Some sick babies must be allowed to die

[jediliz]

What is really sad is that there are people out there that agree with this statement. I was just on theforce.net in the senate forum (where controversial issues are debated) and someone said that a disabled newborn needs to be euthanized to “Save him/her from suffering”.

SOmeone quoted Jesus “whatsover you do to the least of your brothers, you do unto me” but someone said “not everyone is a Christian.”

Wow.

So, if little billy was born with a cleft lip, he should die? If little Annie was born with cerebral palsy, she needs to die?

That’s the attitude of those who embrace the CULTURE OF DEATH.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

Hers’s what I said:
“Race has little to do with it. Money does.”

???

 

[WenckebachCath]

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.

Thank you manualman. I think you articulated my sentiments exactly. Actually, I used to be more involved in the pro-life movement, but tired of the attitudes you describe that assume that all medical treatment must be accepted, without question, otherwise one is disrespectful of life and pro-Euthaniasia.

Our medical technology has reached such an advanced level as to present us with many complicated ethical dilemmas that cannot be solved by simple answers. The fact that the United Kingdom is trying to address them is laudable. Nothing in what I read indicated that they were advocating killing deformed babies, but merely trying to acknowledge that there have to be some realistic limits on the the application of advanced neonatal technology. 22 weeks pregnant is approximently 5 months along. This is not an unreasonable cutoff to declare that is a miscarraige, not a pre-mature birth. These babies have a 1% chance of even leaving the hospital, and they are literally million dollar babies. Is this a reasonable expendeture of limited financial and medical resources, with a slim hope of a positive outcome?

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

Thank you manualman. I think you articulated my sentiments exactly. Actually, I used to be more involved in the pro-life movement, but tired of the attitudes you describe that assume that all medical treatment must be accepted, without question, otherwise one is disrespectful of life and pro-Euthaniasia.

Our medical technology has reached such an advanced level as to present us with many complicated ethical dilemmas that cannot be solved by simple answers. The fact that the United Kingdom is trying to address them is laudable. Nothing in what I read indicated that they were advocating killing deformed babies, but merely trying to acknowledge that there have to be some realistic limits on the the application of advanced neonatal technology. 22 weeks pregnant is approximently 5 months along. This is not an unreasonable cutoff to declare that is a miscarraige, not a pre-mature birth. These babies have a 1% chance of even leaving the hospital, and they are literally million dollar babies. Is this a reasonable expendeture of limited financial and medical resources, with a slim hope of a positive outcome?

If your baby had a 1% chance, you wouldn’t want the doctors to try and say his life? I would, no question. In the report in Zenit it says:“The Royal College sent its request to the Nuffield Bioethics Council, the body in charge of examining the ethical issues involved in the new developments of biology and medicine. The latter, an influential private commission, is about to publish a report on critical decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine”.

You’ve read that report then?

“To better understand the issue and its implications of a bioethical nature, ZENIT interviewed neonatologist Carlo Bellieni, director of the Neonatal Intensive Therapy Department of the Le Scotte University Polyclinic of Siena.”

Bellieni: Three things disturb pediatricians.

One, having to become executioners of a death sentence. We are not doctors for this, especially at a time when the death sentence is stigmatized by an increasing number of states.

Two, having to consider the patients themselves as non-persons. There are authors who say that newborns are not persons because they still do not have self-awareness, precisely a requirement for this sensation – affirmations amply denied by science and experience.

Three, having to consider the handicapped not as a life to help and respect but, with a phobic attitude, as a second-tier life

 

[HoppityRedux]

If your baby had a 1% chance, you wouldn’t want the doctors to try and say his life? I would, no question. In the report in Zenit it says:“The Royal College sent its request to the Nuffield Bioethics Council, the body in charge of examining the ethical issues involved in the new developments of biology and medicine. The latter, an influential private commission, is about to publish a report on critical decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine”.

You’ve read that report then?

“To better understand the issue and its implications of a bioethical nature, ZENIT interviewed neonatologist Carlo Bellieni, director of the Neonatal Intensive Therapy Department of the Le Scotte University Polyclinic of Siena.”

Bellieni: Three things disturb pediatricians.

One, having to become executioners of a death sentence. We are not doctors for this, especially at a time when the death sentence is stigmatized by an increasing number of states.

Two, having to consider the patients themselves as non-persons. There are authors who say that newborns are not persons because they still do not have self-awareness, precisely a requirement for this sensation – affirmations amply denied by science and experience.

Three, having to consider the handicapped not as a life to help and respect but, with a phobic attitude, as a second-tier life

What is a person? An entity either qualifies or does not qualify as a person depending on the definition. When people use different definitions, each is correct. When they use no definition, neither is correct.

 

[manualman]

The catholic church considers a human person to come into being at conception. I agree. No other point makes any sense.

I’m concerned that people here are accepting a flase dilemma. Either: 1. Do every surgery and every technique available on every baby born, no matter the odds or cost. 2. Draw a cutoff point in development and throw any babies born before that stage in the OR trash can.

This is poor reasoning. Sure it is messy and requires difficult discernment, but why can’t a moral principle be established that say that when the consensus of medical opinion is that the child will not be able to recover enough to live outside a hospital, ICU it is a moral choice for the parents to decide to withold heroic medical treatment for their child. At this point, it is still morally required to provide basic care (food, shelter, perhaps oxygen and incubator, etc) and to give that child love as long as he naturally lives. This is not killing, nor is it euthanasia.

Some folks were highly critical of Mother Teresa because she brought in a lot of money in donations and her establishments rarely provided more than food, shelter and first aid. The critics wondered why she didn’t spend some of the money on better care for those she took in. They never got it that her mission wasn’t to heal these people, it was to love them. They lacked love a lot more than they did medicine! I think the same principle might apply to infants with no reasonable chance of recovery.

The fact that socialized medicine in England is the one seeking to make the decision makes me all the more NOT want to see it come here! But that’s a whole nother thread.

 

[HoppityRedux]

The catholic church considers a human person to come into being at conception. I agree. No other point makes any sense.

I’m concerned that people here are accepting a flase dilemma. Either: 1. Do every surgery and every technique available on every baby born, no matter the odds or cost. 2. Draw a cutoff point in development and throw any babies born before that stage in the OR trash can.

This is poor reasoning. Sure it is messy and requires difficult discernment, but why can’t a moral principle be established that say that when the consensus of medical opinion is that the child will not be able to recover enough to live outside a hospital, it is a moral choice for the parents to decide to withold heroic medical treatment for their child. At this point, it is still morally required to provide basic care (food, shelter, perhaps oxygen and incubator, etc) and to give that child love as long as he naturally lives. This is not killing, nor is it euthanasia.

Some folks were highly critical of Mother Teresa because she brought in a lot of money in donations and her establishments rarely provided more than food, shelter and first aid. The critics wondered why she didn’t spend some of the money on better care for those she took in. They never got it that her mission wasn’t to heal these people, it was to love them. They lacked love a lot more than they did medicine! I think the same principle might apply to infants with no reasonable chance of recovery.

The fact that socialized medicine in England is the one seeking to make the decision makes me all the more NOT want to see it come here! But that’s a whole nother thread.

That’s one definition. It differs from others, and that is why there is disagreement about these issues. I see very little discussion about the core disagreements, and much discussion about derivative issues. As such, we can expect no resolution.

Saying other views make no sense simply isolates one in an echo chamber of the like-minded.

 

[manualman]

What other point during fetal development shows any evidence of an actual change in nature or substance? None. Only the combination of two half strands of DNA is a substantial change in the nature of the organism. Anything else is trivial in comparison.

Must I respect the view of someone who claims someone isn’t a ‘person’ until his first baby tooth falls out? No?

Then why do I have to respect a view that says the first breath of air is the big moment? There is no physiological reason to suppose that such an event has ANY deeper meaning.

Unless you can point to something otherwise. Sorry if my claim offends you. It is my claim precisely BECAUSE I find no other point in fetal development that makes any sense.

 

[HoppityRedux]

What other point during fetal development shows any evidence of an actual change in nature or substance? None. Only the combination of two half strands of DNA is a substantial change in the nature of the organism. Anything else is trivial in comparison.

Must I respect the view of someone who claims someone isn’t a ‘person’ until his first baby tooth falls out? No?

Then why do I have to respect a view that says the first breath of air is the big moment? There is no physiological reason to suppose that such an event has ANY deeper meaning.

Unless you can point to something otherwise. Sorry if my claim offends you. It is my claim precisely BECAUSE I find no other point in fetal development that makes any sense.

I suppose we can all retreat to a position where we refuse to extend respect to any opposing view. How well has that worked on abortion for tha past 36 years?

 

[manualman]

The problem comes when PEOPLE are disrespected, not views.

I have quite a lot of friends with whom I disagree. We just simply understand that we have large differences of opinion, but also believe that the dignity and worth of a human person is not predicated on how CORRECT he is on issues.

IMO, our culture NEEDS to argue more, not less. We just need to learn to respect PEOPLE we disagree with, not pretend that mutually contradictory ideas are BOTH equally valid.

 

[jman507]

The problem comes when PEOPLE are disrespected, not views.

I have quite a lot of friends with whom I disagree. We just simply understand that we have large differences of opinion, but also believe that the dignity and worth of a human person is not predicated on how CORRECT he is on issues.

IMO, our culture NEEDS to argue more, not less. We just need to learn to respect PEOPLE we disagree with, not pretend that mutually contradictory ideas are BOTH equally valid.

Just to add on to your point: let’s say, I say, “I really see blacks as inferior human beings, thus it is a favor for us to keep them as slaves.” Or “the Jews are no more than rats, it’s ok for us to throw them all in the ghetto.” It’s one thing for that to be your ‘view’, it is a whole other thing to let that be a cornerstone of policy.

 

[jman507]

If your baby had a 1% chance, you wouldn’t want the doctors to try and say his life? I would, no question. In the report in Zenit it says:“The Royal College sent its request to the Nuffield Bioethics Council, the body in charge of examining the ethical issues involved in the new developments of biology and medicine. The latter, an influential private commission, is about to publish a report on critical decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine”.

You’ve read that report then?

“To better understand the issue and its implications of a bioethical nature, ZENIT interviewed neonatologist Carlo Bellieni, director of the Neonatal Intensive Therapy Department of the Le Scotte University Polyclinic of Siena.”

Bellieni: Three things disturb pediatricians.

One, having to become executioners of a death sentence. We are not doctors for this, especially at a time when the death sentence is stigmatized by an increasing number of states.

Two, having to consider the patients themselves as non-persons. There are authors who say that newborns are not persons because they still do not have self-awareness, precisely a requirement for this sensation – affirmations amply denied by science and experience.

Three, having to consider the handicapped not as a life to help and respect but, with a phobic attitude, as a second-tier life

Part of the problem is that we are just relying on the article, which by no means is really able to bring up the technicalities that we may or may not agree with. I think Manualman, WenckebachCath, and I are pretty much coming from the same general position. I am if those are in the reasoning from the group that came out with that position, we’d three would disagree with it. Unless they object, I’d say there is no reason that all heroic means must be taken to keep any person alive, especially if it creates an undue burden. Those babies are not non-persons, nor in any way a second tier person. All kinds of horrible policies have been made when people are deemed second-class people or not people at all.

The case is that none of these cases would happen in a vacuum. Especially if a person will have to require millions of dollars of treatment, and the family are not multi-millionaires, they are going to have to be aided by other-people’s money be it the pool of money in an insurance company or that of taxes pooled in the government. If the care did not effect the care of others it wouldn’t matter so much, but it does. Those that set up the pool of money have to make decisions on what will be covered or not covered. In the case of an insurance company, if it takes enough million dollar plus hits, its going to have to raise premiums and can cause many others to not be able to afford insurance. If the hospital is left with the bills, enough can cause them to have to close shop. But that said, what should never be cut is that the person should receive the necessities of life like food, water, and warmth. Oh and yes, they should be considered a person.

 

[Holly3278]

Lord have mercy.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

The catholic church considers a human person to come into being at conception. I agree. No other point makes any sense.

I’m concerned that people here are accepting a flase dilemma. Either: 1. Do every surgery and every technique available on every baby born, no matter the odds or cost. 2. Draw a cutoff point in development and throw any babies born before that stage in the OR trash can.

This is poor reasoning. Sure it is messy and requires difficult discernment, but why can’t a moral principle be established that say that when the consensus of medical opinion is that the child will not be able to recover enough to live outside a hospital, ICU it is a moral choice for the parents to decide to withold heroic medical treatment for their child. At this point, it is still morally required to provide basic care (food, shelter, perhaps oxygen and incubator, etc) and to give that child love as long as he naturally lives. This is not killing, nor is it euthanasia.

Some folks were highly critical of Mother Teresa because she brought in a lot of money in donations and her establishments rarely provided more than food, shelter and first aid. The critics wondered why she didn’t spend some of the money on better care for those she took in. They never got it that her mission wasn’t to heal these people, it was to love them. They lacked love a lot more than they did medicine! I think the same principle might apply to infants with no reasonable chance of recovery.

The fact that socialized medicine in England is the one seeking to make the decision makes me all the more NOT want to see it come here! But that’s a whole nother thread.

This all makes good sense to me!

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

What is a person? An entity either qualifies or does not qualify as a person depending on the definition. When people use different definitions, each is correct. When they use no definition, neither is correct.

No matter what anyones position on any given subject, there is only one truth!!!
Truth is not subjective, it just is.
A baby is a person, no matter at what stage of growth, it is the plain truth.
A person at 21 or 91 or invetro 1 minute is the same person and needs to be treated as such.

 

[HoppityRedux]

No matter what anyones position on any given subject, there is only one truth!!!
Truth is not subjective, it just is.
A baby is a person, no matter at what stage of growth, it is the plain truth.
A person at 21 or 91 or invetro 1 minute is the same person and needs to be treated as such.

One truth? What is it?

A person is a category defined by humans. It can be defined anyway they choose.

A statement may be true, or a statement may be false. However, we have no guarantees that humans can correctly discern the difference in all cases. The existence of truth in no ways means humans are discerning it correctly.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

One truth? What is it?

A person is a category defined by humans. It can be defined anyway they choose.

A statement may be true, or a statement may be false. However, we have no guarantees that humans can correctly discern the difference in all cases. The existence of truth in no ways means humans are discerning it correctly.

Yes, your absolutely correct! There is one truth and it has been revealed to us by Jesus Christ. In order to discern what the truth is he left us his bride, the church on earth, the Catholic church. If you look into it I’m sure you can find plenty of documentation on the Churchs stance of one truth.

 

[gilliam]

One truth? What is it?

God’s truth and handed down to us through the scriptures and through our Catholic tradition that Jesus established. There is only one truth.

A person is a category defined by humans. It can be defined anyway they choose.

Not to a Catholic. A person is something God established. It is not some arbitrary category Webster defined.

A statement may be true, or a statement may be false. However, we have no guarantees that humans can correctly discern the difference in all cases. The existence of truth in no ways means humans are discerning it correctly.

We have been told by God that if we follow His teachings we can decern the truth. If you ignore His teachings, or believe he doesn’t exist, I don’t know how you can decern the truth.

From the Catholic Catechism

2465 The Old Testament attests that God is the source of all truth. His Word is truth. His Law is truth. His “faithfulness endures to all generations.” Since God is “true,” the members of his people are called to live in the truth.

2466 In Jesus Christ, the whole of God’s truth has been made manifest. “Full of grace and truth,” he came as the “light of the world,” he is the Truth. “Whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.” The disciple of Jesus continues in his word so as to know “the truth [that] will make you free” and that sanctifies. To follow Jesus is to live in “the Spirit of truth,” whom the Father sends in his name and who leads “into all the truth.” To his disciples Jesus teaches the unconditional love of truth: “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes or No.’”

2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: “It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#2465

 

[HoppityRedux]

God’s truth and handed down to us through the scriptures and through our Catholic tradition that Jesus established. There is only one truth.

Not to a Catholic. A person is something God established. It is not some arbitrary category Webster defined.

We have been told by God that if we follow His teachings we can decern the truth. If you ignore His teachings, or believe he doesn’t exist, I don’t know how you can decern the truth.

From the Catholic Catechism

OK. State the one truth.

Some Catholics have defined person as a classification, just as others have defined person as a classification. Some Catholics have defined it as something God established.

We have been told by men that we have been told by God, and those men wrote a catechism.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

OK. State the one truth.

Some Catholics have defined person as a classification, just as others have defined person as a classification. Some Catholics have defined it as something God established.

We have been told by men that we have been told by God, and those men wrote a catechism.

I follow what has been stated by the Roman Catholic Church, it doesn’t matter to me what my “Catholic” neighbor thinks. They may or may not have a well formed conscience and a proper understanding of what it means to be a catholic. The church has one stance and they are there to help me on my walk with Christ, to develope a well formed conscience and a proper understanding of the truth, left to us in the Bible and Tradition. I really don’t see the point in discussing this any further.