Killing babies no different from abortion,some "experts" say

[txsvicki]

I didn't read the article to see if it was published only in the U.K. or what, but wonder if it's a scare tactic to make people in the U.S. not want nationalized health care. If the UK is letting some premature babies die then it could happen here. I suppose they think it is saving the country lots of money in long term health care expenses when preemies and disabled newborn human beings are denied medical treatment.

 

[not_my_kids]

It's not jsut in the U.K. that doctors say, "Oh, it's not viable, no need to waste resources." The cut off point may be just a fraction of an ounce or two days in gestation. They selectively choose which infants to resuscitate.

To me, it seems like they are making the argument that since abortion is allowed, killing a newborn should be allowed as well, but since we all seem to be so opposed to the idea of killing newborns, why are we not equally opposed to the killing of the unborn? That's what I keep taking away from it every time I read it.

 

[HMSHood]

These people are truly evil and don't think for a minute they are not serious. They need to be fought at every turn.

Sounds like Nazis Germany. (Sorry if I mention Nazism.)

We as a society need to determine when does life start.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I think, too, that it should be pointed out that my son has spina bifida so perhaps coming from someone who may have faced pressure to end my "damaged" son's life at birth brings me more into this conversation than others who may look at this as more political than reality. Today, my son has an amazing job, his own medical insurance and is happily married to an amazing woman! He is kind, a warrior in the fight for the protection of animals and would give you the shirt off his back. So, just because a child is not perfect in the eyes of some at birth, does not mean they should be eliminated. And, it's not like it hasn't been an actuality in some cultures in the past and probably still is practiced in some civilizations today. Hiding our heads in the sand when conversations of this type come about is certainly no way to go forward IMO.

:smile:
Great post!

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I read this article, and I don't think it is a 'kill newborn babies' platform. They are pointing out the same criteria used to dehumanize fetuses in order to justify killing them also applies to newborn babies. (in red is my phrasing, because I am pro-life and believe abortion is wrong.)

IMO, this can be viewed two ways. One, if it's okay to kill fetuses, it's okay to kill newborns, and Two, (which is the way I see it) is it's not okay to kill newborns, so it's not okay to kill fetuses.

Not so long ago, similar doctrines were in place dehumanizing entire races of people to justify owning them as slaves, and/or wholesale slaughter of them. Many children in this country were put on the auction block and sold, but how many of them were children of slave owners? At the end of the day, no matter how many criteria were met, or how many justifications were in place, they were still all children, all the same.

:smile:
Great post!

 

[Kimberlyd125]

What's scary is the fact that our lives and those of our children are being taken more and more by our government. Where will it end? Like I said above, this type of treatment is already happening in several other countries and I don't want to see these policies adopted here:

"Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.
She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html

This is horrid!
I can not imagine being that mother. This breaks my heart.
He was her BABY BOY!

And she pleaded for them to help him and they just let him die.

What is this world coming to???

I hope this case is reviewed. Maybe it will bring about some changes that will help another sweet innocent baby in the future.

 

[Nova]

This is horrid!
I can not imagine being that mother. This breaks my heart.
He was her BABY BOY!

And she pleaded for them to help him and they just let him die.

What is this world coming to???

I hope this case is reviewed. Maybe it will bring about some changes that will help another sweet innocent baby in the future.

It breaks my heart, too, Kimberly. Surely we all feel terrible for the mother.

But don't doctors have to draw the line somewhere?

We know that the more premature the baby, the greater its chances of not developing properly and of living a life full of suffering.

If before six months isn't the correct cut-off? When or how should it be drawn? (I'm seriously asking. I don't pretend to have the medical knowledge to say.)

 

[Kimberlyd125]

It breaks my heart, too, Kimberly. Surely we all feel terrible for the mother.

But don't doctors have to draw the line somewhere?

We know that the more premature the baby, the greater its chances of not developing properly and of living a life full of suffering.

If before six months isn't the correct cut-off? When or how should it be drawn? (I'm seriously asking. I don't pretend to have the medical knowledge to say.)

I would think the breathing on his own and the strong heartbeat should have been the deciding factors. Not the number of days gestation.

Do people realize how often due dates/ conception dates are wrong?

We are talking about a matter of days that prevented this baby from getting the medical treatment he deserved.

So if he had been a few days older (gestational age) and was not able to breathe on his own, he would have gotten treatment.

The reasons given for not administering treatment is what infuriates me.

2 DAYS.

No excuse.

 

[zadari]

"The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

OH WTF !!!!! ... that is just wrong !

 

[shana]

It breaks my heart, too, Kimberly. Surely we all feel terrible for the mother.

But don't doctors have to draw the line somewhere?

We know that the more premature the baby, the greater its chances of not developing properly and of living a life full of suffering.

If before six months isn't the correct cut-off? When or how should it be drawn? (I'm seriously asking. I don't pretend to have the medical knowledge to say.)

I would think the line would be properly drawn on a case-by-case basis rather than by fixed criteria relative to a calendar.

But the OP article is speaking of a parent's right to decide, is it not?

jmo...I've not read the article in its entirety or its linked reference as above.

I remember a sad incident which was told to me when I was no more than a pre-teen, about a newborn that was "set aside" immediately after delivery. Even at my young age, I was amazed that a dr could legally/ethically make such a decision...but so it was. I'm speaking of the 1950s, btw.

 

[Nova]

I would think the line would be properly drawn on a case-by-case basis rather than by fixed criteria relative to a calendar.

But the OP article is speaking of a parent's right to decide, is it not?

jmo...I've not read the article in its entirety or its linked reference as above.

I remember a sad incident which was told to me when I was no more than a pre-teen, about a newborn that was "set aside" immediately after delivery. Even at my young age, I was amazed that a dr could legally/ethically make such a decision...but so it was. I'm speaking of the 1950s, btw.

The argument that parents or doctors should have the right to forcefully euthanize live infants is such a non-starter for me, I had moved on. I only wish the word "experts" could be removed from the thread titles. The article that inspired this thread is an argument from a couple of academics; the thread title makes it sound as if "experts" have reached a consensus.

Now as to whether every possible measure should be taken with infants born so prematurely they are unlikely to have any quality of life--that is more difficult for me. Kimberly gives us a good starting point for discussion with "breathing on its own, strong heartbeat". I appreciate your desire for case-by-case consideration, but unless we establish guidelines "case by case" simply passes the decision on to doctors and/or parents.

 

[Quiche]

I'm sensing some insurance industry issues in this debate: let's face it, if they can find a way to weasel out of the costs of all the heroic neonatal intensive care our medical communities have standing at the ready for every premature baby, they'll weasel out of it!

Let's be real: parents who are having a baby want that baby to have a chance at life. I think this is an argument floated out there (in the midst of election bickering) by lobbyists for the insurance industry... After all, if an individual has the right to choose abortion, why shouldn't they (the insurance companies) have a "right to choose" to let a newborn die?

Notice the use of the word "moral"-- that's a big part of this, a HUGE part of the argument... It's about to get much nastier, imo, perhaps even a little war-like-- as in, with causalities.


moo