Netherlands hospital euthanizes babies

[ClaraB]

Just read this article in our newspaper today (I found it on MSNBC as well) : Netherlands hospital euthanizes babies (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6620769/) . Frankly, this scares me - what right does anybody have to kill a human being who can't speak for himself?

[Escher]

Oh, you beat me to it.

The very fiber of my being screams "look what the world has wrought".... even though I know it's probably done daily, in a less public way....

My brain and my soul are at absolute opposite ends of the spectrum on this, but in this case, my soul has the stronger voice.

I haven't felt this disgusted since I saw the "I kept my baby...in a jar" and "Abortions tickle" T-shirts.

[beckms]

We do it to animals all the time.

[wallycat]

Originally posted by beckms
We do it to animals all the time.

I was just about to type that :(

[beckms]

Originally posted by wallycat


I was just about to type that :(

Boy, could I tell you some horror stories.

On the one hand, I'm really grateful that we have the option in veterinary medicine to euthanize animals. It really is a blessing in most cases. However, because it is done so often out of convenience, or for financial issues, or because an animal is no longer profitable (food and racing animals), I'm very reluctant to say it should become legal for humans.

This issue is not cut and dry for me, and even with animals it is an issue that causes me much anxiety. BUT, I tend to sympathize with the Dutch doctors in these cases. Spina bifida and other such diseases are horrible, horrible, horrible.

[Escher]

I know I don't need to rehash the obvious, but I'll do so anyhow....

our ethics system for animals and humans are and should be different.

[CompassRose]

Tell me, why is the "life" of a child who is so severely damaged that it will never respond even to the degree that an animal would, to be valued more highly than the lives of its parents, who are expected to sacrifice work, friends, money and years to its maintenance? And why, incidentally, is it more "right" to essentially donate a child over to medicine for sanctioned human experiments in life support than to let its infant spirit free?

[Grace]

I think I know how I feel about this subject, but I'm not going to go into that.

I only want to post to say that my grandparents, who emigrated from Ukraine/Germany told me that it was common practice back 100 years ago (and even at the time my Dad and Uncle were born) to keep a bucket of water nearby at births, in which to immediately drown any malformed or obviously handicapped babies. And no one thought anything of that. :confused: :confused:

[Escher]

Originally posted by CompassRose
Tell me, why is the "life" of a child ....

The mere fact that you put life in quotes is telling....

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by Grace
my grandparents, who emigrated from Ukraine/Germany told me that it was common practice back 100 years ago (and even at the time my Dad and Uncle were born) to keep a bucket of water nearby at births, in which to immediately drown any malformed or obviously handicapped babies. And no one thought anything of that. :confused: :confused:

I'm sure part of the issue there, at that time, was connected to the practical: Is this person going to contribute it's labor to the survival of the household or be a burden upon it? It could also have had superstitious or religious connotations, i.e. that the birth of a malformed child was some kind of negative omen or an expression of God's displeasure.

I'm afraid there is a place in the world for euthanasia. Especially for adults, who are living with a horrible disease that makes any quality of life nearly impossible, they are in pain and they want to be released from their torture as sad as it is I don't see anything wrong with that. What bothers me in this case is that the decision seems to be left up to doctors alone. I don't think anyone should be able wield such absolute power.

[funnybone]

Originally posted by Grace
I think I know how I feel about this subject, but I'm not going to go into that.

I only want to post to say that my grandparents, who emigrated from Ukraine/Germany told me that it was common practice back 100 years ago (and even at the time my Dad and Uncle were born) to keep a bucket of water nearby at births, in which to immediately drown any malformed or obviously handicapped babies. And no one thought anything of that. :confused: :confused:

It probably wasn't an easy thing to do back then either, but it probably was done because medical treatment and services were not available to take care of babies born unhealthy or deformed. Today, there are so many options available to help most health issues. For instance, many years ago, babies born with a cleft palate were deformed for life. Today, such babies grow up healthy and you can't even notice that they were born that way (or at least I probably couldn't tell).

BTW, I haven't read the link, I just can't bring myself to know the details.

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by Escher
The mere fact that you put life in quotes tells me everything I need to know about your view on the subject.

I'm guessing that Catherine was trying to say that life in the case of a child with a horrible disease or malformation is not life as we know it but mere existence. Why don't you ask her to explain what she meant instead of making assumptions and jumping all over her?

[CompassRose]

Escher, don't be patronising. I've known two children, and their parents, who were severely afflicted by incurable and rare diseases -- not even as severe as those these Dutch doctors describe. Both are now dead, dead before their third year. Both of them -- one in particular, the one with an unusual variant of rheumatoid arthritis -- spent almost all their lives in physical pain. Both were subject to a kaleidoscope of experimental treatments -- one had a disease which has only ever been documented in 52 other people -- none of which seemed to do much good, and all of which involved endless hours in the hospital, which the babies hated and which tormented the parents. And both died very, very slowly, on life support until the very end, but with no hope of recovery, with their parents, again tormented, spending days in hospital on death watch.

I'm sure that the one, at least, has contributed much valuable data as a lab rat to the study of its particular ailment. But other than that, they both led lives of suffering, and so did their parents, who could do nothing for them while they screamed in pain -- not even explain to them what was going on, since they were mostly pre-verbal.

I certainly do hope that if my "life", quotation marks deliberate, is ever reduced to such a low by injury or disease, that I am allowed to leave it. I don't see what possible benefit there can be, to the individual or to society, in allowing that to continue. Even if you subscribe to a theory of karma, and reason that the spirit is thus being punished for the errors of a former life, even in this, we are less merciful than Nature or god -- for we would prolong the suffering through any desperate means possible, while without intervention these babies would die, more or less quickly, anyway. All that medicine can offer is a death with less pain. Or are you going to argue, as many a doctor has about circumcision, that babies that young don't feel pain?

[Escher]

I agree w/ Hejaz... the fact that it is done to willing adults is fine by me... the fact that power is being left to the doctors (or the state) is what I am aghast at.

[Kayaksoup]

Originally posted by HejazSunKat


What bothers me in this case is that the decision seems to be left up to doctors alone. I don't think anyone should be able wield such absolute power.

This is what bothers me as well. But with adult euthanasia, the patient is able to let their wishes be known. How do you do that with someone who never had any wishes that COULD be made known? Should the parents be allowed to decide? Or where do you draw the line in the sand as to what is a non-viable baby?
I know several adults who were born "damaged". One is a woman with Downs who was born with a hole in her heart. Another is a woman who just turned 27 with spina bifida. They are amazing, courageous, happy people. I can't imagine what would have happened if the doctors had been able to decide wether their lives would be worth living.

[leightx]

It's my understanding that they are looking at setting up guidelines for when the newborns are terminally ill, or must survive on life support for their entire lives. It is not at the whim of the doctors - the parents must also agree. This is from the MSNBC article on the subject:

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.

<snip>

However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.

“Measures that might marginally extend a child’s life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day,” said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. “Everybody knows that it happens, but there’s a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they’re not going to do.”

More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it’s really about management and method of death, Stell said.




I'm not sure why this is so wrong? Is it better to let an infant suffer until they die "naturally" (that is, despite invasive and costly medical intervention and life support)?

[Escher]

Originally posted by HejazSunKat


I'm guessing that Catherine was trying to say that life in the case of a child with a horrible disease or malformation is not life as we know it but mere existence. Why don't you ask her to explain what she meant instead of making assumptions and jumping all over her?

Fair enough. You are right. But I'm terribly concerned that the definition of life is constantly being eroded. But I shouldn't have made CompassRose the lightning rod of my consternation.

This is just too dang depressing. I'm out of this thread. My emotions are overriding my logic, and it's not a position I'm used to being in.

[CompassRose]

However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.
In the book Spiritual Midwifery, which is a collection of personal accounts, experiences and instructions from the midwives of The Farm in Tennessee, there's a story of a baby who was born with no skull, just a naked brain. (This would have been sometime in the mid to late 70s.)

They brought him to the hospital, thinking that he could have some kind of skull prosthesis. When the family and the midwife went back a few days later, they found that the baby (whom they had named Isaac) had been given neither food nor water at the hospital, and they were told that this was routine practice with infants having severe deformities.

In any case in which you are dealing with a person who for whatever reason cannot provide informed consent, there are going to be horrible moral concerns. Take the circumcision example; there are grown men now who are bitterly angry about that, even to the point of having reconstructions. Likewise examples of born hermaphrodites, who were "reconstructed" to an arbitrarily-determined sex in infancy, and now feel that doctors were wrong.

[SLFlyt]

No one wants a child or anyone else to suffer, that's a fact. I think the real issue is "if it's ok to euthanize a severely damaged child now, where will it lead?". Why not euthanize the elderly who need constant care? My mother, who suffered horribly with cancer before she died, always said "where there is life, there is hope" and I just think it's wrong to euthanize a child or anyone else NO MATTER WHAT the circumstances.

[ClaraB]

What people are missing here is that this is not about allowing babies to die, it's about actively killing them. I have no problem with withdrawing life support from terminally ill or brain dead infants, but I think giving lethal injections to babies takes our society in the wrong direction. As has been pointed out before, what's to stop this from happening to the elderly in nursing homes, or brain-damaged adults? And as far as relieving pain goes, there are plenty of drugs that can do that without killing somebody.Tell me, why is the "life" of a child who is so severely damaged that it will never respond even to the degree that an animal would, to be valued more highly than the lives of its parents, who are expected to sacrifice work, friends, money and years to its maintenance? Because when the parents decide to have a child, they are taking responsibility for that child, come he!! or high water. Parenthood isn't a cakewalk, and you can't abdicate it just because your child isn't what you expected him to be. And yes, I've also had experience with watching babies suffer - I had a nephew who died 5 weeks after he was born, without ever being off life support :(. He was very much loved (and missed).

[CompassRose]

Well. All I can say is that I have, honestly, far less of a problem with this than I do with early prenatal screenings for birth defects (which don't usually, I think, give a full disclosure of the severity of the defect) and attendant abortion -- even though I am for choice in that delicate matter.

And while funnybone has a point, still... This is now. We are talking about problems for which there is no cure -- now. There might be, in a year, or twenty years, or there might not. And even if what doctors learn trying things on one's own child might, someday, offer the clue that will save other children -- I don't know, if it was my child, whether I could sacrifice it to science, living in a sort of hope that was no real hope, wishing for a miracle.

[ReneeV]

Well, unless you ever had to go through this yourself, you have very little right to judge. I was pregnant last year and the fetus had a terminal genetic malformity and it would never have survived. Had I elected to carry to term, my life and health could have been in jeopardy. Where in the universe does it say I have I must put myself and my family through that ordeal and agony just because I find myself pregnant? How is it moral and responsible to put my own life in jeopardy when I have a 4 and 6 year old to care for?

I thank God everyday for genetic testing!

Renée

[Escher]

Originally posted by ReneeV
Well, unless you ever had to go through this yourself, you have very little right to judge.

Not true. Everyone has a right to an opinion.

[ClaraB]

Originally posted by ReneeV
Well, unless you ever had to go through this yourself, you have very little right to judge. I was pregnant last year and the fetus had a terminal genetic malformity and it would never have survived. Had I elected to carry to term, my life and health could have been in jeopardy. Where in the universe does it say I have I must put myself and my family through that ordeal and agony just because I find myself pregnant? How is it moral and responsible to put my own life in jeopardy when I have a 4 and 6 year old to care for?

I thank God everyday for genetic testing!

Renée Renee, with all due respect, ethical debates shouldn't be limited to those who have had to make difficult ethical decisions. However, we are not talking about prenatal genetic testing, and the difficult decisions that come with that knowledge. We are not talking about medical research on babies, either (Compass Rose). We are talking about killing babies, not just allowing them to die - killing them. And as a nurse, I'm very well aware that doctors are not infallible - there are many cases of "terminally" ill people who have "miraculously" survived. Who are we to say that since baby X isn't expected to survive, let's put him out of his misery? And if we do this to babies, what's to stop us from doing it to others, as well?

[KValley]

This article would lead one to assume that the hospital and physicians are making the decision. This is simply not the case. The decision is one made with the full involvement and consent of the parents of the child.

Does that make Groningen Protocol ethical, justifiable? I honestly don't know- it is not a black-white/right-wrong issue for me.

I do know that I would never presume to judge a family experiencing the most excruciating pain I can imagine-watching a child suffer and deciding between the two evils. My heart goes out to families and doctors facing such a horrific dilemma. There but for the grace of God go I and my loved ones.

Julie

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by KValley
This article would lead one to assume that the hospital and physicians are making the decision. This is simply not the case. The decision is one made with the full involvement and consent of the parents of the child.


Julie, I wonder if that is even enough. Parents can certainly be influenced by a perception of the doctor as 'knowing what's best' and if their doctor is for euthanizing their child they may be persuaded to go along with his medical opinion. If a society is going to institute euthanasia then I think there should be ALOT of checks and balances on it: The parents, the doctor, a medical oversight board, the courts - whatever it takes to make a humane decision that does not overly weight one person's opinion or judgement.

[KValley]

Originally posted by HejazSunKat


Julie, I wonder if that is even enough. Parents can certainly be influenced by a perception of the doctor as 'knowing what's best' and if their doctor is for euthanizing their child they may be persuaded to go along with his medical opinion. If a society is going to institute euthanasia then I think there should be ALOT of checks and balances on it: The parents, the doctor, a medical oversight board, the courts - whatever it takes to make a humane decision that does not overly weight one person's opinion or judgement.

Linda, I couldn't agree more- the vulnerability of the family in this situation must be addressed. I just wanted to point out that the article is less than complete in its reporting of the facts of the G Protocol.

It appears that the Dutch Health Ministry is considering establishing an independent review board for cases of euthanasia-I'm astounded this hasn't been done already. I'm know nothing of Dutch law, but look what a mess the Florida courts have made of the Terry Schiavo case...

It's just a lousy situation all the way around. :(

[Aubergine]

having held my cat of 10 years in my arms as he was euthanized left a deep and lasting impression on me. it was the most peaceful and swift process i could ever imagine. we should only be so kind and merciful to other humans. as someone else wrote, my mother also told me about doctors who did this -- and we're talking in the 1920's and '30's here in the U.S. i don't believe this is for any of us to judge. to me (and i haven't read the article link, but i've gleaned plenty from reading the thread), euthanasia can be an act of supreme compassion and mercy.

it almost seems as if some of you aren't aware (and don't care) that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of healthy infants being killed all over the world every day, even as we sit at our cozy computer keyboards and debate the ethical merits of a situation where educated professionals and shell-shocked parents are making an informed choice.

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by Aubergine
i don't believe this is for any of us to judge. to me (and i haven't read the article link, but i've gleaned plenty from reading the thread), euthanasia can be an act of supreme compassion and mercy.

it almost seems as if some of you aren't aware (and don't care) that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of healthy infants being killed all over the world every day, even as we sit at our cozy computer keyboards and debate the ethical merits of a situation where educated professionals and shell-shocked parents are making an informed choice.

I'm not clear what you mean when you say that healthy infants are being killed all over the world every day. I don't doubt the veracity of your statement when it's known that in some countries killing infants if they happen to be female is still practiced. Is that what you're referring to or something else? Could you expand on your statement please? I think it was unfair and unnecessary of you to say that no one on this thread cares about that nor do I think there was a preponderance of opinion against euthanasia. I happen to think there are very sorrowful situations where it may be appropriate however I wouldn't want the decision to end a human life to rest solely with one person whether a parent or a medical professional.

[Aubergine]

Linda, yes, you caught some of my drift - the practice of female infanticide in many 3rd world countries.

you ask me to "expand" my remarks, and i respect your request. but frankly, after having a very troublesome night and discussing all of this with some dear friends today, i don't think i want to continue my thoughts here. please understand, in my view, this is far too deep and troublesome a matter to "chat" about on a MB.

the one, most important and compelling thought i've taken from this thread is the fact that no one paid any attention to the post by the woman (please forgive me for not knowing how to scroll down and find you) who, herself, had to make the difficult, painful, and courageous decision to not carry her own pregnancy to term because of her fetus' genetic misfortune.

i trust you won't take offense at my backing off. peace.

suzanne

[Juli B]

I think there should definitely be a place for euthanasia. We don't want our pets to suffer, so we don't think twice about euthanasia for them, yet when a human is suffering they just have to deal with it. I honestly don't understand why an adult who will never recover and wants to die isn't allowed to do so. The issue of babies is a little less clear of course, but I think that option should still exist. People always are quick to point out that they are not old enough to say that they want to die, however they also aren't old enough to say that they want to live a life of pain, tubes, surgery, medication and misery with no chance for any kind of normal life. Someone (parents and medical experts) needs to be responsible for them and make the appropriate decision for them. Personally, I think it all comes back to religion, and I think it is really wrong that everyone in the world should have to live and abide by the beliefs of the religious.