12 replies to this topic

[ckn]

Has there been a more blatant attempt at trolling ever?

[bowes]

Has there been a more blatant attempt at trolling ever?

Not necessarily. Many cultures would agree with it for example Romans. The Dutch consider it acceptable to have disabled babies killed at birth.

Edited by bowes, 29 February 2012 - 03:30 PM.

[gingerjon]

Not necessarily. Many cultures would agree with it for example Romans. The Dutch consider it acceptable to have disabled babies killed at birth.

The Dutch offer only palliative care to some babies.

I even wrote a thing about it.

But I can't find the details of the killing disabled babies bit beyond some rather hysterical blogs. Are there any decent links about it?

[bowes]

The Dutch offer only palliative care to some babies.

I even wrote a thing about it.

But I can't find the details of the killing disabled babies bit beyond some rather hysterical blogs. Are there any decent links about it?

It's considered euthanasia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

Edited by bowes, 29 February 2012 - 04:46 PM.

[gingerjon]

It's considered euthanasia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol

Interesting, although 22 cases in 14 years and all for the same condition doesn't seem like the Dutch are slaughtering babies on an industrial scale.

Babies, and adults too, are effectively left to die by having treatment withdrawn here. To my eye, and I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, the Dutch just seem to be more explicit and proactive in reaching the same end.

[bowes]

Interesting, although 22 cases in 14 years and all for the same condition doesn't seem like the Dutch are slaughtering babies on an industrial scale.

Babies, and adults too, are effectively left to die by having treatment withdrawn here. To my eye, and I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, the Dutch just seem to be more explicit and proactive in reaching the same end.

2 conditions: spinal bifida and hydrocephalus. But yes you have got a point about being the same principle. Probably kinder to kill someone there and then than to let them slowly die as well. Sane as abortion and infanticide have the same end result.

Though I knew it was tolerated in the Netherlands I didn't know it was so rare.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Interesting, although 22 cases in 14 years and all for the same condition doesn't seem like the Dutch are slaughtering babies on an industrial scale.

Babies, and adults too, are effectively left to die by having treatment withdrawn here. To my eye, and I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, the Dutch just seem to be more explicit and proactive in reaching the same end.

this happens in the uk

with terminally ill patients who are in incresasing pain the ammount of opiates is increased to relieve the pain inevitable proves fatal.

I've done it. I once had to administer a drug to a terminal patient called a Brompton Cocktail. It eased the patient's agony, but ultimately killed him.

Edit I should add that this concoction is no longer used, but I'm sure current palliative drug regimes have a similar effect.

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 29 February 2012 - 08:09 PM.

[steef]

The report makes a good point. What is less moral? To end a potentially miserable existence early, never knowing if the deceased might have wished differently in the future. Or, put an individual through a life time of pain and suffering to find when/if they reach adulthood they wish to die? Tough, tough call. I'd say if there were very strict guidelines to it then allow it. The god botherers will explode when they find out about this.

[ckn]

The report makes a good point. What is less moral? To end a potentially miserable existence early, never knowing if the deceased might have wished differently in the future. Or, put an individual through a life time of pain and suffering to find when/if they reach adulthood they wish to die? Tough, tough call. I'd say if there were very strict guidelines to it then allow it. The god botherers will explode when they find out about this.

The problem is that they specifically say "unwanted" as well as the disabled. A lifestyle choice rather than one based on the child's needs.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

The problem is that they specifically say "unwanted" as well as the disabled. A lifestyle choice rather than one based on the child's needs.

it can mean that Craig, and the same goes actually for terminating a pregnancy because of the unborn child's disability.

There are many reasons that a pregnancy is 'unwanted' that don't relate to 'lifestyle choice'.

[ckn]

it can mean that Craig, and the same goes actually for terminating a pregnancy because of the unborn child's disability.

There are many reasons that a pregnancy is 'unwanted' that don't relate to 'lifestyle choice'.

Oh I agree on that. I'm in no way an anti-abortionist, it is very much a choice of the mother. But once that child is born then the mother should get absolutely no say at all in whether a healthy child gets to live or die. That's what state social care and the adoption system is for.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Oh I agree on that. I'm in no way an anti-abortionist, it is very much a choice of the mother. But once that child is born then the mother should get absolutely no say at all in whether a healthy child gets to live or die. That's what state social care and the adoption system is for.

I agree

[bowes]

Oh I agree on that. I'm in no way an anti-abortionist, it is very much a choice of the mother. But once that child is born then the mother should get absolutely no say at all in whether a healthy child gets to live or die. That's what state social care and the adoption system is for.

The difficult question is whether the difference is only in that people want to adopt the baby or if there's a fundamental difference at birth which appears to be more of a cultural thing.