An active euthanasia proposal in the UK that is crossing the line:
The college is arguing for “active euthanasia” to be considered for the overall good of parents, sparing them the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.
(via a reader tip)
Similar Posts:
- Is the impending physician shortage worse than we thought?
- Do patients really need their complete lab and radiology reports?
- Does vitamin D reduce the risk of falls in the elderly?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 10 comments }
“If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”
I can’t believe what I’m reading. Forgo an abortion to have a birth and then decide to kill a disabled child?
And just who voted these Doctors to have God powers? You do not kill children just because they have disabilities. You have all went crazy!
Cathy, this is the UK, not the US, but maybe we are all a little bit crazy.
As distasteful as some people might find this I think it makes perfect sense from a monetary point of view. You can save one child at the price of 100,000 or you can help 10 people for 10,000 each. Health care isn’t an infinite resource — the NHS needs to ration and starting with the weakest or most difficult to help is a good idea (I include the very old and the very sick here too).
What can we expect from a society that approves of killing children still in the womb? We have entered into a culture of death, and it won’t stop until we take a stand. Margaret Sanger was a huge supporter of “ethnic cleansing”, as well as sterilization of those with disabilities and disorders such as seizures in the hopes of stopping the reproduction of the “lesser classes”. She is also the founder of Planned Parenthood. Honestly people, it was only a matter of time.
While I can’t, in good conscience, support euthanasia for instances like this, it is worth debating. Consider that with all of our medical advances, we are effectively pulling ourselves out of nature’s selective processes that have kept our species going for thousands of years without medicine. By successfully treating defects that used to mean death, many of these defects will spread throughout our gene pool. This poses some significant problems for our species’ long-term survivability.
“We have entered into a culture of death, and it won’t stop until we take a stand”
Hogwash. We have entered into a culture of prolonging life at any cost without regard to quality. Resources are inappropriately diverted for the purposeless prolongation of life. People must in some cases commit what are perceived to be criminal acts to relieve suffering.
Move into the 21st century and out of the dark ages. Study your history and you will see how ridiculous overboard our society has gone.
I think this is a great idea. Why raise a child to be useless in society? I certainly do not want a disabled child. If I had one, I would keep it, but only because I had to. If I had the choice, I’d just say ‘better luck next time.’
-Adam
Better luck next time? What are you talking about do u think having a child is as easy as 123 each and every child and person has a purpose on this earth no matter what how can you be so selfish!
“I think this is a great idea. Why raise a child to be useless in society? I certainly do not want a disabled child. If I had one, I would keep it, but only because I had to. If I had the choice, I’d just say ‘better luck next time.”
I’ve encountered this attitude many times, although I’ve generally observed it expressed in less overt terms. I’m more concerned about those attached to the notion that Social Darwinism is the most useful course who are adept at the art of subterfuge. The author of the paragraph I quoted is refreshingly clumsy.
Comments on this entry are closed.