Baby Euthanasia

[Stewart]

There was a small article in the papers this morning about the need for a dialogue about baby euthanasia. The idea being that it would allow for parents to remove severely disabled children from their lives, thus saving them years of financial and emotional stress. Having the option to kill the child once born would also reduce the stress upon the woman's body from abortion and suchlike terminations, allowing the birth to complete before decisions are made.

As usual, there's the bunch of pro-life nutjobs (this time joined by disabled societies) who are against it because they think it's wrong. On the other hand, there are those who believe talks need to be had on allowing it into law (in the UK), basically a mix of doctors and, in some cases, those who have had their lives ruined by bringing up disabled children.

Personally, I would support it. I don't see why people should have to spend years catering for someone that puts such stress on the parent(s) both financial and emotional, not to mention probably physical stress and lack of social interaction. If the parents have the child, then terminating the severely disabled child should be an option available to them.

Anyone else?

 

[ruby]

I have mixed feelings on this to be honest..

On one hand if you have a baby that has no quality of life do you let it live?

And on the other hand could you live with yourself at choosing to end a babys life?

And at the end of the day doesnt this baby have a right to life?

 

[abecedarian]

Sounds like legalized murder to me. If that makes me a pro-life nutjob, so be it. Who is to say what defines a 'quality life?' Too many times I've seen family's lives enriched by their 'handicapped' children..this is where attitude is everything. If this becomes legal, who is next up for termination? The elderly? Those who are mentally ill? Oops..that's getting a little too personal now and sounds a little too close to Nazi Germany for the my comfort.

 

[Stewart]

Too many times I've seen family's lives enriched by their 'handicapped' children.

I said severely disabled. Not just anyone born with a general handicap. One person suggesting talks need to be aired on the subject is the mother of Jonny Kennedy, who died in 2003 having suffered all his life from dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.

From Wikipedia, he had this to say:

At the time Kennedy was born, there was no prenatal test for EB. By the time he grew up, such a test existed, and Kennedy had extremely negative views of EB pregnancy. When asked whether he would carry on with a birth, knowing that an EB child would be born, he said "No. I would terminate. It's not just a disabled child that's being born. It's disabling a whole family."

 

[abecedarian]

I would just hate to see legalized terminations when the next step would be forced terminations. Once it becomes legal, who is to stop legislation that requires welfare parents to terminate their severely handicapped children, since their care is a 'burden' on society? I can sympathize with the feelings of people like this fellow in the case you cited, but I'm afraid it wouldn't stop there. This a moral and ethical can of worms that might be better left shut.

 

[Stewart]

This a moral and ethical can of worms that might be better left shut.

But then it just lingers as taboo.

 

[abecedarian]

But then it just lingers as taboo.

"Taboo" has such a bad name these days..pity.

 

[Libre]

I can't support it. The potential downside is far worse than the potential value of such a program. There are enough prenatal tests to make the decision before the birth. Once born, the baby is a full fleged human being, with all associated rights and privilages. Sure, you say severely disabled, but who's to draw the line? What if the line drifted away from severly and towards inconviently? Mightn't it be that someday, if a baby is not cute enough, or the wrong gender, that would be enough? Brave New World? You know, Stephen Hawking would no doubt shudder at such a concept. And so do I. Ghastly idea, Stewart.

 

[Flor]

There are enough prenatal tests to make the decision before the birth. Once born, the baby is a full fleged human being, with all associated rights and privilages.

I agree with Libre and Abced. The notion of euthanasia, baby or otherwise, is way too slippery a slope. It flies in the face of people who spend their lives working to eliminate disease and even the sort of utter poverty that might not have a prenatal diagnosis for devastating illness. Life just is not fair and there are many other ways of seeking to level things out for the living than by enticing them into "cleaning things up" through euthanisia. Living is very messy, illness and dying even more so, but that doesn't mean that it's without dignity, even when crippling, overwhelming circumstances are present.

I have the distinct feeling that childbirth and carrying a child with severe problems is harder on a woman's body than an abortion. And the stress on a man and woman's personality from giving birth, then euthanizing their child would be incomparable to their stress upon terminating a pregnancy.

 

[Stewart]

Stephen Hawking would no doubt shudder at such a concept.

Why?

I have the distinct feeling that childbirth and carrying a child with severe problems is harder on a woman's body than an abortion. And the stress on a man and woman's personality from giving birth, then euthanizing their child would be incomparable to their stress upon terminating a pregnancy.

Out of interest, why would you think that carrying a child with severe problems would be harder on the woman's body than abortion. Having a child tested prenatally and then making the decision to have it terminated on completion of the birth would surely be safer than to resort to abortion?

Also, it's not just the parents who would suffer from the retention of a severely disabled child. The stress of giving up one's life to care full time isn't something many would want to countenance. The stress of such a thing can cause the whole family to break up. And then, should the couple (that we now seem to have!) have other children, they will no doubt become deprived of their parents' love and attention due to the care required for the severely disabled one.

 

[abecedarian]

Also, it's not just the parents who would suffer from the retention of a severely disabled child. The stress of giving up one's life to care full time isn't something many would want to countenance. The stress of such a thing can cause the whole family to break up. And then, should the couple (that we now seem to have!) have other children, they will no doubt become deprived of their parents' love and attention due to the care required for the severely disabled one.

Not to dismiss the stress you're talking about, but an uncomfortable truth about humans and how we mature is this: we grow through adversity. I think society would be better served by rallying around parents and children in these extreme cases. As a mom several times over, I can say that if someone suggested 'terminating' one of my kids, however deformed they might be, they'd have to do so over my dead body.

 

[steffee]

I am crap at debating but would never agree with such an idea, having ridiculously paltry reasoning which is that the idea is just sickeningly wrong, which I guess would make me a "pro-life nutjob" with the best of them. Killing a person, for whatever reason (including ordinary euthenasia, suicide, etc) is "playing God" and completely immmoral. Though I am not religious and have no real evidence to back up what I am declaring here...

My (kind of ex) sister-in-law has recently given birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome, which I imagine is a fairly scary concept for her and her partner, and I'm sure there will be aspects of parenting her child that will be detrimental to her own life and that of the rest of her family, including her two "normal" children. I appreciate that maybe this is not the kind of example that this topic is focussed on, but agree with Libre that there will inevitably be examples of this concept being abused.

I did an OU course called Care, Welfare and Community a few years back, which focussed on severely debilitating disabilities (whose names I've forgotten, but which include premature aging and suchlike) which I imagine would be heartbreaking having to parent a child with such a disorder, but to end that individual's life is an immense responsibility, that I don't feel anyone, be they a parent or a professional, or even the individual themselves, has the right to make. And that's basically my whole argument...

 

[Heteronym]

Why?

Ah, Libre is just exaggerating. Hawking's life would have been terminated before he could have developed a moral conscience to shudder at such a concept

What worries me is that this topic seems based on the assumption that retarted children are, well, too retarted to appreciate the fact that they're alive. How can we know that? A disabled child may lack mental faculties, have a malfucntioning brain, lack language skills, just act like a wooden door from the exterior. But how can we know it doesn't have a perception of itself as a living creature?

 

[Stewart]

What worries me is that this topic seems based on the assumption that retarted children are, well, too retarted to appreciate the fact that they're alive. How can we know that? A disabled child may lack mental faculties, have a malfucntioning brain, lack language skills, just act like a wooden door from the exterior. But how can we know it doesn't have a perception of itself as a living creature?

I don't think we are talking about retarded children. We are talking about those born with such severe disabilities that their life will be one of sheer physical pain and sorrow, especially once they become aware of who and what they are.

As for Stephen Hawking, I was asking why because he was in perfect control of his faculties until his disease hit him in his twenties. It's not as if he was born that way.

 

[Shade]

Here is the story as I saw it. Though frankly I think they could have worded the headline better, as I read it as "Doctors: let's kill disabled babies."

It's important to note that the college placed emphasis on passive methods (withdrawal of treatment etc), only mentioning active euthanasia as a final option:

We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns.

And I do think a distinction needs to be drawn between these options. I would oppose active killing of severely disabled babies. Of course, in most cases we're talking about hastening of death anyway, as if they're that severely disabled, they won't live very long. So the category of cases to which the circumstances envisaged by Stewart will apply - giving up one's life to full-time care, breaking up the family, other children deprived etc - has got to be vanishingly small.

Jonny Kennedy's (the child who suffered from EB as mentioned by Stewart above) mother said:

In extremely controlled circumstances, where the baby is really suffering, it should be an option for the mother.

Though this is somewhat at odds with Jonny's own quote above (cited by Stewart), who merely approves of abortion rather than killing once the baby is born... He's an interesting case though - isn't he the chap who was on the C4 documentary a couple of years ago? I think one would be going quite some distance to suggest that he didn't have a valuable and worthwhile life, and to contribute positively to the lives of those around him.

All in all, as a supporter of the right to abortion on demand, I would have to say no to this one. Presumably, as with any other child, adoption is availabe if the parents really feel they can't cope once the baby is born?

 

[Flor]

Out of interest, why would you think that carrying a child with severe problems would be harder on the woman's body than abortion. Having a child tested prenatally and then making the decision to have it terminated on completion of the birth would surely be safer than to resort to abortion?

Well, I would bring this point down to only the physiological aspects. I'll save the emotional/psychological ones for later! Fact is, in science, the growth or culture of cells is not a whole lot unlike the growth and cell reproduction that occurs during gestation. So pregnancy is an in vivo growth experience. The suggestion that growth of pregnancy be completed in order to then cause the cells to cease growing is illogical and incongruent.

Childbirth, though safer than ever, is still a somewhat risky endeavor. Women still die due to placenta previa and other obstetrical emergencies. Abortion is a very safe procedure, requiring only local anesthetic.

Crucial distinction. Passive methods are practiced every day and are humane and within what I see as the realm of cognitive soundness. The dissonance appears when the directions being traveled, ie growth and cessation of growth, collide in an extreme manner. Abortion cancels the growth before it's carried too far.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Killing a person, for whatever reason (including ordinary euthenasia, suicide, etc) is "playing God" and completely immmoral.

But using technology to cure someone who would otherwise die is also "playing God". Is that immoral too?

 

[Libre]

As for Stephen Hawking, I was asking why because he was in perfect control of his faculties until his disease hit him in his twenties. It's not as if he was born that way.

I didn't know that, Stewart.
Still, Hawking is an example of a severely disabled individual that has a lot to offer. But maybe he is NOT a good example, because people have the right to live regardless of what they have to offer. The vast majority of individuals, handicapped or not, do not have genius mentalities and revolutionary ideas.
You know, I wouldn't be so down on the idea in the most extreme cases - I just worry about what we, as a society, might become (or regress to), were we to allow the euthanizing of babies.

 

[Jughead]

If someone would be so kind as to give me a list of the ailments that constitute severely disabled that would help me in my decision. Also, is just having a certain ailment enough? Since some afflictions have varying degrees of severity what is the required percentage the baby needs to have before we can kill it.

I would also like to point out the financial and emotional hardship caused to many families by old people, many of whom suffer from debilitating diseases that leave them utterly disconnected from the world. Go to any old folks home or long term care facility and you will see a load of them just lying around in their own waste. These homes and the care they require are expensive. Some families have been forced to sell their cottages, cancel vacations and eat out less just to pay for the old people. Since they are going to die soon anyway, wouldn't it just make more sense to kill them now. It's not like they are going to get any better.

 

[Stewart]

I would also like to point out the financial and emotional hardship caused to many families by old people...wouldn't it just make more sense to kill them now.

We'll send the boys out and collect them in the night.