Debate over baby mercy killing

[Schmurgle]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6120126.stm

After reading this and hearing a mothers view point who has a child with spina bifoda, I agree that it should be up for debate. However, it seems dangerous to allow doctors to decide who should live and who should die, it's just to much of a responsibility. Medicine for me is to try and give the best quality of life, not to take it away and in the end we can never determine 100% if they will be in pain for the rest of their life.

[Keerin]

This has been talked about between me and my girlfriend a few times. She is a paediatric nurse and most enjoys nursing disabled children. I have come to agree with her that taking the life of a disabled child is not right. No matter the disability. Actually, if the child is born braindead or is severly mutated (no arms or legs etc) then it should be up to the parents but I don't think the doctors should sway the descision at all.

[Hecate]

I agree with Schmurgle, Keerin and Lynnie.
A debate is always good as it raises awareness, but I don't think that doctors should be responsible or try to sway parents to actively end a baby's life.
Yes, the facts are always good for parents to know fully, but medicine has never been about ending life particularly in making the decision without consent. Obviously a baby cannot give consent, and the only place for euthanasia is when an adult makes a considered choice in sane mind imo.
There was a quote in the article along the lines of medicine not being a tool for social engineering, and I think it would be a dangerous step to take.

[The_Mechanix]

I agree with freakonaleash to a certain extent, but isnt using medical technology "social engineering" by giving a child that would have died by natural causes a life and possibly pass on a dodgy gene to future generations therefore denying natures way of implementing survival of the fittest?

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by Keerin

This has been talked about between me and my girlfriend a few times. She is a paediatric nurse and most enjoys nursing disabled children. I have come to agree with her that taking the life of a disabled child is not right. No matter the disability. Actually, if the child is born braindead or is severly mutated (no arms or legs etc) then it should be up to the parents but I don't think the doctors should sway the descision at all.

I agree mostly, but in my opinion, if someone is braindead they are braindead, there is absolutely no point in keeping them alive, as they are not even a human being at that point, they're essentially just a dead body that's being kept alive. Keeping them alive is a waste of resources that can be used on others.

I would only agree with keeping them alive, if we had some kind of technology that could repair the damage to the brain and get it working again, but that kind of technology is miles beyond what we're capable of.

[RiseAgainst]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

I agree mostly, but in my opinion, if someone is braindead they are braindead, there is absolutely no point in keeping them alive, as they are not even a human being at that point, they're essentially just a dead body that's being kept alive. Keeping them alive is a waste of resources that can be used on others.

I would only agree with keeping them alive, if we had some kind of technology that could repair the damage to the brain and get it working again, but that kind of technology is miles beyond what we're capable of.

nice post, fully agree with all that

i agree doctors shouldnt be advising one direction or another but should give them an in depth case for both mercy killing (hey its murder, can we just not call it that?) or for keeping them alive.

if we are gunna murder babies for having a disability can we start with adults who develop them? why create a perfect race if we let those lucky enough to not be born that way get away with it?

[I_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by The_Mechanix

I agree with freakonaleash to a certain extent, but isnt using medical technology "social engineering" by giving a child that would have died by natural causes a life and possibly pass on a dodgy gene to future generations therefore denying natures way of implementing survival of the fittest?

Natural selection (survival of the fittest) doesnt really take a role in our society, not as the original nature of it was stated.

Look into debates over the gene vs the meme, basically because we are so socially advanced a huge proportion of "dodgy" genes will still be carried onto the next generation, because diabilities are not as limiting as they were hundreds of years back. Also, for all you know, you may be carrying hundreds of dodgy genes which are just autosomal recessive and will only have a possibility of arising if you have a kid with someone who also shares the same dodgy autosomal recessive gene. So there will always be a passing of dodgy genes, also taking into account the spontatious mutation of genes occurs in approx every 1 in 10,000,000,000 bases of your DNA (after genetic proof reading, prior to proof reading its ~ 1 in every 10,000 bp ), which means mutations do occur fairly regularly as we have 3000,000,000 (take into account how many replicating cells we have).

There are also countless dodgy genes, which can be autosomal recessive or dominant, that people will not know they, as the signs of defects will not show up til your 40 or 50, which is typically long after having kids!

Anyways, ive gone on a bit of a speel, so i'll shut up now.

However, aye, i dont think its up to doctors, it should be up to the parents, but if its a really bad disorder (ie, the kid aint going to last long no matter what) i think they should be able to say they will not give full support through the NHS.

I mean, what about that kid that was in the papers last year, blind, deaf, dumb, and metal age wont surpass that of 2 weeks old or something, the kid had several other severe complications, the doctors suggested letting her go, but the parents fought and fought for her, and she was kept alive but needs constant care, then the parents split up and neither can "handle" looking after thier own offspring so the poor thing is going to be a burden on society and institutionalised without any hope of anything.

[/rant]

[I_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

I agree mostly, but in my opinion, if someone is braindead they are braindead, there is absolutely no point in keeping them alive, as they are not even a human being at that point, they're essentially just a dead body that's being kept alive. Keeping them alive is a waste of resources that can be used on others.

I would only agree with keeping them alive, if we had some kind of technology that could repair the damage to the brain and get it working again, but that kind of technology is miles beyond what we're capable of.

Agree completelly there, how can you really call it life when they will not even be aware of thier own existence or able to do anything other than be plugged up to a life support machine until your body dies!

[Hecate]

I agree with what everyone is saying about a totally braindead child, I for one would not want my own child born and then kept on life support for the rest of it's life, if you can call it a life. My earlier post I was really referring to children born with disabilities, but unfortunately they are all grouped under the same blanket, and thus still believe it would be a dangerous move to allow doctors to make the decision. I don't know how this would be resolved for a braindead child as the case mentioned above the parents will have made the original decision purely based on emotions rather than what is really fair and practical, plus the costs to look after them are astronomical, money better spent elsewhere in the NHS. Perhaps by extensive counselling being a required part of the decision rather than optional, and the costs to be footed by the parents in such cases? I don't know if this would be seen as fair though by some people.

[The Pumpkin]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

and the costs to be footed by the parents in such cases? I don't know if this would be seen as fair though by some people.

I reckon youre right in saying some people would see that as unfair. It would be inevitable that a parent such as that would then complain that obese people and smokers dont need to foot any bills so why should they. If that makes sense.

I think the general consensus is that the parents should ultimately make the decision after careful conference with their doctor, i dont think any doctor has the right to decide the fate of another persons child, since it could be argued that is the general definition of murder (like RiseAgainst said).

Afterall, isnt that why euthanasia is illegal? A doctor ending the life of an extremely disabled child isnt a million miles away from a family member ending the life of an adult suffering from an extremely painful long drawn out illness. So why should one be allowed but not the other?

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by The Pumpkin

I reckon youre right in saying some people would see that as unfair. It would be inevitable that a parent such as that would then complain that obese people and smokers dont need to foot any bills so why should they. If that makes sense.

That's a good point, but whereas a smoker could get some kind of life-saving treatment to improve the quality of their life, how is keeping a braindead baby alive on machines improving the quality of their life given they are not even aware of their own existence? It just seems to me, in that case, it's more about the parents' own emotions rather than having any beneficial effect for their child.

Originally Posted by The Pumpkin

I think the general consensus is that the parents should ultimately make the decision after careful conference with their doctor, i dont think any doctor has the right to decide the fate of another persons child, since it could be argued that is the general definition of murder (like RiseAgainst said).

Yes it does seem to be the general agreement here, but I am wondering if it should be considered murder if the baby is braindead? I don't know really, maybe that's a philosophical issue in which case I'm lost!

Originally Posted by The Pumpkin

Afterall, isnt that why euthanasia is illegal? A doctor ending the life of an extremely disabled child isnt a million miles away from a family member ending the life of an adult suffering from an extremely painful long drawn out illness. So why should one be allowed but not the other?

Personally I don't think euthanasia should be illegal for adults in sane mind, after all doctors do withdraw medical treatment when deemed necessary and there is no more that can be done.
For babies, in the end this comes down to the parents' own decision, and although I agree with the withdrawl of treatment, actually giving someone a substance that ends their life takes it to a new, and I think, dangerous level. For instance, a baby born with spina bifida (as Schmurgle mentioned in her first post) can live a full and fulfilling life with good medical support, thus a decision to actually kill them at birth seems utterly wrong and inhumane to me. However, if the baby had a very poor outlook for their life, and needed life-saving treatment at birth, then it's up to the parents in close consultation with doctors whether to give that treatment which keeps them alive or not.

[I_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

plus the costs to look after them are astronomical, money better spent elsewhere in the NHS. Perhaps by extensive counselling being a required part of the decision rather than optional, and the costs to be footed by the parents in such cases? I don't know if this would be seen as fair though by some people.

It may not seem fair, in my opinion it would only be to the real no chance babies, no chance of a life over a few months, severe disabilities that would leave the kid in hospital for as long as it lasted & braindead children etc.

Originally Posted by The Pumpkin

Afterall, isnt that why euthanasia is illegal? A doctor ending the life of an extremely disabled child isnt a million miles away from a family member ending the life of an adult suffering from an extremely painful long drawn out illness. So why should one be allowed but not the other?

I see where your coming from dude, the difference is the doctors arent really killing the kid are they? its more they are just letting it die, i think, im not sure, i cant remembe the article, its too early in the morning for this


Basically i think treatment should be given if it has a chance of improving the quality of a life and attempting to treat treatable problems, but not if a child is born with absolutely no hope of survival etc