Independent Online Edition > Health Medical

I know it's cliché, but I'll say it anyways... slippery slope.

The evolution of genocide:

"Only in the first trimester..."

"Just not in the third trimester..."

"Well, the head's still in the mother..."

"Well, even though the baby is out, it's disabled..."

What's next?

I'll guarantee we'll find out in a few years in the Netherlands, then Europe, then here.

Your article is from the UK. In the UK, they basically don't prosecute mothers who kill their babies because they recognize things like post-partum depression can have a real effect on one's mind.

At any rate, this wasn't written as a policy recommendation in the U.S., so I don't see why we're even concerned about it?

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Man, the ignorance around here. This has absolutely nothing to do with post-partum depression. It has to do with parents trying to discard their babies that are born with physical or mental problems. It's called murder. Yes, murder: M-U-R-D-E-R.

The medical community in the UK is bringing an idea to the forefront. Namely, should women have the right to kill or euthanize babies after they are born if they are disabled. It's the next step after abortion.

I don't think it's a stretch to think that the medical community in the US would consider this as a viable option.

If not now, wait a few years when it's gained acceptance in Europe.

Until American doctors start suggesting this as a viable alternative, your suggesting that they might do so is at best just an attempt to predict the future.

Politically, it'd be a non-starter, and in fact, even fringe elements of the left would probably realize that suggesting this as a viable alternative would really hurt their credibility with the moderate folks -- the majority which still offer their qualified support to abortion procedures.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

You don't think that there are a number of American doctors that would agree with these UK doctors?

Find one

Then we can talk.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Okay, I found one: a friend of mine. Let's talk.

My name is Midtowner. Worship me. I know everything. Everyone else is a stupid ignorant fool.

TC:

If you're replying to me, please realize that I can only see:

I've given up on having constructive conversation with you.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Sorry Midtowner, I can't read what you're saying:

Midtowner
This message is hidden because Midtowner is on your ignore list.
View Post Unread
Remove user from ignore list
Midtowner
This message is hidden because Midtowner is on your ignore list.

It was not too long ago that doctors at a certain hospital here in OKC allowed children with spina bifida to die. They gave them water, but no food. It can and has happened. I will not say which side I am on....but just wanted to share a little info. OK, back to behind the couch.

There was, I believe, a medical ethics professor here in the US within the last year who endorsed precisely this position.

I regret that I cannot cite a name, or school, so I realize this is hardly a valuable reference. I do believe, however, that this "ethic" is already present in some areas of the contemporary medical community in this country.

For my own sake, whether it is domestic or overseas, I find the existence of the notion within the human community to be positively abhorrent, but a perfectly logical extension of the abortion argument - person "x" (or the government) deems person "y"'s life to be of either A) insufficient quality, or B) an inconvenience to those who conceived it, thus that person has the option of life taken from them without advocacy.

I realize there are myriad arguments over this issue, and I'm not interested in starting any kind of flame or troll war. This is just where I stand. To me, the notion of taking a life from someone who has no opportunity nor advocate to serve on its behalf is incomprehensible. Even Saddam Hussein, Hitler's lackeys, and Timothy McVeigh had defense counsel.

-SoonerDave

SD:

I think you misstate many pro-choice people's opinions as to how abortion is morally justifiable.

A great many of us follow the reasoning of the Roe court -- that life doesn't begin until the fetus is viable outside the womb. Until that point, the fetus' life is simply an extension of the mother's, and therefore, subject to her control.

This active euthanasia argument does not comply with that logic. The infant after birth, given normal care is viable on its own, and in my opinion, and probably a lot of people's opinions, a doctor who purposefully refuses to give care to an infant and allows the infant to die would be either guilty of gross negligence, or even homicide.

Even so, I'm not going to read into your comments that one medical ethics professor stating something like this means that there is something of a groundswell of support for it. This sounds like a fringe position, and often, these ethics profs take positions like that for the sake of making their students think about the moral and ethical ramifications to their own opinions.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I certainly understand that position, but firmly disagree with it. I believe life begins at conception. I believe the Bible teaches this. I realize not everyone believes the Bible, but that's my basis for it.

As a general observation, I've always believed that what might be termed the "liberal" position on abortion contradicts many of the other tenets of the broader left. That is, the left generally opposes the death penalty, is very often aligned with measures to protect animals and endagered species, all under an umbrella of excercising the utmost caution to protect something that can't protect itself.

I can't think of anything that doesn't more perfectly fall under that heading than either an unborn/recently born child.

Now, I want to be very careful in that I do not intend to hijack this into an abortion debate, so I won't pursue that aspect of the question further.

I would certainly agree with you, Midtowner, in the hope this specific notion would be viewed as a fringe position at best, but there are so many things I've seen in my 42 years that used to be fringe positions that are now conventional politics that it has taught me to approach such things very, very cautiously.

I remember when the thought of a state lottery was literally laughed at, the notion of casinos on every highway exit unthinkable, yet that's precisely where we are. And I also realize those are separate and unrelated debates, and I offer them only as illustrations of the point that what's fringe today is mainstream tomorrow.

Here's hoping this is one fringe position that stays that way.

Appreciate the good discussion.

-SoonerDave

I don't think this could enter conventional politics. A lot of pro-choice folks such as myself (maybe the majority, I'd have to go look at some numbers, but I seem to recall that most offer a qualified support for abortion as I do) do not subscribe to an 'unlimited' abortion right. Many, if not most subscribe to the viability standard.

If one subscribes to the viability standard, then it necessarily follows that one cannot express support for such an 'active euthanasia' standard unless such support is offered on entirely different grounds.

I do understand that there's a very fine and sometimes indistinguishable line between employing normal measures to save an at-risk infant with birth defects and employing 'heroic' measures.

The spina bifida example as stated above is really terrible though. People with spina bifida can go on to lead extremely productive lives.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

TCOM-
This may be a little off topic,but I'm trying to understand your last post.
If you are as Ultra-Conservative and Christian as your posts lead me to believe, how can you choose to have a friend, particularly a doctor friend, who who consider eutheinasia?

NEO:

I'm pretty sure he was replying to me, which is strange because he's completely aware that he's on my ignore list.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

wow. so, if they can't cure 'em, they might as well kill 'em. while withdrawal of treatment is one thing, active euthanasia is another... what happened to the hippocratic oath?

it's interesting that europe generally opposes the death penalty yet on this issue it has little problem killing newborns with severe illnesses. this reminds me of eugenics... just repackaged. -M

Well said.

That sentiment has no doubt been expressed before.

Regarding what? Your statement is too general to even be addressable.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!