Author Topic: The subtle slide  (Read 1108 times)

LAK

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 915
The subtle slide
« on: November 15, 2006, 12:14:09 AM »
Nazi germany did not arive overnight. Adolf Hitler and his party of National Socialists did not lay out a platform of killing the infirm, mentally retarded or weak during the first party campaigns. These abominations slid into place as things progressed along the way.

Not surprizing to me these things are sliding into current socialist europa and other places. The subtle slide is quite evident already ........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416003&in_page_id=1770

Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth
By NEIL SEARS
Last updated at 22:00pm on 12th November 2006

[photo caption]Bishop: Argued cost of keeping ill babies alive should factor in life or death choices

The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick newborn babies die.

Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.

And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.

The shock new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.

A spokeswoman for the UK Disabled People's Council, which represents tens of thousands of members in 140 different organisations, said: "How can the Church of England say that Christian compassion includes killing of disabled babies either through the withdrawing or withholding of treatment or by active euthanasia?

"It is not for doctors or indeed anyone else to determine whether a babys life is worthwhile simply on the grounds of impairment or health condition."

The church's surprise call comes just a week after the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology sparked fury by calling for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled infants.

But it has been made in a carefully thought out official Church of England paper written by Bishop Butler for a public inquiry into the ethical issues surrounding the care of long premature or desperately ill newborn babies.

The inquiry, by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, began two years ago and its findings are due to be published in London - but the church's contribution to the debate has been leaked in advance.

The Nuffield Council, an independent body which issues ethical guidelines for doctors, began the inquiry to take account of scientific advances which mean increasingly disabled and premature babies can technically be kept alive.

In practice, doing so can be controversial - with the three months premature Charlotte Wyatt a case in point.

The Portsmouth baby weighed just 1lb at birth, and had severe brain and lung damage. Doctors wanted to be allowed to leave her to die, but her parents successfully campaigned through the courts against them.

Now that the child is three, however, and could be cared for at home, her parents have separated and are considered unsuitable to look after. In future cases doctors may work to guidelines proposed by the Nuffield inquiry.

In the Church of England's contribution to the inquiry, Bishop Butler wrote: "It may in some circumstances be right to choose to withold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death."

The church stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained".

The bishop's submission continued: "There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved.

"Disproportionate treatment for the sake of prolonging life is an example of this.

The church said it would support the potentially fatal withdrawal of treatment only if all alternatives had been considered, "so that the possibly lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance."

Yet the Revd Butler's submission makes clear that there are a wide range of acceptable reasons to withdraw care from a child - with the cost of the care among the considerations.

"Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided," he wrote.

"The principle of justice inevitably means that the potential cost of treatment itself, the longer term costs of health care and education and opportunity cost to the NHS in terms of saving other lives have to be considered."

The church also urges all the parties involved in care for critically ill babies should be realistic in their expectations, demands, and claims.

The submission says: "The principle of humility asks that members of the medical profession restrain themselves from claiming greater powers to heal than they can deliver.

"It asks that parents restrain themselves from demanding the impossible.":

UK Disabled Peoples Council spokeswoman Simone Aspis said the group's members were appalled that the Church was joining doctors in calling for disabled babies to be left to die.

"It appears that the whole debate on whether disabled babies are worth keeping alive is being dominated by professionals and religious people without any consultation with disabled people," she said.

Out of babies born at just 22 weeks of pregnancy or less, 98 per cent currently die. In Holland babies born before 25 weeks are not given medial treatment.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Oleg Volk

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 518
    • Volkstudio Blog
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2006, 03:29:24 AM »
Whoever pays eventually figures out the triage rules. If a kid has 98% chance of dying but would absorb resources necessary for a dozen others to be treated, then some would make that decision. The solution would be for the parents to insist on heroic measures -- and to pay for them.

Ron

  • Guest
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2006, 03:49:16 AM »
Quote
Whoever pays eventually figures out the triage rules. If a kid has 98% chance of dying but would absorb resources necessary for a dozen others to be treated, then some would make that decision. The solution would be for the parents to insist on heroic measures -- and to pay for them.

You might have a different take on it if it was your child that was going to be left to die.

What about care for the elderly? Your father (God forbid) is in need of treatment but denied because some bureaucrat has decided he is old enough and his life has run its course.

There is little downside to erring on the side of life. 

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,455
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2006, 04:36:21 AM »
Soylent Green.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Art Eatman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,442
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2006, 04:40:24 AM »
I understand all the "slippery slope" and "camel's nose into the tent" arguments.  But, the issues still remain.

Maybe I'm cold-blooded, but if it were my child and the doctors said, "Art, there's no hope," I'm pretty sure I'd go along with pulling the plug.  After all, my wife and I could try again. 

I've already made it known, as did my mother before me, "No heroic measures!"  I"m going out on my own terms, thank you.  Put my sorry ass in a lounge chair in the back of my pickup, drive over to Ghost Town, and I'm buying the beer and hollering for the guitar pickers to come party.  No wires and tubes and stink of antiseptic for me, no way.

I'm 72 years old and I'm not volunteering to leave early, but I'm not gonna whine about it when the time comes.  Like the song says, "It's no kind of livin', when no gal will give in, to no man with nine hundred years." Smiley  I ain't reading the Bible, cramming for finals, either.

IMO, more of us Old Farts oughta let 'em know that it's plug-pulling time.

Art
The American Indians learned what happens when you don't control immigration.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2006, 05:15:57 AM »
Fifty years ago the issue never arose because there were no measures that could be taken.  With technology now we can someone "alive" far longer.  But at a certain point that is not called "living" anymore.  Where is that point?  Everyone will have a different answer.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2006, 05:23:35 AM »
I am in agreement with Rabbi.

Also Europe has a lot of Socialized Medicine and this makes sense that they are wanting to reduce the burden upon the state. You have to cut cost somewhere to make a program viable for the healthy. Not saying I agree with what I just wrote, but it makes sense. We will probably see this coming from insurance companies in the US in the future as medicine advances even more and folks are "kept alive" even longer. I can also see it with Dr shortages and so forth, like rules after a certain age you can only get a knee replacement once every 10 years, and so forth.

-C
Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

wingnutx

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 927
  • Danish Cartoonist
    • http://www.punk-rock.com
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2006, 05:24:46 AM »
Not taking heroic measures is not the same as killing. I'm sure the scope of this would creep out to cover more and more minor ailments, though.

You make yourself a ward of the state, as patients in the UK basically are, and the state will decide how much cash and effort it really wants to spend on you.

AmbulanceDriver

  • Junior Rocketeer
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,939
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2006, 06:13:51 AM »
You know, I simply cannot agree with the article.  One of the services offered by the company I work for is CCT (Critical Care Transport).  We work with the local children's hospitals to transport their neonatal transport teams to bring critically ill kids to the big children's hospitals from outlying regions.  Now, I don't know how many of you have ever been in a NICU (neonatal intensive care unit).  It is an absolutely amazing collection of incredibly expensive equipment.  All designed with the express purpose of keeping very sick little babies alive.  Most of these kids are really premature. 

You know what though?  It's worth every penny in my opinion.  One particular kid sticks out in my mind.   A little girl had several very severe medical problems.  She's been born about 2 1/2 months premature, was on a ventilator, "incubator", and multiple IV's providing medications and nutrition.  The cost of all this equipment and care?  Several thousand dollars *per day*.   The doctors gave her literally a 1 in a million chance that she'd survive until her second birthday.  The hospital chaplain was called.  Family spoke to a grief counselor, helping to try to prepare them for the "inevitable". 

Her parents kept in touch with all the personnel involved in her care.  They thanked us all profusely for helping in her care.  Her parents let us all know that even though it was hard, they know they made the right decision.  Granted, their insurance company didn't agree.  But that little girl just turned 5 years old, and is completely healthy. 

As long as there is the possibility (and I'm sorry, but doctors aren't always right) that this child can survive, I would want everything done to preserve their lives. 

Art, I also believe in "no heroic measures" for me.  When it's my time, it's my time.  But you know what?  That's *my* decision to make.  Just like I can't make that decision for you, neither should we make that decision for anyone else.  If there is a chance that the child may survive, even if it's 1 in a million, we have to try.
Are you a cook, or a RIFLEMAN?  Find out at Appleseed!

http://www.appleseedinfo.org

"For some many people, attempting to process a logical line of thought brings up the blue screen of death." -Blakenzy

Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2006, 04:13:03 PM »
Hey, what's the problem? Some babies we kill sooner. Some babies we kill later. So? Is it our fault we can't kill them all right away?
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

Lee

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,181
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2006, 05:03:52 PM »
Technology has improved to the point that a lot of people can be kept alive under unusually dire circumstances (particularly with infants and the elderly).  As cold as it may seem, there is a point where the cost of such care is a real issue.  In a perfect world, I'd like to see every baby get such care, but I'd also like to see improvement in the lives of a hundred other children.  Life can be cruel sometimes...but such is life.

BakerMikeRomeo

  • Guest
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2006, 06:10:26 PM »
Quote from: Ron
There is little downside to erring on the side of life.

Maybe, but there are plenty of downsides to erring on the side of forcing me at gunpoint to pay your offspring's medical bills.

~GnSx

LAK

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 915
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2006, 02:29:05 AM »
Well, heroic measures are (usually) always taken to save someone rushed into an ER off the street with severe trauma, heart attacks etc.

Actual killing - cold blooded murder - the extreme examples being so-called "partial birth abortion" is another matter altogether.

Here it is depriving life sustaining measures and treatment. In the case of life sustaining measures of the artificial kind such as heart and lung machines the parents (like the victim's prior instructions, spouse, next of kin etc in the case of accident, heart attack etc) must decide whether an artificial means of sustaining the life is maintained and for how long.

In the case of treatment, that is somethng that should not be denied on cost grounds. Deciding "basket cases" of infant human life based on the financial costs alone is well down the slope to "getting rid of" all such "burdens" be they infant, child or adult.

I am reminded of the case of Martin in Mogadishu (See the book: Blackhawk Down). The combat surgeon had the "basket cases" set aside while the "salvagable" were given priority. On a battlefield, that is an acceptable compromise of limited resourses. In a civilized nation of (supposedly) incomparable wealth and technology - it is morally wrong - perverse.

Now, let's set the record clear; I am against all forms of State funded healthcare - period. In the past, private individuals, and institutions, such as the Church, used to treat or otherwise assist people who could not afford to pay their own way. But as long we have socialized medicine, and are forced to contribute, before we stop treating "certain cases" of our own citizenry based on financing alone - all foreign aid, of every kind - must stop. Period. And our forcebly extracted resources be directed to all those citizens of the United States exclusively.

The grossly inflated costs of medical treatment are yet another issue here. But that is another subject.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

BakerMikeRomeo

  • Guest
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2006, 04:57:35 AM »
Quote
I am against all forms of State funded healthcare - period.

Yeah, that's the point that I was trying to make, that this sort of thing is the result of socialism and socialized healthcare. When the government is paying the bills, the government will decide who gets helped and who doesn't, and why in heck would the government waste their money on a kid who will probably end up disabled to the point that he'll never be able to contribute to the government in any way (either with tax money or with votes to keep the government in power)?

~GnSx
Thank goodness for the internet, for it's turning me into more of an elitist, misogynistic, bitter, racist, cynical, isolationist, xenophobic jerk every day.

AmbulanceDriver

  • Junior Rocketeer
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,939
Re: The subtle slide
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2006, 07:00:32 AM »
Ok.  I should also clarify that I am also opposed to state-funded healthcare.  Please don't expect me to foot your medical bills in addition to my own.
Are you a cook, or a RIFLEMAN?  Find out at Appleseed!

http://www.appleseedinfo.org

"For some many people, attempting to process a logical line of thought brings up the blue screen of death." -Blakenzy