Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

A victory for Nazi eugenics and eugenicists everywhere?


Recommended Posts

We must debate mercy killing of disabled babies, say top "doctors" (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology)

A doctors' group today called for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled babies.

The medical profession should examine the "active euthanasia" of desperatelyill newborns, said the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology.

It wants an inquiry into whether the "deliberate intervention to cause the death of an infant" should be legalised.

The proposal met with a furious response from some quarters last night.

Labour MP Jim Dobbin compared it to the eugenics policies of the Nazis and said: "This sends the message that only the perfect are acceptable and the disabled can be discarded."

The college suggested that decisions on when young babies should be killed or allowed to die should depend not only on the gravity of their condition.

Its submission to an inquiry on the ethics of treatment for severely ill and disabled newborns raises the question of whether such children should be killed if they are not wanted by their parents.

The study comes against the background of growing acceptance of the ideas of euthanasia, suicide and hastening death for mortally sick adults and the dying elderly.

The college said of euthanasia in babies: "If assisted dying legislation is to be anticipated or enacted at the other end of life, now would be a pertinent time to discuss this."

The Disability Rights Commission said it would vehemently oppose such a move.

"It is morally reprehensible to place the value of one life above another," said a spokesman.

John Wyatt, a neonatologist at University College London Hospital, said euthanasia would turn medicine into social engineering where those considered worthless were doomed to die.

Any law allowing newborn babies to be killed would cover cases like that of Charlotte Wyatt, who was born three months prematurely, weighing just one pound and with severe brain and lung damage.

Doctors wanted to switch off her life support machine but her parents - who have now separated - fought to keep her alive.

Charlotte has confounded medical opinion and is now three years old. However, she is severely disabled and needs constant medical care.

The call for a discussion on euthanasia was made in a report for an inquiry into the ethics of treatment of premature babies conducted by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The highly influential medical forum's final report is to be published later this month.

There is increasing debate over abortion and the survival of babies born at ever-earlier stages of pregnancy. Those delivered after 23 weeks in the womb often survive yet abortion laws allow termination of pregnancy at 24 weeks.

The emotion behind the debate has been deepened by film showing a 12-week-old foetus moving its limbs and 'walking' in the womb.

Some doctors consider, however, that a baby born so prematurely and who survives thanks to modern medical treatment is likely to be so badly disabled that worthwhile life is impossible.

At the same time, Labour's Mental Capacity Act allows adults to order their own deaths in advance through 'living wills' or appoint 'attorneys' who can tell doctors to let them die if they are desperately sick.

Government legal advisers are also considering downgrading euthanasia from its status.

Any such move is unlikely to become law in the near future although pro-euthanasia MPs and peers are trying to establish a euthanasia law for adults.

The college's report, signed by its ethics chief Dr Susan Bewley, said the Nuffield inquiry should "think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests (HAHAHAHA) test and active euthanasia" in the care of sickly newborns.

It added that concerns over suffering "might lead to a positive argument for resuscitation limits for the extremely premature infant or to intentional assisted dying".

The college also raised the question of "whether there should be other factors for babies, such as being wanted by their parents or other carers and having the potential to make some, even if small, contribution to wider society".

So is it still too early for us to switch over to nazi flags and swastikas yet?

Link to comment

I am totally for aborting all babies. I've already been born, so I don't give a fuck about any other children. Hell, after we've aborted them we could export the fetuses to third world countries where people of color can do whatever they please with them. :dry:

Ooh...like maybe skewered and roasted for the desperate and poverty stricken people who live in the slums? Fantastic!

Are you fucking kidding me? Misreading the fucking title much?! Is there a selective reading epidemic going around, because this isn't the only thread its happening on.

When a depressed person wants to kill herself but with assistance from another person, he helps her but is charged with assisted suicide.

When a disabled person cannot speak for themselves but is going to be assisted suicide from someone else who doesn't know what they're feeling or what they want, it's called euthanasia. And essentially, euthanasia assistant is in their right because prior to the vegetative state of disabled person, they wanted to die.

But you'll never know what said disabled person wants after vegetative state. You'll never know what cure can be out there for said disabled person. You'll never know what said disabled person knows about how they are or how they're feeling.

So why is assisting a mentally capable person kill them self a felony, but assisting or rather, cutting life short of one disabled person all right? Society can't accept the imperfect? Society can't handle a little suffering. Life handed to you on a silver platter must be nice.

Imperfection is a travesty. It's a tragedy. Imperfection sucks and I guess the only way to feel fulfilled is to get rid of all that's imperfect but no one gives a flying fuck about them. The only people who are worth keeping are the perfect ones.

We all hate the imperfect ones eh. They don't deserve to fucking breath because they're not pretty, handsome. They can't smile, they can't breath perfectly. They won't be able to talk like us. They can't be as perfect as us.

Well then, we should've been all fucking dead right now.

Link to comment

I read that ridiculous article and I'm standing by what I said. Kill all the babies, regardless of physical or mental state.

Then eat the corpses.

Seriously though, I tire of James' constant "Holier Than Thou" rants that he tries to cleverly disguise as intelligent debate. He's probably wanking it right now while thinking about how much better he is than everyone else on A-E.

Link to comment

I feel he did post this as bait, but as somebody who has worked with severely disabled children, they can still find a little light/happiness on this world. When people discuss killing them when they are very young, it is not about what they are feeling, but about the 'burden' they are placing on the world. That's exactly right, if the poor cant feed themselves, if the disabled need help, we should just scratch them out of our books. We dont need them if they cant 'contribute.'

This is developing into my other rant >_>

Link to comment

Ooh...like maybe skewered and roasted for the desperate and poverty stricken people who live in the slums? Fantastic!

Are you fucking kidding me? Misreading the fucking title much?! Is there a selective reading epidemic going around, because this isn't the only thread its happening on.

When a depressed person wants to kill herself but with assistance from another person, he helps her but is charged with assisted suicide.

When a disabled person cannot speak for themselves but is going to be assisted suicide from someone else who doesn't know what they're feeling or what they want, it's called euthanasia. And essentially, euthanasia assistant is in their right because prior to the vegetative state of disabled person, they wanted to die.

But you'll never know what said disabled person wants after vegetative state. You'll never know what cure can be out there for said disabled person. You'll never know what said disabled person knows about how they are or how they're feeling.

So why is assisting a mentally capable person kill them self a felony, but assisting or rather, cutting life short of one disabled person all right? Society can't accept the imperfect? Society can't handle a little suffering. Life handed to you on a silver platter must be nice.

Imperfection is a travesty. It's a tragedy. Imperfection sucks and I guess the only way to feel fulfilled is to get rid of all that's imperfect but no one gives a flying fuck about them. The only people who are worth keeping are the perfect ones.

We all hate the imperfect ones eh. They don't deserve to fucking breath because they're not pretty, handsome. They can't smile, they can't breath perfectly. They won't be able to talk like us. They can't be as perfect as us.

Well then, we should've been all fucking dead right now.

I agree with most of this post. maybe not the anger and profanity, but the general message seems about right

I feel he did post this as bait, but as somebody who has worked with severely disabled children, they can still find a little light/happiness on this world. When people discuss killing them when they are very young, it is not about what they are feeling, but about the 'burden' they are placing on the world. That's exactly right, if the poor cant feed themselves, if the disabled need help, we should just scratch them out of our books. We dont need them if they cant 'contribute.'

This is developing into my other rant >_>

The greatest tragedy is that our society can't help everyone, and won't help as many as it can. We can do a lot more than we do, but even so, there are some who will die preventable deaths. Neither idealism nor cynism solves the problem, and the middle ground between "let them all die" and "we must save every single child, life imorisonment to all who suggest otherwise" is blurry. What do they do with the ones who will die if they aren't helped, who have little hope of living nayway, and whose parents don't want them? Do they help them, at the expense of time, money, equipment, and drugs that can help others? Do they ignore them and play the odds, just picking the ones who have a decent shot? Do they give equal care to all, and when that's not enough, it's not enough? How do you decide who to help when you are surrounded by the dying? I seriously don't know the answer, and I suspect these people feel the same way. The people who proposed this are probably just people who have been a bit too close to death, and want to change something, out of the belief that there must be a better way. They may be too cynical about it, but I think they see serious problems and are trying to solve them, and deserve better.

Belial, how do you manage to time that post so that I read as I'm starting Swift's Modest Proposal.

Link to comment

I am completely sure that these scientists are members of the National Socialist party.

Anyway, my opinion is that having kids is going to be a huuuge pain in the ass either way, if you're prepared for having a smart kid rather than a retard then that's your problem, but put it in perspective; both would be hard to work with, I think.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...