quote:AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- A hospital in the Netherlands -- the first nation to permit euthanasia -- recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.
Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.
The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.
Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.
"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."
It makes me kind of sad that they can't seem to distinguish between active killing and "letting nature take it course." Well, all of it makes me sad. Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.
What about when the doctors are for it and the parents against? How long before parents have to sue to keep their kid alive?!
quote: Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.
"As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting."
So it's only wrong because it's secret? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the argument is that when it is done covertly, there cannot be oversight (no "vetting"). In contrast, the transparency of the protocols used makes for accountability.
Unfortunately, comparable decisions are made all the time here in the US. "Slow codes," etc. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the claim. I just find it horrifying that someone can see the secrecy as the problem!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that this issue deserves a lot more thought than it usually gets. One's first reaction is usually "How horrible! They're killing babies!"
But then again... How do you compassionately let nature take its course when a baby is dying in agony and pain? Is it kinder to try to save the child's life through multiple surgeries that (in some cases) have a low probability of success? Is it kinder to just allow nature/God to decide by doing nothing? Or is it kinder to remove the pain element and hasten the child's death? Is it murder to kill someone who is already dying?
I am glad these things are coming to light. Families and physicians who have to make these difficult decisions should not have to grieve and agonize alone.
As for myself, I have no good answers to any of my questions. I just have more and more questions.
Like, Why is it acceptable to put a cat to sleep but not a human? How do you know if someone cannot be saved? Would I want to let nature take its course if it were me? If it were my own child? What would Jesus do?...probably heal the child. But what if he couldn't? Then what would he do?
Lots of hurtful things to consider. Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like, Why is it acceptable to put a cat to sleep but not a human?
Jenny, the answer to that particular question is easy, but unpleasant. We kill our pets because we can. The law says we can kill our pets for just about any reason so long as we do so humanely (although the definition of "humane" gets stretched in some shelters).
Pets get euthanized for having conditions too expensive to treat, for not being "fun" any more, for becoming disabled and - my favorite - for pissing on the rug.
None of this conforms with what we hear from our friends, of course. I'm hard-pressed to come up with one person I know who admits they had their pet put down because they started pissing all over the house. Probably, some of the people I know lied to me.
We get caught in contradictions with our pets - while we refer to them as "members of our family," the reality is that they are not. Most people would willingly risk their lives for a human family member or risk bankruptcy saving the life of a child or spouse. Most of us wouldn't go to those extremes for our pets.
And that's hard to admit to ourselves, I think. So we end up lying about those situations - both to our friends and to ourselves.
(I've been thinking about this for awhile, since this comes up often as an "argument" in support of euthanasia. I even think once in awhile there is fodder here for a marketable op-ed.)
If we look at euthanasia in pets, then we need to do it with our eyes wide-open and not sugar-coat it, especially if we're trying to make an analogy with humans.
I'll try to dig out some information on the Netherlands later today if I have time, but for now, y'all might be interested in the marketing approach taken by the manufacturers of "Urine-Off," a product that claims to eliminate the odor of urine on carpets and furniture:
quote:SARASOTA, Fla., March 15 /PRNewswire/ -- For too many years, the heart wrenching story has been the same in animal shelters found throughout the United States: "I love my cat or dog, but because she is urinating in the house, I can no longer keep her." The number one reason why cats are given up to shelters in America is because of urinary incontinence in their homes. A urine issue with dogs is one of the top five reasons why man's best friend is given up to a shelter. It is often times difficult to find these pets new homes, which sadly leads to eventual euthanasia.
quote:I'm hard-pressed to come up with one person I know who admits they had their pet put down because they started pissing all over the house.
I know one. When my dad got re-married, my two brothers were almost out of high school and had little time to spend with the dog that we'd had for seven years. They left the dog with my step-sister, who moved into our house while my dad and brothers moved into my step-mother's house. So, Rocky stayed in the same place while his world was replaced with one with three children eight and younger, and the family he had known left.
Not surprisingly, he was no longer house trained. My step-sister had him put to sleep within a month and a half.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several of the pets I own at the farm, I own because the owner no longer wanted them because of peeing in the house. Thus, they are well-cared-for "outside" pets. But without my intervention they would have been put down.
Many times urinary incontinence in an animal can be caused by something as simple as a urinary infection -- yet most owners don't bother to see if it is something treatable by a vet.
What I'm trying to get at - badly - is that the reality of pet euthanasia is at odds with the stories we hear most often. That is, a pet is killed because it had a painful, terminal illness.
Personally, I think people have a hard time admitting that they had an animal they referred to as a "family member" for 10-15 years killed for reasons of convenience, economics or hygiene.
As a result, we mostly hear stories of a different kind.
In case anyone wonders where I am coming from, I think it's appropriate to have different standards for animals than for humans. I feel "close" to my parents' dog, but I wouldn't empty my bank account if he needed some kind of expensive medical treatment.
I'd do it in a heartbeat for the humans in the extended family, though.
posted
Those are the kinds of people that just shouldn't be left to care for another living thing. Thank you for having compassion on those defenseless animals, Farmgirl.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's entirely probable that if you ask my stepsister, she will give you a different story. The following outline is the bare facts:
Dad and brothers moved
Stepmother didn't want Rocky in the house, and he was a tiny yorkshire terrier in Utah - could not be outside.
Rocky stayed with house and therefore with my step-sister's family.
Rocky was did the bodily functions bit all over the house. Editorial: My dad said my stepsister was sure he was doing it on purpose.
Rocky was gone within a month and a half.
*shrug* Sure there's a chance that the dog developed a horrible disease in that time frame and the euthanizing him was actually an act of compassion and we should all be impressed. This all happened while I was gone, and I was chided for bringing up the subject though and instructed not to talk about it. You can probably guess what I think about it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:*shrug* Sure there's a chance that the dog developed a horrible disease in that time frame and the euthanizing him was actually an act of compassion and we should all be impressed. This all happened while I was gone, and I was chided for bringing up the subject though and instructed not to talk about it. You can probably guess what I think about it.
Yeah, I'd probably feel the same. But I also have made it clear to my parents that I'm OK with their making decisions about their dog based on financial or rug-protection considerations. They won't abandon him and they won't kill him over a case of the sniffles. But they won't spend a ton of money on him or let the house get wrecked. I'm cool with that - but if it ever comes to that, they may end up lying to other family members about the reasons. I'll argue against the lie, of course, but I can't control their decisions and vice versa.
We all kind of gave up on that a long time ago and are all more or less cool with it.
posted
I don't see anything more wrong about killing a dog because it is ruining property than killing a cow because he's really tasty.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
the difference is an emotional one. Most of us never even meet the animals that end up on our plates.
It's different with a pet we've had for maybe 10 or 15 years - an animal we say we "love" and sometimes refer to as a "family member."
It doesn't feel comfortable, I think, for most people to admit they had this "family member" killed for less than compassionate reasons.
I'm not arguing against the killing of pets for incontinence and other reasons. What I'm trying to puzzle out is how we can talk about it honestly since the "compassionate" stuff gets thrown about in ways to help legitimize "euthanasia" for humans.
Really - the Hemlock Society used to have buttons that said "Let Me Die Like a Dog" - I had a really interesting discussion with a Hemlock board member saying I was grateful she was wearing the button, since it gave me an opportunity to talk about WHY dogs die.
To the best of my knowledge, the buttons aren't sold any more. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's exactly where my disconnect is. I can't imagine feeling like a critter is a member of the family. I have fondness for some pets, but they're still just critters to me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must be one of the people people that thinks this is okay. I know, it sounds absolutely awful, like I'm a murderer...
If there is a child who's going to die in extreme pain in a week or live a tormented life not only is it it more merciful to end their little life earlier but (and this sounds worse) it saves valuable health care money and doctors that could potentially save someone's life, someone who perhaps has more to live for.
It is perhaps the most painful and heartbreaking thing for anyone to do but a child in mortal pain is a child in mortal pain. I'd rather see my child die peacefully than in great pain.
Also, I don't think that if the parents don't want it, the doctor would push for it beyond stating the pros and cons.
EDIT: And if abuses occur, then better proceedures should be introduced. In principle, however, without abuse of this kind of thing, I am okay, provided the child will live a tormented/ very much shortened (a few weeks or months) life.
posted
I don't have time to do a comprehensive search on some of the "problems" with Holland's euthanasia experiment, but like sausage and politics, it gets less appetizing with closer inspection.
quote:U.S. Disability Activists Applaud UN Human Rights Committee Report's Statement of Concern About Euthanasia Practices
Not Dead Yet, a U.S. disability rights group opposed to legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, voiced its support of the draft report of the UN Human Rights Committee issued Thursday.
The draft report issued by the committee yesterday expressed carefully-worded concern over the legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands and its potential impact. The committee report said "such a practice may lead to routinisation and insensitivity to the strict application of the requirements." The committee also expressed skepticism over the very few negative assessments made in over 2000 cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia in the Netherlands. The report states: "The large numbers involved raise doubts whether the present system is being used in extreme cases in which all the substantive conditions are scrupulously maintained."
"The UN Human Rights Commission is finally addressing what has been public knowledge for years. The Dutch experience with euthanasia is best described as one of increasing carelessness and callousness over the years. The strict guidelines under which euthanasia was decriminalized for many years have been widely ignored, according to published reports in the Netherlands," said Stephen Drake, research analyst. "In spite of admitted widespread abuses, only a handful of doctors have even been prosecuted for violating guidelines. Out of that group, the ones who have been convicted of violating Dutch protocols have received suspended sentences and other legal equivalents of a light slap on the wrist."
quote:Euthanasia Opponents React to Holland's New Law By Laura Hershey
When the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia, Dutch disability-rights groups remained mostly silent. Internationally, however, other activists are expressing grave concerns about the law's possible impact on people with disabilities throughout Europe and the world.
On April 10, 2001, the Dutch Senate voted 46 to 28 to approve legislation allowing doctors to kill patients under certain circumstances. The euthanasia must be performed with "due care," in response to a "voluntary and well-considered" request from a patient who sees "no other reasonable solution" to "lasting and unbearable" suffering. The patient's request may have been made years earlier, before incurring an illness or injury. There is no requirement that the patient be terminally ill.
I can't dig it out right now, but one thing the oft-repeated mantra about "careful guidelines" leaves out is that, right up until full legalization, an estimated majority of physicians in Holland weren't reporting the acts of euthanasia as required. Estimated, because there's no real way to check the accuracy of any of this. In spite of Holland's own estimates of huge noncompliance with previous guidelines in regard to reporting, this was somehow viewed as a "success" and full legalization steamed ahead.
There is no real openness here - just the appearance of oppenness. And a higher posted speed limit.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there is a child who's going to die in extreme pain in a week or live a tormented life not only is it it more merciful to end their little life earlier but (and this sounds worse) it saves valuable health care money and doctors that could potentially save someone's life, someone who perhaps has more to live for.
It is perhaps the most painful and heartbreaking thing for anyone to do but a child in mortal pain is a child in mortal pain. I'd rather see my child die peacefully than in great pain.
Teshi,
"pain" isn't a requirement here. It's never been a requirement in the broader aspects of Dutch euthanasia law, either.
Spina bifida does NOT entail permanent unrelievable pain. Since that's one of the conditions they've listed, it exposes that fallacy.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
What other kind of pain can you measure in an infant? Once you go beyond that, there's an issue of trying to figure out just whose "pain" is being relieved - that of the parents or that of the child.
I am not one who expects the best of people. I think people can become as adept at rationalizing and lying about motives for killing a kid as they are currently about their pets.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't present any other arguments other than a general support and it depends radically on the situation of the parents, the child, any siblings, levels of disbility and potential pain, both for the child and the people around him or her.
quote: I think people can become as adept at rationalizing and lying about motives for killing a kid as they are currently about their pets.
Rationalizing, yes. Lying, no. In those first few minutes of a child's life, I believe (and I'm not saying it's right, at all, everyone has a choice) that if there is due cause and that cause is noted by a doctor parents should have the right to end their child's life.
quote: Not Dead Yet, a U.S. disability rights group opposed to legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia, voiced its support of the draft report of the UN Human Rights Committee issued Thursday.
quote: Dutch disability-rights groups remained mostly silent. Internationally, however, other activists are expressing grave concerns...
Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that Holland passed this law, and that this law enjoys some measure of support by Dutch people, but suffers repurcussions by the international community? Specifically, it bothers me that American anti-euthanasia groups are condemning Holland and pretending to know what's better for the Dutch people.
Saying, "I don't like x" is fine, but I get bristly when people say, "I don't like x, so you can't do x, even if I'm not affected." What happened to sovereignity?
EDIT: Regardless of what I feel about this topic, and I have to say that I'm ambivalent on it, I always, always support the right of a nation* of people to make their own decision.
* By nation I refer to a group of people of similar interests and culture in a general sense, rather than a political construct of a nation-state.
posted
Global village is becoming a issue, WheatPuppet, remember those Brits who wrote to Americans from the Guardian? They felt affected by the outcome of the election. Human rights groups feel very affected (and rightly) by people in similar situations, however far they are removed from the actual issue.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Specifically, it bothers me that American anti-euthanasia groups are condemning Holland and pretending to know what's better for the Dutch people.
Saying, "I don't like x" is fine, but I get bristly when people say, "I don't like x, so you can't do x, even if I'm not affected." What happened to sovereignity?
Why is that any different than human rights activists across the world criticizing the Taliban's treatment of women in Afghanistan? Or criticism of U.S. policies by any number of players across the world?
Those are a couple examples.
And you're putting words in people's mouths - who's saying "you can't do this" to Holland? It's certainly not anything I've said.
The Dutch, btw, have felt perfectly fine in having their government representatives present at public policy conferences and other events here in the U.S., spinning their euthanasia policies in the most positive light - and in a way that gets used in discussions of policy right here. I mean, you don't expect someone from the Dutch embassy to step up and voluntarily discuss the issues brought up in the U.N. report, do you? Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Often times other countries already having laws like this are used as reasons for the US too, think of the homosexuality debates, the Nederland's laws regarding homosexual marriage have been used, if not frequently, as a reason the US should adopt such a policy.
posted
How is inflicting one nation's worldview on another nation any different than inflicting their language, religion, or economic system? Any attempt to do those things in the current international climate is met with cries of imperialism, colonialism, or intolerance. Yet inflicting moral values or politics is perfectly okay.
In the global village, someone's house is their domain. Anyone else in the village who has a problem needs to find something better to obsess about.
Edit: I never said anyone on this forum was guilty of inflicting their worldview. I'm simply stating in a general sense that the UN and the US have no place in judging the democratic legislation of a sovereign nation-state.
The Taliban were not democratic, which changes the situation somewhat. Even then, I will not pass judgement on a society I know next to nothing about.
Criticism of US foreign policy is also somewhat different than criticism of internal issues. The UN has no business criticising a nation for its internal politics, except as they apply to how it functions as a body. [/rant]
posted
Totally off topic, Hobbes, but I notice both you and the title spell it "Nederlands". I always saw it "Netherlands" before. What's the difference? (Besides a d and a th. )
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exactly. How is inflicting one nation's worldview on another nation any different than inflicting their language, religion, or economic system?
And this relates to criticism from outside the country how???
I repeat - the Dutch have felt perfectly free to have representatives of their government participate in forums relating to U.S. policy discussion on euthanasia. That makes a critique absolutely essential in making our own case in this country.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Country name: conventional long form: Kingdom of the Netherlands conventional short form: Netherlands local long form: Koninkrijk der Nederlanden local short form: Nederland
quote:The UN has no business criticising a nation for its internal politics, except as they apply to how it functions as a body
I thought that was more or less the whole point of the UN. Maybe I've just been living a dream, but I thought one of the best things about the UN was that it was there to protect people when their country's policies become inhumane.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
