Next Generation Emulation banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MEAA80.html
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - 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.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9872007.htm
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - Four times in recent months, Dutch doctors have pumped lethal doses of drugs into newborns they believe are terminally ill, setting off a new phase in a growing European debate over when, if ever, it's acceptable to hasten death for the critically ill.

Few details of the four newborns' deaths have been made public. Official investigations have found that the doctors made appropriate and professional decisions under an experimental policy allowing child euthanasia that's known as the Groningen University Hospital protocol.

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

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.

The protocol was written by hospital doctors and officials, with help from Dutch prosecutors. It's being studied by lawmakers as potential law.

Opponents of expanding euthanasia to the young cite a recent Dutch court ruling against punishment for a doctor who injected fatal drugs into an elderly woman after she told him she didn't want to die.

The court determined that he'd made "an error of judgment," but had acted "honorably and according to conscience."
My outrage to follow.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,111 Posts
When babies are involved humans get emotional and this clouds thier judgement and brings them to biased conclusions
example: if you wand someone to hate something flash a picture of a dead baby followed by a picture of what you want them to hate within 4 seconds they will have hate for that thing embedded in his subcontious

Either way I wonder did the parents also concented to that, If they did then I have no outrage if they didn't those docters shoud be jailed and fined
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
the Dutch lost their moral compass a long time ago. It's funny you're only noticing it now. Must be the huge size of our country.
 

·
~ Lord of Darkness ~
Joined
·
15,407 Posts
I can partially understand Euthanasia on babies... in fact some of the motives listed are logical:

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.
However I find this ridiculous and sick:

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.
Doctors can not, under any means, decide over a life which is not theirs. Additionally I find stupid the concept of being able to end a life up to age 12... so, my dumb child proves to be more trouble than I had thought at first? Let's kill him/her.

This is outrageous, hardly the product of a bias...
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
8,882 Posts
My feelings regarding this are similar to Kaiser Sigma's.
I find that terminating the life of heavily deformed babies, with terminal diseases is acceptable (let me be specific here: I think that babies with Nev-Laxova Syndrome, Meckel-Gruber Syndrome or estrophy of the cloaca, for instance, should be terminated - keeping them alive is veery cruel - and they will die shortly, anyway).

Now, terminating retarded children, after they're born is ridiculous. And as Kaiser pointed out, terminating children up to the age of 12 is preposterous and actually imoral.

I'm completely in favor of voluntary euthanasia. If you want to terminate your liife, and you want a doctor's assistance, you should be able to get it. Involuntary euthanasia is just murder, plain and simple (unless the person is brain dead, that is - in this case I don't think it's euthanasia at all). Terminating someone's life against his/her will is a big no-no for me.
 

·
The Hunter
Joined
·
15,879 Posts
2 Samor: I can't find some Dutch articles by the daily's here. Didn't watch the news as well so I missed something I guess oO Do you have some more info on it? :emb:

I agree with Kaiser on this as well. BUT:

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

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.
IMO it's complete BULLCR*P that it can be decided for a person up to 12 years! There is a difference between a 12 year old knowing that he might get an injection and a day-old baby who doesn't even know what is happening.

Also doctors do NOT have the right to decide wether someone's baby should be allowed to live or not. That should be the parent's choice. The only thing a group of doctors, and not only one, should be allowed to do is confirm the wish of the parents and execute it or tell them that it isn't allowed to inject the baby.

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.
I can understand it that euthanasia can be a possibility in this case. Still it shouldn't be a rule that these babies should be 'killed', but that there should be the choice to do so. Since it will be for the benefit of the parents and the baby.

On this, I share Boltzmann's opinion as well.

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.
So it isn't cruel to let a child suffer for a couple of years while knowing it will die in it's first 5 years of it's life anyway? :rolleyes:
I don't want to offend anyone here, but IMO the catholic church should open their eyes to reality.

/wonders why I didn't pick this up in the news
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
Samor said:
nah, you forgot. real old ;p
I have a near-photographic memory, I don't forget. :p

Besides, how long has euthanasia been permitted here? 20 years?

The subject must've slipped by me, by either it being of no interest to me or just not hearing about it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
177 Posts
I believe everybody is born to die. Everybody has his/her own life, with a granted lifespan. Sad to say some have an extremely short life span while others have an incredibly long span. Hopefully on the other side there will be some rectification for these babies for having to die so young and innocent.
 

·
The Hunter
Joined
·
15,879 Posts
klatch said:
I have a near-photographic memory, I don't forget. :p

Besides, how long has euthanasia been permitted here? 20 years?

The subject must've slipped by me, by either it being of no interest to me or just not hearing about it.
20 Years? Euthanasia while the CDA was in charge? --> :lol:

It's only permitted since 'purple' afaik.

@ Samor: Did you pick it up in the news then, cause I've got the funny feeling you're joking again (like in 98.2% of your posts these days :p)
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Cid Highwind said:
20 Years? Euthanasia while the CDA was in charge? --> :lol:

It's only permitted since 'purple' afaik.

@ Samor: Did you pick it up in the news then, cause I've got the funny feeling you're joking again (like in 98.2% of your posts these days :p)
something with the likes of it, yeah, a few years ago, under ''purple" ...there could be some new details...
I'm joking often, but your 98.2% is an exaggeration....but even when I'm serious, it's taken as a joke. Must be the nickname or the silly drawings.

In game discussion, I'm usually serious... as for open discussion, more jokes; some of the more serious discussions in open discussion I don't like, and I don't feel like participating in those. Over the past year, there's been an increase in them. There's also been an increase in more freaky joke topics I guess. That's why it would also be more noticed ....

and even Kane calls me [email protected] now... guess I got what I deserved.
 

·
The Hunter
Joined
·
15,879 Posts
He didn't even hit you with the dumba$$stick yet? oO

If it's real old news I can understand I didn't pick it up. I'm more aware of what's in the news now, than I was a few years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
Cid Highwind said:
20 Years? Euthanasia while the CDA was in charge? --> :lol:

It's only permitted since 'purple' afaik.
Samor said:
something with the likes of it, yeah, a few years ago, under ''purple" ...there could be some new details...
I think the 2 of you are confused. The last thing that happened during Purple with regard to Euthanasia was in 2002, their last year, when it became legal for doctors to fulfill a patient's wishes in euthanasia without further outside consent. During Purple, there were other decisions in regard of euthanasia, like that since 1995 people in mental distress can opt for it.

I was aware that euthanasia was permitted from 12 year and older, but I had no idea about newborns, as said before.

Euthanasia itself has been practiced since 1973 in Holland. Or atleast, been first reported. In the course of time, it became more of a free subject to talk about than before, and during Purple, this has been brought forward and changed the most.
 

·
The Hunter
Joined
·
15,879 Posts
Thanx for clearing up :)

But wasn't it illegal untill during Purple?
 

·
The Hunter
Joined
·
15,879 Posts
It's getting late :innocent:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,576 Posts
Cid Highwind said:
But wasn't it illegal untill during Purple?
Unless my family was engaged in illegal practices :p I don't think it was. I first heared about it when I was 3 or 4, which was 17/18 years ago. It seemed normal in that day, hence my guess of atleast 20 years.

Anyway, if the first reported act of euthanasia was done and reported in a hospital in '73 without finding any reference to the words illegal, jail-time, and shocked in my sources, I sincerely doubt it was illegal.

I'll do another search for it soon enough when I'm @ Amsterdam again.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top