Some sick babies must be allowed to die

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cristiano
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cristiano

Guest
Some sick babies must be allowed to die, says Church

· Bishop admits right to life for newborns is not absolute
· Nuffield inquiry to publish guidelines on premature births

Amelia Hill and Jo Revill
Sunday November 12, 2006
The Observer

Church of England leaders want doctors to be given the right to withhold treatment from seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances. The move is expected to spark massive controversy.

The church leaders’ call for some children to be allowed to die - overriding the presumption that life should be preserved at any cost - comes in response to an independent inquiry, which is to be published this week, into the ethics of resuscitating and treating extremely premature babies.

Guardian Unlimited Special reports

This is one more issues to deal with before the communion with the Catholic church.

The Vatican (Card. Barragan) says not acceptable!!! (Link in Italian)
 
Help us, save us, have mercy upon us
and keep us O God by thy grace…
 
Cristiano said:
Some sick babies must be allowed to die, says Church

· Bishop admits right to life for newborns is not absolute
· Nuffield inquiry to publish guidelines on premature births

Amelia Hill and Jo Revill
Sunday November 12, 2006
The Observer

Church of England leaders want doctors to be given the right to withhold treatment from seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances. The move is expected to spark massive controversy.

The church leaders’ call for some children to be allowed to die - overriding the presumption that life should be preserved at any cost - comes in response to an independent inquiry, which is to be published this week, into the ethics of resuscitating and treating extremely premature babies.

Guardian Unlimited Special reports

This is one more issues to deal with before the communion with the Catholic church.

The Vatican (Card. Barragan) says not acceptable!!! (Link in Italian)
Click to expand...
Just the next logical step in the culture of death.
 
On reading the article, this does not appear to be a call for euthanasia at all. It is more of a response to the ethical dilemmas posed by modern medicine, similar to the ones we see at the end of life. Ethics committees grapple with many similar ones everyday.

Very premature neonates require highly invasive painful procedures and run a high risk of cerebral injury. I have a good friend who is a neonatal intensive care nurse and there are instances where the parents do decide to withdraw care. This would be similar to situations faced in intensive care units every day across the nation. My husband is a cardiologist and faces these ethical dilemmas regularly.

I don’t think it’s fair to compare this with abortion, although there is plenty of that in the United Kingdom. It’s more an attempt to grapple with the ethical realities presented by modern medicine that can cause incredible pain and suffering in it’s sometimes futile attempts to save lives.
 
WenckebachCath said:
On reading the article, this does not appear to be a call for euthanasia at all. It is more of a response to the ethical dilemmas posed by modern medicine, similar to the ones we see at the end of life. Ethics committees grapple with many similar ones everyday.

Very premature neonates require highly invasive painful procedures and run a high risk of cerebral injury. I have a good friend who is a neonatal intensive care nurse and there are instances where the parents do decide to withdraw care. This would be similar to situations faced in intensive care units every day across the nation. My husband is a cardiologist and faces these ethical dilemmas regularly.

I don’t think it’s fair to compare this with abortion, although there is plenty of that in the United Kingdom. It’s more an attempt to grapple with the ethical realities presented by modern medicine that can cause incredible pain and suffering in it’s sometimes futile attempts to save lives.
Click to expand...
In the UK they already do this with the elderly. My father-in-law was left to die in a hospital ward because they did not think was cost-effective and keep him alive.
 
from the daily dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416003&in_page_id=1770

And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
Life does not have a price.

The church stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were “strong proportionate reasons” for “overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained”.
Life is precious

Yet the Revd Butler’s submission makes clear that there are a wide range of acceptable reasons to withdraw care from a child - with the cost of the care among the considerations. “Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided,” he wrote. "The principle of justice inevitably means that the potential cost of treatment itself, the longer term costs of health care and education and opportunity cost to the NHS in terms of saving other lives have to be considered."
caring for someone should not be about the bottom line of cost

Either a life is precious or it isn’t. Once you start declaring exceptions you have broken the line and there is no going back.
 
from the daily dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416003&in_page_id=1770

And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
Life does not have a price.

The church stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were “strong proportionate reasons” for “overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained”.
Life is precious

Yet the Revd Butler’s submission makes clear that there are a wide range of acceptable reasons to withdraw care from a child - with the cost of the care among the considerations. “Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided,” he wrote. "The principle of justice inevitably means that the potential cost of treatment itself, the longer term costs of health care and education and opportunity cost to the NHS in terms of saving other lives have to be considered."
caring for someone should not be about the bottom line of cost

Either a life is precious or it isn’t. Once you start declaring exceptions you have broken the line and there is no going back.
 
You know I don’t really know the specifics of what is being advocated here. Sometimes news articles can mess up technical ethical arguments and maybe he messed up what he was saying. Of course, if your going to refuse care, it has to be done with the right intention, and what he says to say in the article seems to be wrong. You still need to give the baby care as far as an incubator, air and food.

Another unfortunate thing, is there is a sort of ambiguity here, that it can easily be abused.
 
Why? Why should one child just be allowed to die? Do we as human beings made in GOD’s image decide who is worth savings or not?

Funny (well maybe not funny) but it is against the law to just let kittens and puppies die. But now human children will be allowed to do so.

Pray hard and keep praying.
 
I read a story a year or so ago in a ladies magazine (think it was Good Housekeeping but can’t be sure) about a little girl now 5 who was not expected to survive after her birth, she beat the odds and lived, then it was said she would be profoundly retarded, blind and many other problems.
The little girl is pefectly normal only “problem” is she wears glasses but is far from blind.
This is just one of many children who would be given a death sentence if this comes about.
Kathleen Elise is right their are laws against letting puppies and kittens being left to die, yet our children don’t seem that important to these people.
EVERY HUMAN LIFE IS WORTH SAVING! no matter what!
 
WenckebachCath said:
On reading the article, this does not appear to be a call for euthanasia at all. It is more of a response to the ethical dilemmas posed by modern medicine, similar to the ones we see at the end of life. Ethics committees grapple with many similar ones everyday.

Very premature neonates require highly invasive painful procedures and run a high risk of cerebral injury. I have a good friend who is a neonatal intensive care nurse and there are instances where the parents do decide to withdraw care. This would be similar to situations faced in intensive care units every day across the nation. My husband is a cardiologist and faces these ethical dilemmas regularly.

I don’t think it’s fair to compare this with abortion, although there is plenty of that in the United Kingdom. It’s more an attempt to grapple with the ethical realities presented by modern medicine that can cause incredible pain and suffering in it’s sometimes futile attempts to save lives.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, we can no longer trust those in the medical profession to stop at the cases you point out. I’ve written a letter of protest to the college, and sent the story(I saw it in Zenit ) to everyone on my email lists with hopes that they will do the same. I’m also hopeing everyone who reads this thread will send a protest letter.
I believe it will not stop here, it will go on to toddlers etc. etc.
What a world:mad:
 
First, my credentials. I’m 100% pro-life, anti stem cell, anti euthanasia and e-mailed my reps and senators to try to save Teri Schaivo.

But I’m worried about the rhetoric I’m hearing from y’all. Are you saying that any and all heroic medical treatments must be extended to any and all newborns, regardless of the specifics of the case? I’m skeptical of such a position since it seems ratehr different than established catholic teaching as regards end of life treatment obligations.

Obviously, food, air, shelter (warmth) must be provided. But is it REALLY the catholic position that any treatment dreamed up by a doctor that might hold a chance of preserving a child’s life must in all circumstance be used? Sounds like you are saying so.

I agree that we’ve got a problem in that we cannot trust doctor’s judgement in this culture of death. Obviously we cannot accept the idea of actively killing a ‘defective’ child. But I’m not sure we shouldn’t put the question of how much modern medical meddlin’ is required to the church instead of making knee jerk reactions.
 
If we look at the historic patterns that these policys have taken, I don’t think we are over reacting or having knee jeck reactions. We give a quarter of an inch and they(culture of death) take 500 mile leaps. I see it all heading the way Hitler started and no, I don’t think thats an overstatement.
You say, obviously, food,air, shelter, must be provided; but nothing is obvious any longer:mad:
As a potential mother, this scares me to death to think a doctor or team could decide my newborns life wasn’t worth the bottom line profit cost.
I’m positive, absolutely, the baby of a underemployed minority couple would not receive the same consideration as a couple who are well off and in the majority race, in these curcumstances.
 
beckers said:
from the daily dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416003&in_page_id=1770

And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
Life does not have a price.

The church stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were “strong proportionate reasons” for “overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained”.
Life is precious

Yet the Revd Butler’s submission makes clear that there are a wide range of acceptable reasons to withdraw care from a child - with the cost of the care among the considerations. “Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided,” he wrote. "The principle of justice inevitably means that the potential cost of treatment itself, the longer term costs of health care and education and opportunity cost to the NHS in terms of saving other lives have to be considered."
caring for someone should not be about the bottom line of cost

Either a life is precious or it isn’t. Once you start declaring exceptions you have broken the line and there is no going back.
Click to expand...
Life does have a price. We can calculate exactly how much it costs to keep people alive by medical means when they would have died if left to nature.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Why? Why should one child just be allowed to die? Do we as human beings made in GOD’s image decide who is worth savings or not?

Funny (well maybe not funny) but it is against the law to just let kittens and puppies die. But now human children will be allowed to do so.

Pray hard and keep praying.
Click to expand...
Of course we decide who is worth saving. It happens everyday. Many folks do it for themselves.
 
Carrie_Andrews said:
If we look at the historic patterns that these policys have taken, I don’t think we are over reacting or having knee jeck reactions. We give a quarter of an inch and they(culture of death) take 500 mile leaps. I see it all heading the way Hitler started and no, I don’t think thats an overstatement.
You say, obviously, food,air, shelter, must be provided; but nothing is obvious any longer:mad:
As a potential mother, this scares me to death to think a doctor or team could decide my newborns life wasn’t worth the bottom line profit cost.
I’m positive, absolutely, the baby of a underemployed minority couple would not receive the same consideration as a couple who are well off and in the majority race, in these curcumstances.
Click to expand...
Race has little to do with it. Money does. When the Saudi princes get sick they take whole wards in some of the best US hospitals. They also donate huge sums to these hospitals as a sort of retainer.
 
I disagree, I think race still is a big issue all around the world and in our own country. Of coarse if it’s a billionaire, they’ll get the best treatment available regardless. But anyone who thinks we are free of racism is dreaming and it plays a big part in everyday life.
I’ve been to the ER room with a less affluent arab woman and heard the staff say “oh she’s from Africa, but she’s not black” . It’s a very discomforting thing.
I think we are digressing here from the topic though.
 
Carrie_Andrews said:
I disagree, I think race still is a big issue all around the world and in our own country. Of coarse if it’s a billionaire, they’ll get the best treatment available regardless. But anyone who thinks we are free of racism is dreaming and it plays a big part in everyday life.
I’ve been to the ER room with a less affluent arab woman and heard the staff say “oh she’s from Africa, but she’s not black” . It’s a very discomforting thing.
I think we are digressing here from the topic though.
Click to expand...
I don’t know anyone who thinks we are free of racism. But I do say money trumps race in medical care.

When the wife of a billionaire Saudi prince comes to the hospital, they probably say something nasty, too; then give her a whole floor and the best care available. That includes flying in specialists from all over the world.
 
Well, you did say “race has little to do with it” and it does have alot to do with everything. I have alot of friends of different races and I see what happens when push comes to shove. The point I was originally making is, the more power we give, which isn’t ours to give in the first place, the more vulnerable the people who are already living in the margins become. So you take the disabled infant, and add in these factors and hand the little life over to this team that has been given the power to decide who gets to live and where does it all end.
And I doubt if my arab friend and I had shown up at ER with an escort of servants, throwing money around, that any negative word would have been said, to our faces anyway.
 
Carrie_Andrews said:
Well, you did say “race has little to do with it” and it does have alot to do with everything. I have alot of friends of different races and I see what happens when push comes to shove. The point I was originally making is, the more power we give, which isn’t ours to give in the first place, the more vulnerable the people who are already living in the margins become. So you take the disabled infant, and add in these factors and hand the little life over to this team that has been given the power to decide who gets to live and where does it all end.
And I doubt if my arab friend and I had shown up at ER with an escort of servants, throwing money around, that any negative word would have been said, to our faces anyway.
Click to expand...
Hers’s what I said:
“Race has little to do with it. Money does.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top