are not justified in prolonging life in a being who is destined to misery and suffering and who may be a positive menace to society. Lillian Wald, Henry St. Settlement.

I think all monstrosities should be permitted to die, but I do condemn the physician for making such a public ado about the matter. He has done nothing more than many physicians have done but done more wisely, and this publicity will prompt others less wise to go farther in this matter than they should. Frank Roberts, President of New Mexico Normal University.

Between extinction and sterilization the difference seems rather of degree than of kind. Those who advocate sterilization must surely approve of the course taken in this extreme case. I believe however that a matter of such vital importance should not be left to the decision of one man, but that some form of collective or legalized action should be required. Alexander Johnson, Field Secretary on Provision for the Feeble Minded.
____

All the above are letters to the editor in 1916 and the exact same public debate raged then. Letting some terminally ill babies die a peaceful death may very well be most humane, but to say it can't be Nazi-like is false. Eugenicists welcomed this debate because it made their eugenics policies seems less extreme. Hitler used it all to good effect. So while this may not be a slippery slope, it CAN be. Davenport quoted above supported Hitler.

EDIT: And many "progressives" supported eugenics.

terminal situation have a right to chose death.

Damn the Netherlands. Not letting babies suffer horribly until dying. WTF is wrong with them? I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the swastika is on their flag.

Let me guess - some truly "evil shit" is going down in France and Germany too huh?

Another morally superior visitor to DU!

How dare anyone suggest that they can be the guardian of another's decisions to end their lives, or in this case, the solemn death of a child who is suffering in agony?

Do not presume to know what choice that family has to go through unless you have walked in their shoes. A decision to let that infant go is an act of love, NOT an act of selfishness. If you read the article, you would see that choice was NOT made lightly.

I have two cousins with Down's who are WONDERFUL human beings; who are we when we choose to weed out what we deem "weak"? Who will decide who is the "weak" among us??

This is NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Downs Syndrome children or kids with brown eyes instead of desired blue, or girl instead of boy; it's to do with DYING BABIES IN EXTREME PAIN, and making the choice to END THEIR SUFFERING.

Keep insulting me if it makes you feel superior, I really don't care. :shrug:

before posting things the article never said.

Or keep looking a fool, I really don't care. :shrug:

I WAS OFFERING MY OPINION! :shrug: I didn't realize "differences of opinion" were not allowed :eyes:

in that article does it say the Dutch mean to mercy-kill babies with Downs Syndrome. They're referring to babies DYING IN EXTREME PAIN with no meds that can help relieve the pain.

But my store of patience is dwindling fast. I'm going to need a refill very soon. :D

:shrug:

For terminally ill babies who are in extreme pain that meds can't relieve, WITH drs, independant medical review board AND parents' consent.

Quote:

In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded, and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.

End quote.


If a baby had Downs Syndrome (or in an irreversible coma or severely mentally retarded), AND was terminally ill, AND in severe pain that no meds could help, AND the drs AND the independant medical review board AND the parents agreed, then the Dutch law says euthanasia is allowable.

Their law doesn't say if ANY ONE of the above is present; it says ALL of the above must be present; extreme pain that meds can't relieve...terminally ill...drs/med board/parents' consent.

They're not saying they can mercy-kill the severely retarded; they're saying INCLUDING severely retarded TERMINALLY ILL AND IN SEVERE PAIN when the pain can't be eased by meds.

AND terminally ill is horrible. Just being terminally ill is bad enough.

The two together? :cry:

on their own. To end their misery would be inhumane and so LIBERAL.

Be careful who you call evil. The Dutch are a far more compassionate people than Americans will ever be.

Sheesh. It's sad enough to see histrionics, logical fallacies and strawmen, but you just gave your strawman Downs Syndrome. That wasn't very nice.

RL

We are not talking Down syndrome. Terminally ill means they will die soon. My take is if the child is in no pain or the pain can be managed then let nature take it's course and allow the child to die on it's own. If the child is in agony then allow them peace. Only with the permission of the parents, doctors and a judge. It's not a slippery slope if you don't allow it to become one.

Before the 1940's most babies were born at home.. When a baby was born horribly deformed, the midwife or country doctor, just would not cut the cord, or would make no attempt to "help" it..

People would be told that the baby was stillborn..

Once babies were born in hospitals with paperwork and lots of prying eyes, that practice was discarded..

there's a practice called "lotus birthing" where the cord is never cut and the placenta remains attached to the child until the cord dries up (generally within 1 week).

I hate movies, tv and books that show a rush to cut the cord. It's so unnecessary and could even be harmful.

I was gearing up to go on one of my rants. I do that enough. ;)

First the terminally ill and mentally challenged, then Jews, lesbians, and gays, then Slavs, and so on. My great, great uncle had his young son, who will ill, killed by the Nazis in 1935.

This is JUST like that...

:eyes:

If you start out being extremely ethical and you continue for sometime, what's to say that this "ethical behavior" will continue?

I don't believe you can cross this ethical line and know that it will always remain a constant. Things tend to deteriorate rather quickly, when human beings are concerned.

Yet you rail away...

More ridiculous hysteria.

It went on in the US as well. Parents were encouraged to have "unfit" children put to sleep. The "unfit" faced forcible sterilization in this country into the 70's (Maybe later if the newly elected senator from Oklahoma is anything to go by.) Who can guarantee that euthanizing a baby with a terminal illness won't broaden to euthanizing the next because of quality of life? Who will help a family care for a handicapped child when society decides a simple shot would be in the child's best interests?

First of all, the babies in the kinds of conditions they are talking about are RARE. Extremely RARE.

Secondly, before you can answer your own questions, you need to go watch a baby or a toddler with a terminal illness with NO hope of survival in extreme pain. You need to watch their every moment as they die. And then come back here and tell us they should have their suffering prolonged like that.

That's CRUEL. Why would you want to do that to someone? Horrific.

cut the cord, but not tie it off, allowing the child to bleed to death. Though I do not know if even that is true. I'm sure some medical professional will chime in soon.

This is going to be a *hot* thread.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org

Basically, he just said that "back in the day", there were no facilities available to farm/country people to care for a severely handicapped child, and strong healthy children were a necessity, so the doctor/midwife/family made the tough decision and it was handled as a stillbirth..

Ask any old person about stillbirths.. Every family probably had some..

or fortunately, modern medicine has helped that to a degree impossible in the "old days." It was one of the reasons why mothers died in childbirth for centuries, because there was likely no ability to keep the mother alive in sterile conditions and without the possibility of massive infections.

Things have changed, but not all that has resulted is commendable, as you say. Sometimes, regardless of ANY other factors, it's best to let Mother Nature take care of things herself.

The Groningen Protocol would authorize it only if the parents, the child's medical team and a group of independent doctors agree. That slope doesn't sound slippery to me - it sounds like it's paved with checks and balances. I frankly admire the humane pragmatism of the Dutch.

The other side uses the slippery slope stuff all the time and it is ridiculous. Things can be controlled and laws can be in place just like they are.

and compassion. They're little human beings who suffer just as we do, to draw that suffering out is cruel and serves only to make people uninvolved in their lives feel that they are superior protectors of innocent babydom.

fifty words, you have summed this situation up very nicely. Bravo!

I didn't see anything in the article about the parents. If it's all those people involved, then I don't have a problem with it either. Just another one of those cases where people are quick to condemn until something outrageous happens to them.

But most of these babies would not have been born alive without medical practice and procedures, so this option to end terrible suffering without prospects of aleviation is very positive imo.

DemEx

That was the word I was looking for. Sometimes I wonder whether people have actually suffered in this life. The article says terminally ill children, why in the world would someone want to prolong agony. I do not get it.

:eyes:

Fuck it, if a baby's in pain due to some severe disfigurement and can't possibly live a normal life by any standards, put it out of its misery quick. It's the humane thing to do.

it's a case of extreme pain that cannot be eased by medical means AND they have no prospect of improvement.

Terminal. Two choices: watch them suffer and die a slower death or end their pain and suffering.

Anyone who would argue for the first choice either doesn't have a heart beating in their body or has never seen a child slowly die in pain. Or both.

"The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement..."

The pain CANNOT be eased and there is NO prospect for improvement.

Babies with Down's Syndrome don't fall into that category at ALL.

If I had a baby that I knew was in constant pain, the pain could *not* be eased, and there was NO hope for improvement, HOW, how could I justify prolonging its suffering? Just watching it in pain and knowing there's no hope? Hell, we're kinder to our own ANIMALS than that!

God awful stuff happening in the Netherlands.

...as what we're doing in Fallujah. How about we worry about the crimes we're paying for with our own tax dollars before throwing mud at other countries?

:mad:

They are being kind to the babies! They are taking them OUT of horrible pain and suffering! Just because it sounds strange at first doesn't mean you can't completely disregard the humanity and facts. That is EXACTLY what the republicans do.

in all possibilities he is a freeper in disguise.

It kills the pain & eventually kills the patient.

And that doesn't just happen in the Netherlands. Don't kid yourself.

morphine. It was unintentional but a blessing since he was terminal and suffering through the opiates.

after a c-section. Not only was it ineffective as a pain-killer, it had its own nebenwirkung. I had to get quite aggresseive in refusing it, those who were administering the drug were quite shocked at my ABILITY to be so lucid. I TOLD YOU FUCKERS, THIS SHIT DOES NOT WORK FOR ME!

For this reason I am a strong advocate of Medical Marijuana. Both opiates and cannabis are naturally occuring and humans have receptors for both. Both options need to be available for patients.

possibly have to leave a terminally ill person suffering in pain?

I can spare my patients from having to suffer from excruciating pain; their death is quick and painless. Euthanasia is a gift to our pets that we somehow cannot extend to the people we love.

If my Dad or one of my Older Brothers were screaming in pain and were terminal, it would be hell on earth. These are very proud men who were always good to me. If one of them asked me to sneak a loaded handgun into the hospital. To be honest, I can't say what my decision might be.

That's why marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. It doesn't treat the pain but instead, puts the user into another reality where they can manage the pain ... often marijuana proves a better pain management tool than opiates - which quickly builds tolerance ergo so many deaths due to overdose.

Your pants are full pal, go get cleaned up.

Like termites. They come to make trouble and have nothing to offer.

to die after weeks or months of excruciating pain from a terminal illness than have somebody eutanize you? That's your choice, but I shouldn't have to go through it if I don't want to and infants shouldn't either if everybody involved agrees.

standard of living then we do and apparently a superior moral code as well. It appears that unlike this nation's leader, who edorses torture, and once publicly defended his fraternity branding pledges with a hot hanger, the Dutch don't believe in letting childern suffer.

that a lot of them are ATHEISTS!! I think the whole country is just a big satanic cult!!

:evilgrin:

but not glad to see you think your dog requires greater mercy than a child.

Bastard. I guess Tom II here would rather watch a baby die slowly and in pain.

What kind of horror is in HIS heart?

you put your pet to sleep? Is it not a living, breathing, loving being that should be kept alive by any means possible, no matter how it suffers? As it lies dying, unable to lift its head, and loses bowel and bladder control, and screams in pain - that's enough to make you want to kill it after all those years of loyalty to you? Or should you only kill a pet because it's not worth the expense?

As much as we may hate it, there comes a time in most lives when death is to be "encouraged" - when the pain is unbearable, the hope for life, and the desire to fight are gone. Hospice care for the dying actually hastens death in many cases and we all believe Hospice is a good thing.

I hope to hell your joking tom II, cuz if you ain't your one sick pup.

If they are terminally ill, why not just let them die naturally. The little baby's life is so brief, who are they to say when it should end. I don't like this. It's not the same as a terminally ill adult who can make his own choice about when to die.

You probably would, as well.

killing people out of convenience is not acceptable.
I recently watched my grandfather die, screaming with pain. My concern was for his comfort, not my own peace and quiet. I have plenty of that now. It was clear he wanted to die, because he had stopped eating. We respected his wishes, but we didn't plug him with a 45.

because you did not tube feed him when he would no longer take nourishment. No, I think you were compassionate. I'm sure you gave him all the pain medication that could be tolerated. But this issue is murky ... add the radical right wing religious nut cases and you have pure chaos and heartless insanity.

Arrest all those dope smokin' terminally ill seniors! DOJ?

so I did not allow anything he hadn't already put in writing. Even the right can't demand that a 93 year old man dying of cancer be forcibly kept alive. He also told me he wanted to go. It was ultimately his choice. Babies can't articulate their choice, which makes it all so difficult.

There's no reason to limit access to pain killing meds. How cruel you are.

he didn't. Consider your own lack of humanity for passing judgment on people when you don't know the circumstances and haven't even bothered to read the posts. My grandfather died. This sort of hostility is odious.

Pain meds usually = mercy killing. Even though our society refuses to acknowledge that.

And that's actually a more risky approach than what is being discussed here. If you follow the pain meds approach, then this decision is made covertly or even unintentionally by the doctors rather than the family.

God I wish the right would actually take a science class.

Unlike an adult you can't flood a baby with paid medicine (at least any that would be effective 24/7)... well actually maybe in this case it would be a good idea to listen to your suggestion, since it would lead to death.

I would think babies could take smaller doses of pain medication rather than being "flooded" as you say, but I claim no knowledge in the subject.
I responded to what I saw as a very callous statement by the person who said "people get tired of the screaming"--as though it was about convenience rather than the well being of the child.
This is a very difficult moral question, and each case needs to be judged by the family in question.
I do believe all life as value, even if it is a very short life. And whether euthanasia is appropriate depends on the circumstances.
There are families, however, who have abortions because the child is going to have downs syndrome, some other defect, or they simply want a child of a different sex. I don't think such things can be legislated, but I know they are profoundly immoral.

No one is plugging anyone with a 45!!

Do you understand at a certain point the pain becomes so great, that the dose of painkiller required to relieve the pain KILLS the patient?

Everyone here who is against this needs just ONCE to watch a baby or toddler die slowly in horrific pain with no hope of anything but a slow, painful death. Go ahead. I dare you. You'll be singing a different tune, and FAST.

My OES was suffering from Pneumonia. The vet told me that even through the pet medications he would feel and actually "drown from the fluid accumulating in his lungs". And of course this would be a slow process 1-3 days and he would, in the interim, struggle to breath.

No way, I immediately made the decision to euthanize my big beautiful boy of 9 years. FYI before I had them give the fatal dose, at the advice of a vet tech friend, I paid to have them inject a LARGE dose of pain killer. Why? When the fatal dose is given, he'd already be at peace and half way there, i.e., didn't have that feeling of drowning one often gets before general anesthesia kicks in.

These issues are not cut and dry, even for our beloved pets.

Have you ever witnessed the pain they endure? Why would you want to put an infant through that when there are alternatives which could end the suffering?

My grandfather faced a terminal illness, and by the point of his diagnosis would not have been able to make this decision either. Thankfully, his doctors did what they could within the law and he only lasted a few weeks. But it was still awful- and much more than he should have had to bear.

see my post just above about my own grandfather.
If a person choses to end his or her life, that is his/her choice.
But to kill a young baby who can't make that choice, that isn't right. I suppose in part it depends on the circumstances. If we are talking about supporting them artificially with machines, I don't see a need to do that if there isn't a chance they will survive. But if it means actively killing someone who can otherwise live, that is murder.

"But if it means actively killing someone who can otherwise live, that is murder."

Since the illness is *terminal*, your point is moot. We're not talking about people or babies or the elderly who would otherwise be able to live for goodness sakes. We're talking about a policy which acts to prevent or alleviate the *needless* suffering of a baby or other human.


I posted my question before or at the same time as yours about your grandfather. I'm sorry that you and your family had to go through that, but I'm even sorrier for your grandfather. I hope his doctors did as much as they could to ease his pain. Though unfortunatley from your post, it doesn't sound like they did. I hope you've all found peace.

and his was painful, but we all agreed no extraordinary measures should be taken to keep him alive. He wouldn't have wanted that. In fact he had a living will stating so.
I was able to insist he get adequate medication, so his pain was lessened. The problem was that for a time he had refused medication because he wanted to be alert enough to say goodbye to the family. At a certain point, however, his pain became too great to endure, and I made the decision, supported by the rest of the family, that he should have pain medication that would alleviate his suffering. He died in a nursing home affiliated with the Mayo Clinic (he himself a former doctor there) so his medical care was as good as any of us could expect.
I think it's unreasonable to expect that death--or life for that matter--should be without pain. Some people are fortunate in that they escape such pain, but many of us don't. It is part of human existence.
It was very difficult for me to be by his side and watch him die in pain, but I wouldn't have traded the experience for anything in this world. At this point I can't articulate how or why, but it was a profoundly meaningful experience.

Your post indicates/implies that you were far more focused on your own feelings and circumstances rather than his pain and suffering.

"It was very difficult for me to be by his side and watch him die in pain, but I wouldn't have traded the experience for anything in this world. At this point I can't articulate how or why, but it was a profoundly meaningful experience."

Not traded for anything? How about being able to sit there with him as he passed *peacefully and without pain*? That was what I was begging the doctors for, anyway. I wanted another 32 years with my grandfather, but I knew that wasn't going to happen because of the nature of his illness. So instead, I wanted what was good for him, what could ease his suffering, and what would allow him to die with dignity and grace. It wouldn't have made my life any easier for him to pass sooner, but it certainly would have made his death easier- for HIM, which is what should be important at times like that.

I'm glad you thought it was a profoundly meaningful experience for you, but I'm sorry that he apparently had to suffer for your experience. I can't imagine that thought process, though. Sorry.

How you can read what I said and reach that conclusion is beyond me.
It was obviously a mistake for me to discuss something so personal on these message boards, to allow strangers with no understanding of my grandfather or our family to comment. I can't help but further that
mistake by writing further here.

My grandfather was dying of lung cancer that had metastasized into his bones, a very painful condition. He himself chose to limit his
pain medication because he wanted to to be lucid enough to visit with his family. That is why he was in such great pain. He did not
suffer for my benefit. My thoughts were always with him. I wonder what you suggest we should have done?

When we saw that his pain had increased greatly, we asked for medication to be administered on a consistent basis, whether or not he asked for it. On Tuesday he was fully lucid and was in charge of his own medical care, as he was on Wed. afternoon. The man had been head of neurology at the Mayo clinic. I assumed he knew more about his condition and own wishes than I did. I did not think it my place to tell him he should die immediately because it was difficult for me to watch him in pain.
By Wed night his pain had become unbearable and he became delusional. I talked to every nurse in that ward to make sure his pain medication was administered regularly and with enough strength to easy his suffering. I continued to seek out the staff all day Thursday to make sure he was properly cared for. Although we originally had tried to encourage him to eat because he was growing weak, I realized he wanted to die. We respected that wish. I asked the nurse practitioner to allow him to die in as much comfort and dignity as possible. The nurse practitioner commented on what a wonderful person she thought I was for respecting his own wishes above mine. I told her that no one in the family would insist on any extraordinary treatment, that we all felt similarly about the issue. Apparently, in your view, she should have told me how selfish I was because I didn't want to kill him immediately. He died that Sunday.

What would you have considered it morally responsible to do? Should I have smothered him with a pillow, shot him, slit his throat?

The death was his, but because I loved him, it was also part of my life. His life and death touched me, and I learned from it.

I must say that I find your comment callous. I would never dream of passing judgment on how you cared for your grandfather. That is a matter for you and your family.

I do think there is a tendency in our culture to imagine that life should be without pain. We seek alcohol, drugs, and materialism as an anecdote to that pain. Pain and death are part of life. That is the human condition.

family cared for your grandfather. If I had been judging you and/or your family, I would have commented on the point that you've made more than once- that you obtained pain meds for him against his wishes. But I didn't. What I wrote was that I found it very strange for you to say that you wouldn't trade the experience of being at his side when he died in pain for anything in the world. That comment struck me as being very odd. Maybe it was just semantics, I don't know. I could see you saying that you wouldn't trade being at his side at his death for anything in the world, but I didn't understand why from your post it seemed necessary for him to be in pain during that process. Again, maybe it was just the way it was written.


We'll just agree to disagree then. You apparently see pain as a part of the human existence which must be endured, no matter what. I know that pain is inevitable in life, but I also see that humans have advanced enough that we should be able to alleviate that pain if at all possible. Peace.

I did not give him the medication against his will, but I won't bother giving you more details of the incident, since it's obviously pointless.

Life is a set of experiences. One can either choose to learn from them or not. I don't always succeed--probably rarely succeed--but I try.

Buddhism teaches that one must confront pain, or it is prolonged. You embrace it rather than flee from it. Death and life are part of a continuum.

I only hope you showed more compassion toward your grandfather and others in your life than you have toward me.

Buddhism teaches that one must confront pain? Are you going to tell that to a baby with bone cancer who is screaming in pain that medication can't relieve?

Since when do we let infants dictate their own destiny? Do we let them decide what formula they are fed, how much sleep they get, what clothing they wear? No, we as parents decide what is best because we have the benefit of experience and we have their best interests at heart. Just because the decision is painful doesn't mean that it's wrong, or in your words, profoundly immoral.

You made decisions for your grandfather when he was incapacitated but when he regained consciousness he made his own. Great. Babies will never be able to make decisions for themselves. Sometimes life is not life but merely existence and being in a state of unrelieved pain that will never abate is a really crappy existence. Having a pulse is not what it means to be alive. Having hope for a future without excruciating suffering is what makes us alive and a baby will never be able to comprehend that. It is the quality of life that counts, not quantity.

Mercy granted to others in the form of letting go is most often painful to those of us left behind. That is no reason not to grant it.

it's clear you have not tried nor want to understand what I say, so I will not persue it further.

is not unlike trying to make order out of chaos. Mandate said it best. You are all over the map here.

It's a difficult issue, deeply personal and I should not have shared it here. I suppose I did not write with the sort of academic precision that I usually do. Thanks for your compassion and understanding. It's disheartening to learn how cold and uncaring people on these boards are.

I find it hard to understand your point.

Your grandfather, who I'm sure you loved, made a decision to allow himself to cross over, and used pain meds so that he could be cross over in as little pain as possible. But the presence of that pain made it all the more meaningful for you, correct?

Okay, imagine that it wasn't your grandfather, but your child. A child who could no more comprehend its pain than choose to end it. That child can only stare at you uncomprehendingly and you, as it's parent, are helpless to stop it? Where is the meaning in that?

It's cruel to make anyone suffer, and to suffer when you don't understand the reason or the source is the worst torture imaginable.

As a parent, I want to make it better for my child when they are hurting. If that meant making the choice to speed them on their way when the only alternative is to watch them writhe in incomprehensible pain until they die, then I chose to send the on.

Your grandfather was very blessed to be able to choose the mode in which he crossed. Not everyone is so lucky.

My point was only that life is valuable even if brief, that it is up to families to make these decisions, and that they are complex moral issues.

I find it odd that more than one person has misunderstood my point about pain. The presence of pain did not make the experience of being with my grandfather meaningful for me. The meaning was in spending that time with him and the love we shared in that tragic but important time of his life. The pain was there, unavoidable.
I much as I wished it, I could not will away his suffering entirely. But I do believe God answered my prayers by taking him relatively quickly. Other members of my family found it impossible to sit with him because of that pain. I understand that; I know how hard it was. But I was determined to comfort him as long as I could and to see that he got proper care. I found meaning it that experience. Why other responders find that abhorrent, I cannot begin to understand. I can only conclude it has to do with the tremendous fear and discomfort people have when contemplating death.

My initial reaction at reading the article a the top of this thread was horror at the idea of little children being killed by doctors, but I realize it is entirely dependent on the circumstances and the wishes of the family--as I have said about six times on this thread.

Euthanasia is not always the right decision. Killing someone because they are in pain is not justified in all circumstances. Any individual is free to make that choice for himself, but it is more difficult when you make the choice for someone else--as in the case of a baby. That one gets tired of hearing a baby scream--as one post suggested--is not sufficient cause. Again, so much depends on the circumstances, that it is not possible to make sweeping generalizations.

I wish I had confidence that Dutch doctors made those decisions very carefully, but I cannot be so sure. Euthanasia laws in Holland are very lax. It is legal to assist a depressed person commit suicide, or anyone else who wishes to die. In Germany, the cannibal got only five years in prison because his lawyer argued that the victim wanted to die--and apparently killing someone who wants to die is not considered murder in Germany, even if you dismember him and cook his body parts while still alive. From my perspective, this offends decency and morality. The Florida legislator's insistence on intruding into the life choices of a comatose women is likewise wrong. These are complex moral questions and need to be treated with great care. The choice must be made by families, but the law does needs to set certain limits. Exactly what those limits should be is a difficult question--but I don't think the answer lies entirely on the side of existing laws in Florida or the EU.

... it's just a matter of when and how.

I would want the decision to end my suffering in the hands of my family and doctors and nobody else.

I don't see how a baby's inability to make a conscious choice to die is criteria for extending their involuntary suffering. They don't know why they're in pain, they only feel it and suffer without having a frame of reference for it.

Right to life has a flip side, the right to death. Keep the gov't out of it.

Don't euthanize your baby. Period. Let the others make their own choices.

Because they're talking about babies IN EXTREME PAIN that medicine can't relieve. They're talking about dying babies that are dying IN EXTREME PAIN.

So YOU think we should just let such a baby die slowly & excruciatingly. Not very compassionate of you, is it.

We don't limit it to infants and children, though. And it isn't openly acknowledged that a "mercy killing" has taken place, but the medical providers know what they are doing.

My grandfather was diagnosed with mesothelioma, was in severe pain, had a great deal of fluid on his lungs, had great difficulty breathing, could barely move, became bedridden almost immediately and had the onset of dementia within a week and a half. Thank God that his medical providers gave him morphine, in ever increasing doses, and that he only stayed "alive" for a few weeks. I can't imagine him having to go through that for an extended period. And I can't understand why our family shouldn't have been able to make the decision to help him sooner than what even the morphine and/or delautid (sp?) did.

And the fuckers who think that my grandfather should have had to suffer just to make them feel safe from that allegedly slippery slope can bite my ass.

question if whether my country will be invaded from the inside or from the outside.

the Catholic hierarchy about this. Yikes! Shh ... just between us. ;)

isn't it? Like someone said, the fundies and others of their ilk (meaning radical right) are going to be horrified, but WTF? Don't we allow our pets to die with dignity instead of suffering from horrible pain? Wouldn't any of us choose to die a peaceful death than one marked by unending pain?

My dad died in such pain. The hospital wouldn't give him morphine as he lay dying, and crying out in agony. I can't condone that kind of death, regardless of who it is.

Moving to help those who can not voice their own wishes is a move forward in evolution. We're not talking murder--we're talking a human being who is not going to live, period. A human being who can't tell anyone that dying asleep is preferable to dying in pain. Why the hell do people not see that? I know--too many of them "out there" don't want to go against "God's wishes." Well, fuck that. Religion is an excuse to keep from acting. They want to put the blame on someone who is ethereal and not going to be "punished" for doing what is the best.

I'm glad to see some countries are progressive as we here in the USA get further and further sucked into an ecumenical hell of creationism and fundamentalism.

If they give them enough medication to ease the pain, they have to give them a lethal dosage. I'm not saying that that is the case in every case (4 in 2003, apparently.) I've seen this in last stage adult cancer patients - where even having a sheet on your body causes such excruciating pain I'm not sure I could handle it.

There is a slippery slope, definitely, but I'd rather they report it to legal authorities, and with proper procedures, instead of doing it on the sly, and perhaps without giving the parents proper counseling and guidance. Imagine wanting your dying child's suffering to be eased any way possible, having to ask the doctor to commit a crime, doing it furtively, and having the guilt compounded by that. (I'm sure the Dutch parents suffer guilt as well.) At the same time, doing it to patients who are not suffering from a fatal illness makes me uneasy. I think that is where the boundary is for me.

my daughter was 5 weeks premature and did very well in the NICU, however i can't tell you how many babes were only a pound or so and then their parents suffered as those poor mites just got sicker until they died. Some survived but only to be severely disabled...I found that cruel...a parent stuck with a 500K hospital bill and a permanently brain damaged child all because someone wanted to set a record on how premature an infant they could save...

but they're only human. We're able to save children today who would have died 20 or even 10 years ago - and I mean alive and well - not harmed by their early birth. Every medical person has seen people die when a full recovery was expected and full recovery of patients who were DNR. Doctors are going to make mistakes in both directions - they're only human.

don't sweat it. There a few others on this thread with even more faux outrage.

Did you read the article?

anyone who has lost a child (thank God).

surprised. Do you have a rational reason for leaving a
terminally ill infant to suffer?

Just because. :eyes:

I wonder how many strangers he would welcome to make crucial decisions for him without ever having met him, do not know what he is going through, and who would never have to bear the consequences of their very subjective opinion of what constitutes insanity.

That's a mighty high horse you've climbed upon.

To me, insane is letting a horrible situation get more and more and more horrible knowing there is no hope for a positive outcome. To me, insane is letting people with no stake and nothing useful to offer make life and death decisions for others.

nice personal attack. Obviously I don't agree, but I didn't personally attack anyone who supports this.

Now let me just tell you what you can do with that high horse you were writing about...

do do do tell. I quiver with anticipation :*

What personal attack? I questioned your *ahem* logic, and your judgmental attitude not you, Bono.

-- i.e. women's right to choose how they deal with their own pregnancies, which is the choice that "pro-choice" refers to -- I DON'T KNOW.

Why would you bring up abortion in a discussion of euthanasia?

To win an award-of-the week, maybe? Well, here ya go:



http://winace.andkon.com/pics/

It is so easy to sit in our safe American homes where the horrible things in life are not allowed in and pontificate about what others who are not us do.

I watched my genetically flawed pink alive newborn neice turn purple then black as her body slowly died in 23 hours from lack of circulation. Even transplant could not have saved her. But it did not temper my rage at the grandfather who asked that she be kept alive until anti-abortion grandma could see her, but he had a Saturday business meeting first. Her brain shut down 60 minutes and her little malformed heart stopped beating even with machine assist ten minutes before they arrived. The only way I could be there was to know that the doctors made sure she was in no pain.

There are things worse than death and it takes rational, educated, non-fundie adults to decide what that might be (unless they are the parents then religion can be taken into account.) Almost nobody questions mercy killilngs of animals or even sometimes fellow soldiers in war. We have to really consider these things, if only to reject them.

If we were supposed to suffer Jesus would not have healed the sick.

"There are things worse than death"

I'm so sorry that your family experienced that truism firsthand.

death is an inevitability. "Disallow" it as you please, it comes anyway.

Bright Blessings on your sweet little niece. No one should have to go through that.

How horrible it must have been for her parents.

I can't possibly even begin to imagine that horror.

If you had a dog that was horribly suffering with no chance for recovery and refused to euthanize it, you'd be charged with inhumane treatment of an animal. Why is it "humane" to allow children to suffer needlessly?

It's the Godly thing to do; SUFFER in horrible pain! SUFFER and SCREAM until death!

It CLEANSES the baby!

Oh but make sure you don't allow your pet to suffer; that would be inhumane.

Geeez I despise rightwingnuts; sick motherfckers.

I can go with euthenasia for adults... but minors (especially those too young to speak for themselves) is pushing it too far.


Who will decide what is "terminally ill" or "too far gone"?

this sorta shit can get outgha hand very quick, euthenasia on minors can lead to euginics, and master races and, well, you know the rest.

Of all people you'd think the Dutch would know how important it is to avoid that kind of naziesque stuff.

Geeeez.

Ok fine; let's let all babies just SUFFER in EXTREME PAIN while they die.

Unreal.

and be damn sure to specify a rigirous, laid out, extensive process for determing when that is acceptable.

This stuff is dangerous and I would advise extreme caution to make sure that no one can or no group can take it too far.

Remember the boiling frog syndrome.

in the article.

It just seems like a potentially very dangerous thing to allow.

I would like to see suffering ended, but one cannot let that desire overwhelm ones opinion when it comes to such a hazardous issue.

Their law is VERY CLEAR on WHEN mercy-killing is allowed; when a person unable to consent, including infants, severely retarded, or in irreversible coma ARE DYING IN EXTREME PAIN that meds CANNOT RELIEVE, and only with DRS, independant medical review board AND parental consent.

ANY deaths outside these guidelines would be ILLEGAL.

Are you suggesting they would then down the road add to the law? Later on allow for killing a baby girl when the parents wanted a boy? Wrong eye colur? Not "perfect"?

They could just make such a law right now if they wanted to.

WHY would you disagree with putting persons who fall WITHIN THE LAW'S GUIDELINES out of their misery rather than allowing them to suffer extreme pain as they die?

Because of what they might do to that law down the road??? We could argue "slippery slope" argument about sending kids to school; some will learn things...then want to be doctors...and then decide to perform abortions and/or euthanasia. Better not send any kids to school; slippery slope.

Should anyone decide to "mercy-kill" a person that isn't within the law, then it would be an illegal killing, which would be murder. And no law or lack of law stops people from killing if they want to kill.

From here:

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/world/9890729.htm

"A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors."

Parental consent is not required.

Let's just let terminally ill in extreme pain people lay there dying in extreme pain until they die.

Now me, I find that to be torture and extremely inhumane.

I'd prefer we treat humans with the compassion we give our pets. I believe pets deserve it more than humans do, they're better creatures than we are...but still, I think we should aim for treating humans with the same level of compassion.

So do the Dutch. Good for them; there's hope for the rest of the world.

Are you ok with parental consent NOT being required? I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that is extremely fucked up.

Most doctors know better than most parents. It's the PATIENT that is of the utmost importance in such situs, imo, NOT the parents. What is best for the PATIENT is the top priority. And medically, it's the DOCTORS who know better than parents. The law also requires a review by an independant board of medical doctors.

Regardless of what teh parents want, IF that child is terminally ill and suffering intense pain that cannot be relieved, HELL YES I'd be fine with the doctors showing mercy for the child that its parents cannot, for whatever their reasons.

Many parents in the USA refuse any and all medical treatment for their children as being against their religion. Should their kids be allowed to die because of the parents' religious beliefs? I say NO.

Should parents be allowed to let their *TERMINALLY ILL AND IN SEVERE PAIN that meds cannot relieve* child to suffer needlessly until death because the parents think suffering intense pain "cleanses the soul" or because they don't have the strength to let the child go, or because of any multitude of reasons? I say NO.

And I'm also keeping in mind the fact that the Netherlands are very much a free democracy, which means any outraged parents would go straight to the media and if the parents had a case against the doctors and independant medical review board for deciding against the parents' wishes, the Dutch citizens would ensure such a thing wouldn't happen. And the Dutch government, doctors, parents, and citizens know this very well.

"potentially dangerous things to follow" have we followed to our benefit? Sheesh, EVERYTHING has it's hazards.

and this whole thread. TEAMS of doctors have to make this decision with the parents and the baby has to be TERMINAL. NO chance of recovery and in pain that cannot be alleviated.

Why would anyone want to prolong that?

Good God, I think I've seen (read) it all now.

What a bunch of crap! The Netherlands is one of the most progressive countries in the world, and the Dutch people are awesome. Having been there several times, I can tell you that the moral "slope" bullhit is just that. This is more evidence of the Dutch being way ahead of the curve in progressive governing. They've had legal same-sex marriage for awhile, and their society is far from falling apart. Want to know how they deal with gays in the military? They just set up separate divisions for gay servicemen and women, and I was told it works just fine, but "don't tell" our government that.

The use of drugs have been decriminalized there, hence, there is no profit in drug running.

(When you think about it, the biggest lobby AGAINST the decriminalization of drugs in the US could be organized crime itself.)

Prostitution is legal there. The registered worker goes to their office in this designated part of town and practices his or her profession.

I've never lived in the Netherlands, or even visited there, but it sounds like a very progressive, well-ordered and non-judgemental society.

because we are stuck with an albatross around our necks known as "Jesusland".

Our Puritanical beginnings as a nation never leave. Even the alleged liberals are too anal and have too many religious hangups to get past the hysteria. I thought I was on a freeper board reading some of these posts.

Yeah, lets euthanize our animals to put them out of pain, but let's let our terminally ill starve to freaking death in horrid terminal pain....oooohh so benevolently, so quietly, alleviating our Christian guilt and responsibility, it's "God will" ya know," we are never given more than we can handle"....on and on the Bullshit goes. Ever sit for a couple of weeks and watch someone starve to death when they were taken off life support? Oh, its so lovely, all we do is withhold sustenance. How pleasant, how reverent, how archaic, how bestial, how ignorant, blind and heartless we can be.

These are terminally ill children. We got the same argument here in Oregon about the right to die law. The hysterical were screaming that we would clear out the mentally challenged and the weak. No, sorry that isn't how the law is written or used and neither is it in the Netherlands.

Was just thinking same thing myself.

It's NOT a law allowing anyone to kill any baby for any reason; it's a law allowing the RELIEF from EXTREME PAIN of a TERMINALLY ILL baby when even meds can't relieve the pain, and ONLY with the drs, medical review board & parents' consent.

HOW the hell could ANYONE think this is wrong bad/wrong/evil law???

offer self-referential reasons that alleviating the suffering of others is wrong or immoral because it somehow bothers them and although they have never faced a remotely similar situation, they believe that the parents who consider or who consent to this do it for the sake of convenience.

Ugh! You said it, it's bestial.

as much as I support euthanasia for adults who so choose.

As has been mentioned thoroughly throughout this thread, this is a procedure for TERMINALLY ILL babies. Not babies with genetic defects. Not babies with birth defects. Not babies who were born the "wrong" sex. This is for babies who will have very short, very painful, and very meaningless lives.

I also agree with the many posters who bring up the point that if one has an animal who is suffering needlessly, the owners would be charged with animal cruelty if they refused to have it humanely euthanized. But in America, we're perfectly okay with letting those with relentless pain that cannot be controlled by narcotic pain medicines just suffer til the (literally) bitter end. That's okay, but letting Buddy the Retreiver suffer is just DOWNRIGHT CRUEL!!!

To those who are talking about the slippery slope of eugenics---having travelled extensively through Holland, and knowing several Dutch people, I can tell you that the Netherlands is one of THE ONLY countries that I would trust to use this procedure and NOT fall into dastardly trap of eugenics or 'master race' nonsense.

---

I am a nursing student. As of the present, I have had limited contact with patients and families. That will change as I progress through school and eventually through my nursing career. HOWEVER---the main point that has been stressed from our instructors AND other nurses is that as a nurse, my MAIN concern is the patient. What the patient needs, what the patient wants, and what I need to do to ensure that the patient is in as good of a state both mentally, physically, and physiologically as possible.

For many people, that would mean something as simple as a back rub and a tylenol. For others, that means the ending of a life that is riddled with pain and suffering that will never end but will only ever get worse.

How can we, as a society, tell people that they must endure a lifetime of pain and sorrow and suffering because we feel 'icky' if we allow them to have their lives ended with dignity and without pain and without suffering?

How can we, as a society, look upon our most vunerable citizens---newborn babies who rely on us for EVERYTHING---food, clothing, love, acceptance, and medical needs---how can we look upon a baby that will never lead a fulfilling life, that will never live past a few weeks, that will never in their short lives be without constant pain and suffering--how can we look upon that child and say "Sorry, bub, but you gotta suffer"?

The most humane act, imo, is treating others with humanity, compassion, respect, and equality. I don't see allowing terminally ill adults, or terminally ill infants to suffer because we, as a society, are uncomfortable with death, benefits ANYONE.

but ended up just taking them away from their families and keeping them hidden in mandatory institutions.

Who are we to judge who lives or dies?

They're NOT talking about DISABLED CHILDREN.

JFC!!!

They're talking about TERMINALLY ILL babies who are DYING, and are in EXTREME SEVERE PAIN THAT MEDS CAN'T RELIEVE.

Babies who are DYING, AND in SEVERE PAIN, and NOTHING can take away that pain, and with the doctors, independant medical review board, and parents' consent.

NOT "disabled" children; DYING IN SEVERE PAIN children.

You would rather such children be left to die in pain?

the proposal is to formalize euthanasia for children, those in terminal coma and the severely retarded. Sounds like a slippery slope to me!

if you didn't include the rest of it: 'who are terminally ill.' Not just children, or in a coma, or severely retarded, but must ALSO be terminally ill.

Severely retarded = not available.

Severely retarded + terminally ill + meds don't work = available.

Easier?

It very clearly states ANYONE who cannot give permission, INCLUDING children, those in a coma, and the severely mentally retarded IF they are TERMINALLY ILL, IN SEVERE PAIN that no meds can relieve, and with doctors, parents and independant medical review board's consent.

Got it?

IF ALL those conditions are present; TERMINALLY ILL...IN SEVERE PAIN that meds cannot relieve...and with the consent of the doctors, the parents AND an independant medical review board.

Now...WHY would you be willing, with any person falling within the above guidelines, to allow that dying person to suffer extreme unrelieved pain until they die?

I know they're not talking about disabled children.

My point was who are we to judge who lives or dies? It's a valid and important point. Putting chemicals into someone's body to kill them is much different from allowing nature to take their life by turning off life support. and that's completely different from witholding food, or air or whatever. Life is precious goddammit!

From an older Knight-Ridder article:

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/world/9890729.htm

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

But YOU prefer to let terminally ill children who are suffering severe pain that medicines can't relieve to just continue to suffer needlessly until they die.

Not my idea of compassion.

Have a nice day :hi:

Have a nice day yourself...and I hope someday you'll put the welfare of the terminally ill suffering severe pain first, ahead of all other considerations. I hope every nation will some day be able to do so. Then we will have achieved a level of humanity and compassion.

:)

:hi:

It's sad that you think otherwise. IMO it's just simple human compassion, nothing "saintly".

that spout their morality have ever had to deal with a terminally ill person. They want to prop themselves up above the rest of us with their morals. I agree with you Lynn, it's about compassion no more no less. And as far as people making the distinction between an infant and an adult I say bullshit. Since when do we expect an baby to determine it's own destiny. As if anyone could think it would be an easy decision to end your child's life in this heartbreaking situation. I call them the monsters.

My aunt was diagnosed with uterine cancer several years ago. They operated, but then they realized it had already spread. Long story short, she had two years of decent health after discovering the cancer, then she started going downhill fast.

Well, her doctor kept suggesting all these experimental treatments and surgeries and her husband kept encouraging her to do them because, of course, he wanted her to be cured.

Despite the fact that she had a VERY fast-growing cancer that had reacted precious little to rounds of chemo and radiation. The outlook was extremely bleak but they went ahead with these "heroic" procedures.

She ended up having EIGHT surgeries, the last one removing most of her stomach and intestines. She had a tube coming out of her belly and was in such bad shape, the huge wound in the middle of her abdomen never fully closed. They had to clean it out several times a day, she had to have round the clock care. She withered away to 85 pounds.

From the first experimental surgery to her death was 32 months. She had the unclosed wound for 8 months. One day they noticed a horrible smell and realized it was her own waste, and they had to go in and fix her intestines again. ANOTHER surgery. In her condition. It was mind-boggling.

She was in her early 60s and her body couldn't handle more surgeries, but the doctor and her husband kept insisting and she kept agreeing. Probably too weak to argue.

I watched that woman die the most horrendous death you can imagine. It still turns my stomach to think how long she was kept alive in horrible pain with NO hope of recovery and ZERO quality of life.

The last few months, she lost the ability to speak. In the last month, she went blind. She could only MOAN.

So. She lay there moaning for a MONTH at the end.

Then slipped into a coma and stayed in a coma for another seven weeks.

My GOD. If it weren't for all those surgeries and experimental treatments, she would not have gone through all that. My cousin, her daughter, said she would have NEVER put her mother through that and she still has nightmares about her horrible death.

No one deserves that. Her life was prolonged artificially and at great cost to her. There wasn't much of a human being left in that body.

I told my husband "Don't you EVER do that to me" and he made me agree not to try to do that to him, either. Totally horrifying. She wasn't allowed to die with any dignity or humanity. She wasn't allowed to die when she probably should have. Her pain was prolonged for months. For nothing.

I'm sorry for your aunt to have had such a terrible death. It reminds me of "Wit", (directed by Mike Nichols and starring Emma Thompson). Thompson was a very competent professor who had ovarian cancer. Long story short, she was nothing but a vehicle for the doctors experimental treatments--that's all they cared about. She died an excruciating death, and they could have cared less.

edited for spelling

but I know her husband had good MOTIVES, he just couldn't be reasoned with. He was just so desperate not to lose her that he kept talking her into submitting to all these horrendous procedures that just prolonged her misery.

I had a grandfather who was 82 when he died. Six months before he died, they found cancer in his stomach. They thought it was small enough that surgery would get all of it, so they went ahead, despite his age, because they thought he would have another good 3-5 years of life.

They took most of his stomach and a bit of his small intestines, the surgery was HELL to recover from (remember he was 82) and it was three months after the surgery before he felt normal again. Then BLAM they found out it had spread and three months later, he was gone.

One of the last lucid things he told me was that, if he had known that surgery would have only bought him three months, he would have never done it. The pain of recovering from it wasn't worth an extra three months only to turn around and die of the cancer anyway.

I know that's not directly related to this......but I understood his point and would probably feel the same way. He was actually pissed off at first that he went through all that for only three more months of time.

When he died, it was from the overdose of pain meds. His pain was just too great. His liver had shut down, he was totally jaundiced. In constant, excruciating pain.

with cancer. My mom was diagnosed with multiple myeloma when she was 85. She underwent chemotherapy for 9 years. She had 9 very good years and then the chemo stopped working. She died at 94 after about 2 months of being very ill. She fought until the very end. The doctor said he treated her much longer than he should have because SHE wasn't ready to give up. I don't believe she gave up even at the very end, when she could not swallow even a drop of water without aspirating, choking, and her lungs filling up with fluids. The only thing that could have been done for nourishment was a feeding tube, but a feeding tube would have been useless because her body had stopped making red blood cells and her body was starved of oxygen. She died in Hospice, relatively peacefully, on high doses of morphine. They probably could have kept her alive for another month or two with heroic measures, but it would have been torture, pure and simple.

had was of a cancer patient who had wanted to be relieved of his pain, i.e., euthanized or given enough medication to relieve the pain permanently. His family wanted to keep him alive, he lived until he was conscious of and saw his insides blowing up all over the room, he lived for about 5 minutes afterwards. Everything was so gangrenous that there was nothing to sew to stop the hemoraging. There was body matter all over the place. Major clean up and I'm sure in his last moments, he didn't feel any dignity.
I'm with the Dutch, imagine a baby screaming in pain and uncomprehending. Why let the baby suffer so much? To wash away the sins of the world? I don't think so.

and I have a low post count. We live in bush amerika. The Netherlands have been in the business of survival a lot longer than America. If the process of determining the life or death of an infant in extreme pain is set up by someone from the Netherlands than do it now. If its set up by our new amerikan pope JerryPat or his repuke flunky senators, it will probably resemble the same racial profile of our prison system. Thats the slippery slope. I'm sorry if I sound paranoid.

I wouldn't trust America with it either. Considering the immorality of official America (I cannot call it anything else, however, I know there are scores of decent Americans living there) I'm loath to trust America with any kind of power, even over its own citizens. Sorry, but that's the truth. I'm not saying that other countries are perfect, but America hasn't nearly any excuses, considering the fact that it was founded by people trying to get away from prejudice and persecution, uses 25% of the world's resources, has as much power as it has, and has the number of educated people it has.

Other than that, I think this law is very progressive. I have seen diseases practically turn human beings into animals (Creutzfeld-Jacob Syndrome) and I know that if ever that happens to me, I want to die before I become a baying animal cowering in the corner of my hospital bed. Or if I'm in such excruciating pain no amount of non-legal pain reliever will help. And if my newborn child is dying, in excruciating pain, I don't know how I'll react, but I would want medical advice, and I would want that option to be there.

where the numerous safeguards were described. Medicine
is a science, there is no disputuing when an infant is
seriously sick due to terminal brain cancer.

So, let me get this straight. Some of you who are adamantly pro-choice suddenly have a problem, a "moral dilemma", with what's going on in the Netherlands? You give a woman the right to abort a presumably perfectly healthy fetus, but yet you're outraged by the ending of a life that will spend it's very short existence in misery and agonizing pain? Are you guys kidding me?

Some are just expressing their beliefs & some are known disruptors. (

has to do it. Why not Amsterdam?

I fail to see how anyone could be opposed to this. As innumerable others here have already pointed out, it applies solely to terminally ill infants. (As a note, most terminally ill infants will not have cancer, although some of you have focused on cancer as an issue, but rather other issues.) The decision is made by the family and docs, NOT the state, or the hospital ethics board, or Jerry Falwell, or anyone else.

As for its application in the U.S., that's presently so far outside the realm of contemplation that it's almost funny. C'mon folks: our oh-so-esteemed Atty General Ashcroft, mercifully on his way out, tried (unsuccessfully) to scuttle the Oregon Right to Die Act by hook AND crook. If BushCo is going to do its damndest to stand in the way of a state's firm stance that it wishes to permit assisted suicide under very particular conditions by terminally ill, competent adults, then it sure as hell ain't gonna let terminally ill babies be euthanized any time soon.