Eydawn Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Hate to say it, Welsh, but the article you posted didn't help your case any if you're trying to say that Dutch doctors don't participate in active euthanasia of infants. That article wasn't very positive towards the Dutch healthcare system- period. You might want to re-read it. I will wholeheartedly agree that there is a large difference between euthanizing thousands of people and euthanizing a few disabled infants and children... but I maintain that it is wrong. Dead wrong. Wendy CO EMT-B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshMedic Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Then I'm sorry too, but you didn't get my message. I know these articles show us in a poor light, that was the point. It's all ultra-conservative bullcrap that you'll find on the net. It certainly wasn't an article written here. I am also puzzled by your comment on euthanizing thousands as opposed to a few children. You're not trying to find a parallel between nazi practices and the acts of very dedicated healthcare profesionals here ,are you? As I pointed out, there is nothing "active" in the way our pediatricians act. They do not, however, believe in unnecessary suffering for the "greater good". Whatever that may be... WM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eydawn Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 See, you didn't make clear what the article was or where it was from... the way you set it up, I thought you were providing a rebuttal argument for those insisting that doctors are euthanizing infants. What I am saying is that euthanasia of those unable to make the decision for themselves is wrong, whether it be a child, an incapacitated adult, or otherwise. That is my stance. There is a strong difference between providing comfort care to an infant that will die eventually and actively administering medications with the intent of hastening that end. If you might provide me with something written from where you are providing a balanced or less biased view of end of life care there, I would greatly appreciate it... and that other page you posted, if you could provide a translated version? Dutch is one I can't even read yet, lol. Wendy CO EMT-B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmeaner Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 What I am saying is that euthanasia of those unable to make the decision for themselves is wrong, whether it be a child, an incapacitated adult, or otherwise. So I don't have the right to decide to end my child's and my family's suffering due to an irreversible condition or disease? Now who is that helping? Is the "sanctity of life" so precious that it it must be maintained regardless of the pain it causes? I thought the whole point of chosing a durable power of attorney was to have someone carry out your wishes when you are incapable of expressing them. This is not only for children. There was a patient at a local nursing home with CHF, COPD, and advanced Alzheimer's leaving her unable to care for herself. Apparently she was raped as a child. Whenever a male, or sometimes a female, would touch her, she would relive the experience. I'm not saying she needed to be put to death. However, the family should be able to decide when enough is enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshMedic Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Wendy, The site in question has an english version. Just click on the tiny GB flag in the top right-hand corner. As far as further evidence is concerned, I can find a lot. However, what would be my search parameter? I can tell you that euthanasia is better than intolerable suffering, but you would counter that palliative care is the option. That's not really the argument. The argument, to me, is whether a person should have the right to decide what happens to their body. Even to the extreme argument that they should be allowed to say when it's been enough. That includes children, by the way. Why shouldn't a 16 yr old be able to make these decisions for themselves? I know I would want to. After all, in the US a 16 yr old is legally allowed to drive a lethal lump of metal at frightening speeds. Surely they should be allowed to decide when they'd suffered enough. One of the things that annoyed me about the Daily Standard article so much was the suggestion that we would offer euthanasia is an alternative to proper care. We don't offer euthanasia at all, the patient requests it. Once they have been carefully assessed and deemed competent to make that decision, then the subject is discussed. Again, there is no concensus to be reached on such an emotive subject. But I won't allow outright lies (Daily Standard ones..) to be told without some kind of redress. WM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts