Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - 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, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives — a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.


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.

The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said.

Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

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, and when parents think it's best.

Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.

The hospital revealed last month it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital or the doctors.

Roman Catholic organizations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to the announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.

"The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into a vertical cliff," said Wesley J. Smith, a prominent California-based critic, in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.

"As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting."

According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen, but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals.

Groningen estimated the protocol would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country of 16 million people.

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge.

However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the 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 in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."

More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

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, and when parents think it's best.

Seems to me, that these people are best equipped to make this kind of decision on a case by case basis rather than legislating blanket regulations.

[SkyDekker 1,341]

Quote

Seems to me, that these people are best equipped to make this kind of decision on a case by case basis rather than legislating blanket regulations.

I agree, I think it actually is a great way of dealing with the issue.

Much better than all the hidden euthanasia going on in other parts of the world.

[Nightingale 0]

It's sad that they're euthanizing kids with epidermolysis bullosis. Stanford is damn close to a cure. EB is a disease that affects the connective tissues of organs and skin. The "glue" that holds the tissues of the body together isn't made right due to a genetic defect, so with the slightest bump, the skin can blister and start falling apart. The kids who have EB are called "Butterfly Children" because their skin is as fragile as butterfly wings.

Many kids with EB have good lives, despite their disability. People with the more severe forms of EB usually die in their thirties due to skin cancer, but many of those people have very full and fulfilling lives.

Do a search on the internet for EB and Butterfly Children. I'd bet not one of those kids on those websites would tell you they wish their parents had euthanized them when they were babies.

Killing someone who cannot choose death for themselves is not euthanasia. It's murder.

Jessica's Story Jessica is seven, this page is written by her mother.

Cristina's Page Cristina is 21 years old, and has one of the most severe types of EB.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Much better than all the hidden euthanasia going on in other parts of the world.

Like China, eh?

"Shit, a girl?" Then she's killed...

Wait, wait, wait, but China is supposed to be our buddies, atleast that's what our "buddy" Clinton setup for us.

God damn large country with horrible human rights and various reason why we have to be nice to them...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Just call them "full term fetuses" and then it's OK.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Just call them "full term fetuses" and then it's OK.

If that's the case, then I'm for late term abortions. Like into the 15th year...there should be a clause for some people to be beaten with a stick for being bad parents as well.


(I can hear all of you, those parents in the crowd snickering at me since yall know Morgan and I want kids...settle down, there'll be plenty of time to laugh at me once we have kids).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Killing someone who cannot choose death for themselves is not euthanasia. It's murder.

It's not as simple as that. Each case is different. In this case with the Netherlands it's a society that's mature enough to look at this issues and make a choice. I cant begin to imagine how hard and painful it must be for a parent to face such a decesion.

[Ripple 0]

Wow! That gives me really conflicting feelings.

I'm an advocate of euthanasia, even for those who cannot request it. However, this smacks too much of Nazi supremacy, for me.

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[SkyDekker 1,341]

Quote

Like China, eh?

I'll bet you there is a fair bit of it going on in North America as well.

[SkyDekker 1,341]

Quote

However, this smacks too much of Nazi supremacy, for me.

wrong country.

I think you'll find that in the cases where this has happened, lots of thought and independend review has taken place. Parents have consented, independend doctor's have consented and after the fact prosecuters consented.

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

It's not as simple as that. Each case is different. In this case with the Netherlands it's a society that's mature enough to look at this issues and make a choice. I cant begin to imagine how hard and painful it must be for a parent to face such a decesion.

I agree. And based on the article posted, 18 children euthanized in 4 years isn't a high number. Mostly likely they were very severe cases with virtually no chance at meaningful life. I can't imagine that it is an easy decision for any parent. No children here yet, but it would have to be a totally hopeless situation for me to do that to a child. Even then I probably wouldn't euthanize, only request no extreme medical care (respirators, etc.)

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[SkyDekker 1,341]

Quote

No children here yet, but it would have to be a totally hopeless situation for me to do that to a child. Even then I probably wouldn't euthanize, only request no extreme medical care (respirators, etc.)

Now imagine knowing that whether or not you you administer extreme medical care, the baby is going to die an extremely painful death....

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

Now imagine knowing that whether or not you you administer extreme medical care, the baby is going to die an extremely painful death....

Is there any way of truly knowing that? If I did, then of course I would euthanize, but that doesn't make it an easy decision.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[Ripple 0]

Quote

Quote

However, this smacks too much of Nazi supremacy, for me.

wrong country.

I think you'll find that in the cases where this has happened, lots of thought and independend review has taken place. Parents have consented, independend doctor's have consented and after the fact prosecuters consented.

Er, just because its not Germany doesn't mean there can't be similarities. In my opinion.

I do not believe that killing someone (of whatever age) because they are not perfect, i.e. disabled, can be right, no matter how much thought, and by whom, is put into it.

There appears, from what I can see, to be a drive for eliminating any condition that is not wholly perfect (the Nazi connection). There appears to be a drive towards cure not cope, and thus erradicating anyone who cannot be cured and doesn't fit the ideal.

Edit: Didn't make much sense!

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[Remster 27]

Quote

because they are not perfect, i.e. disabled, can be right, no matter how much thought, and by whom, is put into it.

I really dont think this is the issue here. Yes, uncontroled it has the potention to degrade to such abuses, but we're talking about ending the life of babies who will not be able to get out of pain and suffering. Its still a debatable issue, but not to the same level you are arguing.

Remster

[mr2mk1g 10]

I don’t agree that it boils down to removing imperfections from the population.

I grew up in the countryside at the height of Britain’s myxomatosis epidemic. From an early age I was acutely aware of the humanity inherent in a well-placed boot atop the head of a suffering bunny. As a child I dispatched many such a wretched creature.

My action wasn’t motivated at all by a desire to eliminate myxi from the rabbit population, or because the animal was in any way host to undesirable, weak myxi-susceptible genes. I did it because the poor fucker was dying a slow, painful and miserable death – one which I would not have wish upon it. Removing it from the mortal coil in as quick a way as possible was the [I]most[/I] humane thing I could do.

Even as an 8 year old child I understood the concept and without glee, embraced the practicality of it on a relatively regular basis.

[Guest]

Won't be long before they starting offing those who are merely inconvenient.

mh

.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Won't be long before they starting offing those who are merely inconvenient..

You're basing that on.... ??

[storm1977 0]

Well, as you know PK, movements start out small, and then become "normal and accepted" Then people push the envelope just a bit... then that become accepted and the Norm..... Then they push it again.

Wouldn't surprize me if in 20-50 years then are killing "retarded children".

Woundln't shock me one bit.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Remster 27]

Quote

Wouldn't surprize me if in 20-50 years then are killing "retarded children".

I doubt that would happen in a democratic society as a medical norm. My bet would be that in 20-50 years we use gene therapy on onborn children who are diagnosed with now impossible to treat problems. Or something like that.

That being said, lots of unwanted kids are killed today in various places on earth.

Remster

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Well, as you know PK, movements start out small, and then become "normal and accepted" Then people push the envelope just a bit... then that become accepted and the Norm..... Then they push it again.

Then gays want to get married and the pendulum swings back the other way

Seriously though, societal issues tend to move in more of a pendulum action, not constant expansion of "the envelope". Some people want one extreme, some want the other, most want what is in the middle. That's the way society and democracy works.

But getting back to this issue, the fundamental key to it, IMO, is that like I said way back in the beginning of the thread, it seems to me that the parents, independent doctors, and primary care givers are much better suited to make these kinds of decisions than blanket legislation that can't possibly consider every circumstance.

It would shock me tremendously if they were killing retarded children. And I'd bet that would shock the majority of people who are faced with the choice of euthanasia for a terminally ill and horribly suffering infant. Contrary to what you seem to be implying, the motivation for leaving a decision like this out of gov't hands is compassion for the suffering infant, not a desire to get rid of a problem.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

That being said, lots of unwanted kids are killed today in various places on earth.

Very true.... and many of them within our borders.
When are we over turning Roe vs. Wade????

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, as you know PK, movements start out small, and then become "normal and accepted" Then people push the envelope just a bit... then that become accepted and the Norm..... Then they push it again.

Then gays want to get married and the pendulum swings back the other way

Seriously though, societal issues tend to move in more of a pendulum action, not constant expansion of "the envelope". Some people want one extreme, some want the other, most want what is in the middle. That's the way society and democracy works.

But getting back to this issue, the fundamental key to it, IMO, is that like I said way back in the beginning of the thread, it seems to me that the parents, independent doctors, and primary care givers are much better suited to make these kinds of decisions than blanket legislation that can't possibly consider every circumstance.

It would shock me tremendously if they were killing retarded children. And I'd bet that would shock the majority of people who are faced with the choice of euthanasia for a terminally ill and horribly suffering infant. Contrary to what you seem to be implying, the motivation for leaving a decision like this out of gov't hands is compassion for the suffering infant, not a desire to get rid of a problem.

I know it is currently the Doctors call and not law, but it could head that way!!!!

AS far as the other issue.... We can diagnos some conditions in the woom.. Downs Syndrome, CF, others... It is easy to assume that some people receive abortions based on diagnosis of retarded children. I think that it is fair to say that that occurrs. I can see with time this being allowed further and further through the pregnancy, and ultimately after birth.

Am I the only one that thinks that?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I can see with time this being allowed further and further through the pregnancy, and ultimately after birth.

Am I the only one that thinks that?

You're probably not the only one that thinks that, but I believe you're misguided. You and I differ on when we believe a fetus is a human life. But we can both agree that there's no room for discussion regarding a baby that's already been born.

Just because we have a different line where we think life begins, doesn't mean that I value life any less.