|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Plea to let doctors kill babies with disabilitiesSENIOR doctors are urging health professionals to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies. The proposal, by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology, follows the increase in the number of such children surviving because of medical advances. 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. Their submission to an ethical inquiry into increased survival rates reads: "A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. 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." Geneticists and medical ethicists are supporting the proposal - as are some mothers of severely disabled children - but a prominent children's doctor described it as "social engineering". The college's submission continues: "We would like the working party to think more radically about non- resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns." Although the college says it is not formally calling for active euthanasia to be introduced, it wants the mercy killing of newborn babies to be debated by society. John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College London, said: "Intentional killing is not part of medical care. The majority of doctors and health care professionals believe that once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice you change the fundamental nature of medicine." scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com" target="_blank">-> scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com |
||
|
tugger 05-Nov-06, 17:43 |
personally, i think it would be good for humankind as a whole... slowly but surely we will be removing the defective genes from the reproductive cycle... nature dictates survival of the fittest... those who don't survive don't reproduce... those who do pass down their stronger genetic make up, thus strengthening the species... i'm also of the opinion that medical science is bad for humans as a whole... we are becoming more reliant on medicine to survive, and this can only be bad for future generations, who might eventually become entirely dependant on medicine from birth... i also think our obsession with cleanliness is bad, too... the less we are in contact with germs and bacteria, the less out immune system is able to fight them when we do come into contact with them... whenever i have a cold, i do not use any medicine to fight it... i try to eat as much fresh fruit as i can, and let my immune system do the rest... despite my poor eating habits the rest of the time, i rarely fall ill... |
||
|
would be possible without pharmaceuticals . . . I'm curious to see where, if anywhere, this thread goes |
||
|
bobbynox 05-Nov-06, 18:56 |
Childhood vacc. Hmmm. Some say it the best thing that ever happend to humanity. They may be right, for before the '30s child mortality and disfiguration was common. However, nowadays, we rarely see problems, in fact we have kids that are FAT! Ha! Such a wonderful world we have created. Josh can help me out on this next thought, cause-of-death. Is it not true that the leading cause of the death is heart-disease. And sceond is probably cancers. Both of these maladies are somewhat preventable by lifestyle changes. Cancer is a bit trickier, but in essence, it too is based on your personal bad-habits (bar-b-qued meats, environmental, processed foods, etc.) The gene-pool I don't know how thin, or thick it is, but the Euros, and the Wasps here in the States had better start reproducing in BIG numbers if we want our racial make-up to exist into the 22nd century. I suppose it really doesn't matter though. What difference does it make if the Swedes become extinct in the year 2145? The Chinese have got us all beat anyway. Food. Way too much around. It is way too easy for everyone to get theri hands on a cheeseburger. That is causing major problems along the lines of health, and psychological affects of forgetting how to obtain food during crisis. I am not sure about the cleanliness thing, Tugger. Clean or dirty, you are going to get sick when the right bug gets inside of you. But being clean is a plus socially. So it makes the time-between-sickness go a lot better. |
||
|
tugger 05-Nov-06, 19:21 |
of course, being clean is of social value... but that just involves having a shower... that's not harmful to our immune system... what i mean by our obsession with cleanliness is our inborn fear of germs... we feel we need to kill them all... if our immune system does not come into contact with germs, it gets complacent... ideally, our immune system should be actively fighting something most of the time... you're right, if the right (or should i say wrong) bug comes along, it will make us sick... but the stronger our immune system, the better we will fight it... and if we succesfully fight it without non-organic medicine, then i believe we will not fall ill the next time we come into contact with that particular bug... someone who has been free of germs all their life will not fight a bug as well as someone who has been in contact with them... now, will anyone be able to stop this thread spiralling off course...? i was expecting a heated debate about the moral implications of selective euthanasia in children...! especially when it is for the parents' sake... i mean, surely the concerns of the child should come first... if the parents cannot shoulder the burden, then maybe a home for disabled people could be an answer...? it's a little more humane than killing them, and the child will not know any different, and will likely lead a happy, if ignorant, life in the company of other disabled people and nurses... if they were steralised at an early age to stop them reproducing, then that would stop their defective genes being passed down (you'd have to expect a bit of hanky panky, they will have human instincts like the rest of us)... and in the process, we provide them with as happy a life as possible... |
||
|
soulcrates 05-Nov-06, 21:42 |
I say kill all brown haired children as well, |
||
|
|
