Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth

  1. Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth | the Daily Mail
    •  
  2. 13 Comments

  3. by   CHATSDALE
    in 1972 a coworker had a spina bifida dtr - the words used then was 'BENIGN NEGLECT' she lived a short time with hydration but no food
    this was accepted medical practice in usa at that time
  4. by   gwenith
    The BBC has a different slant on this story
    That said the Church of England believed withholding treatment from some seriously disabled newborns may be right "in some circumstances".
    The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has been seeking submissions into critical care in foetal and neonatal medicine.
    It told the BBC it has received over 100 submissions from interested organisations into the controversial issue.
    Its report will be published on Thursday looking at the ethical, social and legal issues which may arise when making decisions surrounding treating extremely premature babies.
    There's a point in medicine where we say enough is enough, and sometimes the treatment can be worse than the disease

    Dr Peter Saunders, Christian Medical Fellowship
    BBC NEWS | UK | Church enters euthanasia debate

    The BBC version is less emotive and discusses when NOT to treat in the name of compassion rather than blindly follow a doctine.
  5. by   prmenrs
    I think there is a big difference between "killing" and "letting a severely disabled baby die". Killing implies actually doing something actively. Letting the baby die would be more like hospice, not providing "extra-ordinary" means of care, like intubation, ventilation, ECMO, extensive surgery, etc.
  6. by   nuangel1
    Quote from prmenrs
    I think there is a big difference between "killing" and "letting a severely disabled baby die". Killing implies actually doing something actively. Letting the baby die would be more like hospice, not providing "extra-ordinary" means of care, like intubation, ventilation, ECMO, extensive surgery, etc.
    very well said .i agree .
  7. by   prmenrs
    I think the Headline in the article is misleading. As it's written, the Anglican Church is NOT talking about "killing" in the sense that I'm interpreting, rather, not providing intensive care.

    What kind of paper is the Daily Mail? Is it a tabloid or legit newspaper?
  8. by   gwenith
    I think, from talking to Brit friends it is a real rag.
    he Daily Mail is a British newspaper, a tabloid, first published in 1896. It is Britain's most popular paper after The Sun and arguably the most right-wing.
    From wikipedia
    Daily Mail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Definitely looking to stir a reaction from the readers and sell more papers - but to misrepresent things this way is not journalism it is sensationalism.
  9. by   sanctuary
    Would that Medicine was wise enough to understand that just because we can do something, does not mean we have to. I ache for families of babies born with multiple anomalies, who suffer through multiple agonizing surgeries, and never are able to hold the little one in comfort and love it to a natural end. This might be a step in that direction.
    Last edit by sanctuary on Nov 14, '06 : Reason: grammer and clarity
  10. by   Spidey's mom
    "It appears that the whole debate on whether disabled babies are worth keeping alive is being dominated by professionals and religious people without any consultation with disabled people," she said.

    I think if we keep talking about this with everyone being allowed input, that is a good thing. Actively taking a life is different. We should never be a part of euthanasia.

    My niece has spina bifida and is doing quite well. We have a ranch locally that cares for disabled adults and it is a joy to have them in my community and my church.

    Disabled does not mean someone has no value.

    This is a sticky and dangerous debate and the disabled deserve a voice in it.

    steph
  11. by   gwenith
    I don't think anyone is suggesting that a disability that is as relatively simple as Spina Bifida would be included in what they are suggesting but there are other diabilities that endanger babies lives.

    True - the child that is alive today is often the one that we were unable to save 30 years ago but does that mean that there is no limit to what we will continue to do - especially when we cross that line from saving to hurting.
  12. by   URO-RN
    The paper is only considered a "rag" in liberal circles.

    Steph is right :

    Disabled does not mean someone has no value.

    This is a sticky and dangerous debate and the disabled deserve a voice in it.
  13. by   Roy Fokker
    Steph is probably right, but you missed the most vital part of her post:

    Quote from stevielynn
    Actively taking a life is different. We should never be a part of euthanasia.
    Please contrast that with the title of this thread.
    And contrast that with what everyone else has also said i.e. "killing them off" is different from "letting them die".

    Quote from URO-RN
    The paper is only considered a "rag" in liberal circles.
    How anyone can consider a "tabloid" as anything but a "rag" is beyond me.

    This issue - like most issues - is not a question of partisan politics in as much as it is one of misrepresentated, sensationalist BS.

    Oh and by the way, here's the cover of your "non-rag" paper following the November 2004 US elections:



    cheers,
  14. by   URO-RN
    Quote from Roy Fokker
    Steph is probably right, but you missed the most vital part of her post:

    Please contrast that with the title of this thread.
    And contrast that with what everyone else has also said i.e. "killing them off" is different from "letting them die".

    How anyone can consider a "tabloid" as anything but a "rag" is beyond me.

    This issue - like most issues - is not a question of partisan politics in as much as it is one of misrepresentated, sensationalist BS.

    Oh and by the way, here's the cover of your "non-rag" paper following the November 2004 US elections:



    cheers,

    Hmm, gotta stop leaving my account logged on to allnurses while at work.

    This is not my "non rag" newspaper.
    What's up roy, got up on the wrong side of the bed?
    Later....

close