Patterico's Pontifications

3/4/2006

Beautiful Infanticide

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:57 pm

When I hear the word “infanticide,” the word “beautiful” doesn’t generally come to mind. But then, I’m not a doctor. (Via Allah.)

Comments (96)

96 Responses to “Beautiful Infanticide”

First, they came for the old people, but I wasn’t old. Then they came for the infants, but I wasn’t a baby…
sharon (fecb65) — 3/4/2006 @ 10:38 pm
I’m concerned about how the policy is handled; it’s clear that there are serious slippery slope issues.

But suppose an infant is born without any chance of living, and the maximum lifespan of three weeks is going to be excruciatingly painful. [No rejecting my assumptions, please.] Is it wrong to kill the baby in isolation; that is, without regard for the slippery slope problems it creates?

In most (all?) of the US, this would be murder, of course. And I understand the social policy that calling it murder supports. Still, I’m unconvinced that those who quietly assist death for doomed, miserable infants deserve our disapprobation.

–JRM
JRM (5e00de) — 3/4/2006 @ 11:05 pm
I am not unconvinced. I consider all the “Dr. Kevorkians” to be serial killers looking for the perfect victims to indulge their death fetish. As for the relatives of the victims, I, personally, cannot imagine the coldness of heart required to put one’s child or mother or father to death. Life is painful. It is our obligation to the people we love not to end their pain by death but to help them find joy in life despite the pain.

To tie all the foregoing together, I think the suffering the “Dr. Deaths” are ending is the suffering of the caregivers who do not wish to any longer care for their child or parent. The killers make themselves available for the “hit”, get their jollies, the caregivers go on with their lives, and they all get away with it.
nk (2ab789) — 3/5/2006 @ 4:17 am
“Is it wrong to kill the baby in isolation; that is, without regard for the slippery slope problems it creates?”

Yes.
sharon (fecb65) — 3/5/2006 @ 5:43 am
My God, Sharon, Nk…we treat animals with more mercy. Yes, a vibrant full life is painful. That pain is the indication of growth, learning, loss. But to force someone to suffer 24/7 agony as a result of an intractable physical problem is sadistic. In a battlefield situation you bastards would leave me to slowly die in agony? God save me from you people who have compassion only for the letter of Law and not for mankind. To glibly assume that the only reason to let a suffering person die is to make the relative comfortable is an asinine display of your lack of compassion. Do the world a favor and please,PLEASE never take an appointment to any Bench in the land.
paul (464e99) — 3/5/2006 @ 8:13 am
Have you ever suffered a burn on a large surface of you skin? I’m not talking about a mild sunburn; I mean a burn that melts your skin away. I have, although it was 1st and 2nd degree burns on only 6% of my body. I was 13 years old at the time. It was torture; especially when I had to rip out the mesh covering it since it had grown into my flesh. When I went to the Dr. for it, he pulled the scabs off until I couldn’t take it anymore – with no anesthetic. I’ve been through painful situations since then, including surgery, but nothing comes close to the pain that a burn like that inflicts.

If this child was in that kind of pain and the doctors know for certain that the child’s life will be short anyway, then they would have been right to end this baby’s agony.

Here is an excerpt from that story:

Sanne had a severe form of Hallopeau-Siemens syndrome, which meant that her skin would detach itself from her body if anyone touched it. The membranes inside her mouth and oesophagus fell away whenever they tried to feed her through a tube.

To experts, it is obvious when babies are in pain, and not only because of the type of shrieking. The way they clench their fists is another indicator. This was a child in great pain but pain relievers seemed to make no difference; and every time nurses replaced her bandages a little more of her skin fell off. She came to resemble a mummy. …

To make a baby go through such torture, clinching its tiny fists, day after day if the infant has no hope living long anyway is just sadistic. Are we born to suffer? Is that what life is all about? I sure hope not.

There is a story of torture I heard from a professor while I was in college where Turks found a way, hundreds of years ago, to peel almost all of the skin off of a person’s body. That worked well for them, but the victim would die in a short time. But then they found a drug that would make the wretch live a few days longer after removing their skin – so they started using it. Do you think these torturers were trying to do the victim a favor? Or did they prolong their life only to make them suffer even longer?

To you Christians out there who argue that we’re playing God if we practice euthanasia, does God actively reach down and kill us when our earthly time here is up? I doubt that you would want to believe such a claim. Most Christians these days think of God as the “great watchmaker,” who set all of this in motion, but doesn’t interfere (at least not like he used to in Biblical times). I mean think about it, if God really does want that being to suffer that way, He could of course arrange for that.

On the moral absolutes argument, we make other exceptions for killing like in war or in death sentences, so there is no “Thou shalt not kill” moral absolute anyway.

The Dr. should not have described euthanasia as “beautiful,” but I don’t think that makes him giddy to go murdering people. If we fear that there are sadistic doctors (or others) running around wanting to kill people for fun and it keeps us from practicing euthanasia in extreme cases such as this, then pity the poor wretch who has to live in vain and in agony.
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/5/2006 @ 8:45 am
NK, consider yourself lucky. You obviously don’t know real pain. Finding any “joy” in it is absolutely impossible. Here’s an idea: tear all of the skin off of one of your arms and then let us know what kind of “joy” you feel.
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/5/2006 @ 8:57 am
It reminds me of the many civilians that were hit by our white phosphorous (virtual napalm) in Iraq many children. Their skin melted.

Death isn’t always the worst thing to happen to someone.
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 3/5/2006 @ 11:45 am
I had not realized that necrophilia was a component of liberalism. Other components seem to be an inability to distinguish between suicide and homicide; or decisions made by adults in full command of their faculties as opposed to infants or mentally-impaired people; or even pain under torture (where the torturers’ aim is to prolong the pain) and pain in the care of loving people who are doing their best to alleviate it.

As for “Death isn’t always the worst thing to happen to someone”. How do you know? When did you last die?
nk (77d95e) — 3/5/2006 @ 12:00 pm
nk, necrophilia ??? That is reaching isn’t it? From compassionate euthanasia to necrophilia.
I thought logic was the intent here, and what is best for humanity. Kindness is the bottom line. Kindness is not letting someone squirm in excruciating agony, while we smilingly pat ourselves on the back acknowledging our pro-life stance.
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 3/5/2006 @ 12:29 pm
No, it is not reaching. I maintain my position that “euthanasists” have a fetish for death.

The most famous example of “compassionate euthanasia”, by the way, is Tiergartenstrasse 4 — and its branches, Dachau, Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Treblinka … . ~~People~~ Two-legged animal with only the power to do so made ~~life and~~ death decisions for people who could not fight back.
nk (54c569) — 3/5/2006 @ 1:08 pm
NK, you can’t argue against euthanasia, so all you have are insults? Pitiful.
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/5/2006 @ 1:14 pm
It is obvious by the discussion that nk fears death and yet holds death as an abstraction at the same time. Also, your comparision to the Death camps of Nazi Germany is disingenuous and false.
When we put animals to death to end their suffering, the Vet and his/her assistants are “death fetishist?” My God, how heartless and ignorant.
paul (464e99) — 3/5/2006 @ 1:38 pm
The ethical and moral problems with “beautiful” infanticide is not figuring out the best way to give a painfree existence, however short, to a dying person, but to have such constraints on procedure as to keep it from being used for the convenience of others.

And please don’t try and state it won’t or never happens because it has and will.

From Singer who advocates that children up to a year old should not have human rights (their parents should have the right to kill ’em) to Dr.Ronald Cranford who advocates (and has testified) that disabled people who don’t have a “quality of life” as he defines it should be stripped of human rights, there are a lot of eugenicists who figleaf their disgust with the less-than-perfect with a call for “compassionate euthanisia”.

Good cases can make bad law and we need be ever mindful that as much as we may understand that the doctor and parents in this case were trying to do their best in a hopeless situation, that the Singers and Cranfords are standing in the wings ready to take center stage.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/5/2006 @ 2:23 pm
Yes, the idea of letting small children suffer unbelievable agonies while waiting to die of a terminal condition is offensive, HOWEVER;

I note that both Holland and Sweden have persistent euthanasia and forced sterilization scandals involving the handicapped, and certain racial groups. Remember who we are talking about: a people who are so nice that they almost made Socialism work for decades. Yet the introduction of the euthanasia idea lead some of their medical people to the practice of eugenics.

I you want to make it a matter of custom that a person who kills a terminally ill child routinely gets pardoned, I’m OK with that. If God doesn’t like it, God will have eternity to explain this to all parties. But I don’t like giving Doctors the power of life and death – their record isn’t any too good.
C. S. P. Schofield (51d90f) — 3/5/2006 @ 3:19 pm
Darleen, I believe that we put our lives in the hands of others more than you seem to think. Every time someone undergoes surgery for example, they’re susceptible to a potential sociopath doctor or nurse. Should we then stop the practice of medicine because there are some sadistic people out there who could (and do at times) take advantage of the situation?
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/5/2006 @ 3:38 pm
Psyberian

Certainly when I go into surgery I’m putting myself at risk. But the risk of my not being exploited is lessened if I’m having an appendix removed in an accredited hospital by licensed physicians attended by licensed nurses, rather than having the surgery done by a guy who claims to be a doctor on my kitchen table.*

Anytime we contemplate allowing active homicide rather than aggressive pain managment during the course of dying (even if it hastens death), we must be exceedinly cautious least we increase the risk of already vulnerable people becoming victims of a “perfectable” mindset.

*My office has prosecuted more than a couple such kitchen table “doctors” so I’m not engaging in unrealistic hyperbole.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/5/2006 @ 3:55 pm
Think of how many times those of us who are not handicapped have said, “You know, I’d rather be dead than . . . ” and you can fill in the blank there: paralyzed, retarded, badly diabetic, blind, just a whole host of things.

And we impute these feelings of ours onto other people, and arrogate to ourselves some sort of divine wisdom, “Surely they wouldn’t want to live like that.”

Well, it’s really easy for us to say that we’d rather be dead than a paraplegic . . . when that statement is just a philosophical one, and not one which actually means taking a decision on commiting suicide. As it occurs, the suicide rate for the handicapped, other than for the initial two years after the onset of a sudden handicap, is virtually identical to that of the general population. And even among the spike that occurs after sudden onset (such as paraplegia from an accident), the suicide rate never reaches even one percent. Apparently the people actually faced with such decisions don’t decide that they’d rather be dead with nearly as much frequency as we would think.

The Netherlands passed euthanasia legislation a few years ago, legislation that was supposed only to be just. Well, here’s what happened:

Under the prior practice of euthanasia in Holland, the “burden of proof” was on the physician to justify the termination of life. The change in the law shifts the burden of proof to the prosecutor who will be required to show that the termination of life did not meet the requirements of due care. The prosecutor will not receive information about any euthanasia death unless it is forwarded by a Regional Committee. [Chapter III, Articles 9 and 10]

A person may qualify for euthanasia or assisted suicide if the doctor “holds the conviction that the patient’s suffering is lasting and unbearable.” [Chapter II, Article 2, 1b] There is no requirement that the suffering be physical or that the the patient be terminally ill.

Nor has Dutch practice even been truly subject to regulation:

British opponents of assisted suicide say that the figures are a warning of the dangers of decriminalising euthanasia, as Holland did in 1984. By 1995 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Holland had risen to almost 3 per cent of all deaths.

The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent. A follow-up survey found that the main reason for not consulting patients was that they had dementia or were otherwise not competent.

But in 15 percent of cases the doctors avoided any discussion because they thought they were acting in the patient’s best interests.

Michael Howitt Wilson, of the Alert campaign against euthanasia, said: “A lot of people in Holland are frightened to go into hospital because of this situation.”

Dr Henk Jochensen, of the Lindeboom Institute, and Dr John Keown, of Queens’ College, Cambridge carried out the study. They conclude: “The reality is that a clear majority of cases of euthanasia, both with and without request, go unreported and unchecked. Dutch claims of effective regulation ring hollow.”

Another study appearing in the journal shows that the legal assessments of cases reported to the public prosecution service in the Netherlands vary considerably. Cases are reported to determine whether a doctor will be prosecuted for murder. The study was carried out by Dr Jacqueline Cuperus-Bosma, of Vrije University in the Netherlands. The paper concluded that there is a need for clear protocols.

The review process in Holland is done after the ~~murder~~ euthanasia has been carried out, and is not by a legal panel, but by one with an organizational bias toward doctors.

Euthanasia in Holland has been a process in which doctors are taking decisions for patients; in many cases, the patient’s wishes are not considered. One wonders if the fact that Holland is a socialized medicine country, where the government has a financial incentive to get patients out of the hospital quickly (even if it is to the morgue), has something to do with this.

The discussion above is dealing with the heart-rending cases of babies in persistent and incurable agony; of course that pulls at our heart-strings. But it is the emotional appeal of the truly extreem case which has led to the situation in which people are considering taking life and death decisions for others for things which are not so extreme. In Holland, simple old age seems to be qualification enough.

It has been easy enough for us to say that someone would be better off dead — when it isn’t our deaths being contemplated.
Dana (a90377) — 3/5/2006 @ 4:35 pm
You know, this thread kind of reminds me of the position that abortion has to be allowed in all cases because of the possibility that a pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.
Dana (a90377) — 3/5/2006 @ 4:38 pm
Dana, if a slippery slope is what you are worried about, then don’t you worry about the death penalty for the same reasons?
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/5/2006 @ 6:32 pm
Two more components of liberalism: The inability to distinguish between human beings and animals (Paul, Comment 13); and the inability to distinguish between murderers and victims (Psyberian, Comment 20). The problem with arguing with idiots is that people watching cannot tell the difference.
nk (41da82) — 3/5/2006 @ 6:40 pm
Psyberian

What slippery slope on the death penality?

People on death row get 10-14 years worth of review and appeals.

Exactly what review equivilant process is there in regards to euthanasia in Holland?
Darleen (f20213) — 3/5/2006 @ 6:43 pm
Dana:

You say that it’s easy to say someone’s better off dead when it isn’t one’s own death being contemplated, but in fact, people do this all the time, right? I’d expect a lot of people here have advance directives that say if it looks hopeless, don’t spend a mountain of resources to keep the blood flowing. I do. My family members all know it’s my position that if the doctor says letting me die is cool with him, it’s cool with me. I have some optimism that it won’t be cool with the doctor unless what was me is totally gone.

To those who think killing the baby in my hypothetical above is not morally reprehensible, how do we draw up laws that permit this, but don’t permit, say, killing babies with cerebral palsy?

To those that think it is wrong to kill Hypothetical Baby Doomed, is this worthy of a 25-to-life sentence?

–JRM
JRM (5e00de) — 3/5/2006 @ 6:46 pm
Darleen, some people do get put to death via the death penalty and the court system decides who dies. If the courts can decide who lives and dies, what is to keep them from sentencing death for rape, deformed babies, stealing, etc. That’s the slippery slope, not that I agree with it – I don’t. If the law can be written to impose death for certain offences, it can be written for anything (if the slippery slope applies).
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/5/2006 @ 7:11 pm
“My God, Sharon, Nk…we treat animals with more mercy. Yes, a vibrant full life is painful. That pain is the indication of growth, learning, loss. But to force someone to suffer 24/7 agony as a result of an intractable physical problem is sadistic.”

It’s not sadistic. It’s called life. And there are painkillers which could lessen the suffering. Accepting that a life is not as pleasant as one would like isn’t “forcing someone to suffer 24/7.” It’s accepting what has happened. The parents simply didn’t want to deal with their child, which is why they wanted it put to sleep, just like your pet.

“In a battlefield situation you bastards would leave me to slowly die in agony?”

Nice straw man. I guess there’s nothing ever between leaving a turd to die or not being in agony. Nope. I guess you wouldn’t know that there’s actually a range of options in there.

“God save me from you people who have compassion only for the letter of Law and not for mankind.”

Yes, it’s absolutely heartless to think killing people because they are inconvenient (yes, an ill child is inconvenient) is having “compassion only for the letter of the law.” God save me from idiots who see infanticide as compassion.

“To glibly assume that the only reason to let a suffering person die is to make the relative comfortable is an asinine display of your lack of compassion.”

It’s not an “asinine display of a lack of compassion.” It’s recognizing that people do not like to deal with unpleasantness and in our sterile world, we think everyone should be saved from any suffering or discomfort or even having to deal with such things. Compassion is being there for the person suffering and doing things to help them, not kill them.

“Do the world a favor and please,PLEASE never take an appointment to any Bench in the land.”

I will if you’ll sign up for the next voluntary euthanasia program.
sharon (fecb65) — 3/5/2006 @ 7:13 pm
Thank you, Sharon.
nk (f58916) — 3/5/2006 @ 8:37 pm
Presby

You are arguing the same point you did with your surgery analogy and I demonstrated the real risks involved.

I’ve read (and as Dana has linked) that Holland’s euthansia program has as many safeguards as a ‘medical’ clinic in Tijuana giving coffee enemas to cure cancer.

Administration of the death penalty is highly and strictly regulated and nothing of a “slippery slope” has occured. Quite the opposite as the dp is scrutinized and limited again and again so even first degree murder sans ‘special allegations’ is no longer imposed.

Yet euthanasia in Holland has expanded.

Again, I’m not ruling out that certain extreme conditions might warrant, indeed, a hastening of the death of an individual; what I am saying is that we cannot/should not leave such a decision (in the absense of a legitimate living will) up to merely a doctor and a caretaker.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/5/2006 @ 9:55 pm
Good thoughts, sharon.

Psy, On the moral absolutes argument, we make other exceptions for killing like in war or in death sentences, so there is no “Thou shalt not kill” moral absolute anyway. The Hebrew moral injunction is more accurately translated “Thou shalt not murder”, and that is clearly a moral absolute.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 3/5/2006 @ 10:00 pm
Darleen, I won’t disagree with your opinion that “we cannot/should not leave such a decision up to merely a doctor and a caretaker.” I’m not sure what the best solution is, but you’re probably right about that.

Harry Author, to say “Thou shalt not murder” may be a moral absolute in a way, but notice how murder is always regarded as wrong – so you are actually saying “We should not kill people when we should not kill people,” which is a tautology and therefore next to meaningless. Different cultures and different periods of history have determined what was called “murder” when people are killed and what wasn’t. So there really is no moral absolute there.
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/6/2006 @ 4:07 am
Sharon,
The parents simply didn’t want to deal with their child, which is why they wanted it put to sleep, just like your pet.
Seems like you have intimate knowledge of the parents state of mind?
As a Licensed Nurse with over 30 years of experience I certainly do know the difference between species.As a father with a child who started out for eleven days in Neonatal Intensive Care I also have personally watched as parents agonized day after day regardless of the administration of painkillers as their children writhe in pain, fight for breath, linger in stupor. You know what EVERYONE of them asks?
They ask that if their child is to suffer to death, when will God grant his mercy? In order to keep within the black and white bounds of your world, we need to learn to medicate just enough to keep these poor beings alive?
Yes, a rigorous review of each request should be undertaken. Yes, there should be more than the caregivers involved in that review. And yes, there is a place to relieve boundless suffering with death.
I will if you’ll sign up for the next voluntary euthanasia program.
I will be forwarding my advanced directives (which have been in place since my active duty days in the 70’s), which outline my wishes for euthanising me under certain condtions, as soon as I recieve your notarized statement declining any and all future bench appointments.
paul (464e99) — 3/6/2006 @ 4:45 am
Paul,

Thank you for telling me you are a nurse. If I should ever bring my father to your hospital, I want him Full Code; cardiac telemetry the whole time he’s there; no more than two-four mgs morphine PRN per dose not to exceed 16 mgs in a twenty-four period; Fentanyl patch (50 mcg/hr), regular Tylenol, massage and heating/cooling pads for additional pain management; his diaper checked every hour; his food cut up for him. I will be there to check on all this. I really mean it about the morphine. Do not overdose.

As for your wishes for yourself, I do not disagree with you in the least bit. You are a mentally competent adult (although a little ill-tempered) and I would support your right to have exactly the degree and kind of medical care you wish. That YOU wish. I would be very hard on anybody who thought his wishes preempted your rights.
nk (50d578) — 3/6/2006 @ 5:39 am
Psyberian asks:

Dana, if a slippery slope is what you are worried about, then don’t you worry about the death penalty for the same reasons?

Apparently you missed it, but I have written several comments on this site (primarily during the Tookie Williams debate), and a few times on my own site, that I am opposed to capital punishment, period.
Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2006 @ 5:46 am
JRM wrote:

You say that it’s easy to say someone’s better off dead when it isn’t one’s own death being contemplated, but in fact, people do this all the time, right? I’d expect a lot of people here have advance directives that say if it looks hopeless, don’t spend a mountain of resources to keep the blood flowing. I do. My family members all know it’s my position that if the doctor says letting me die is cool with him, it’s cool with me. I have some optimism that it won’t be cool with the doctor unless what was me is totally gone.

Well, J, in such a case it is you deciding about your life. That’s a lot different from you deciding for someone else.
Dana (3e4784) — 3/6/2006 @ 5:49 am
Darleen, some people do get put to death via the death penalty and the court system decides who dies. If the courts can decide who lives and dies, what is to keep them from sentencing death for rape, deformed babies, stealing, etc. That’s the slippery slope, not that I agree with it – I don’t. If the law can be written to impose death for certain offences, it can be written for anything (if the slippery slope applies).

That’s a specious argument. The court may impose the death penalty, but it doesn’t decide the sentence limits for the crimes. It’s up to the legislature — and by extension, the people — to determine what the sentencing guidelines are.

There’s no slippery slope in the death penalty, at least not in the way you’re thinking.
Steverino (987164) — 3/6/2006 @ 6:52 am
NK,
Hope you have a license for those orders you gave. BTW does Dad have his advanced directives filled out? How about you?
As public education;
Outpatient Clinics/Surgery Centers do not follow Advanced Directives. We will “Code” every patient until he/she is delivered to a higher level of care where a full assessment of the patient and his/her wishes can be conducted. I mention this to disabuse the notion that I get to euthanize anyone, or care to.
paul (baf9c7) — 3/6/2006 @ 6:55 am
You may want to read and consider this story. Go back to the first previous link.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 3/6/2006 @ 6:55 am
“Seems like you have intimate knowledge of the parents state of mind?”

You made the argument that parents were agonizing over killing their children and how dare anyone question their motives? Seems like the same argument made for Terri Schiavo.

“s a Licensed Nurse with over 30 years of experience I certainly do know the difference between species.”

Oh, good. Then why ask if murdering a kid is murder? Seems they should have taught you that in nursing school.

“As a father with a child who started out for eleven days in Neonatal Intensive Care I also have personally watched as parents agonized day after day regardless of the administration of painkillers as their children writhe in pain, fight for breath, linger in stupor.”

Yes, so everyone is supposed to bend down and pay homage because your kid was in NICU? So what? At least you didn’t try to have it put to sleep.

“You know what EVERYONE of them asks?
They ask that if their child is to suffer to death, when will God grant his mercy?”

And every person who has ever watched a loved one suffer, whether it was a painful disease, cancer, or just Alzheimer’s has asked the same thing. That still doesn’t give us the right to put them to sleep.

“In order to keep within the black and white bounds of your world, we need to learn to medicate just enough to keep these poor beings alive?”

In a word, yes. Murdering people because it is no longer convenient or fun to deal with them is not a good solution. You can dress it up in whatever words you want, but that’s what it comes down to.

“I will be forwarding my advanced directives (which have been in place since my active duty days in the 70’s), which outline my wishes for euthanising me under certain condtions, as soon as I recieve your notarized statement declining any and all future bench appointments.”

Maybe I didn’t make myself plain. See, the people in question didn’t sign durable powers of atty signifying that they wanted to be killed because it was painful. What I was saying is that if you volunteer for euthanasia, I’ll volunteer to refrain from a bench appointment.
sharon (e51965) — 3/6/2006 @ 2:47 pm
sharon wrote:

In a word, yes. Murdering people because it is no longer convenient or fun to deal with them is not a good solution. You can dress it up in whatever words you want, but that’s what it comes down to.

Why isn’t it a good solution? If you like, Tookie Williams, are too much trouble to have around society kills you. I don’t have a problem with that.

Why is a new born baby with problems owed millions of dollars of medical care? Particularly medical care which it is very likely it does not want.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/6/2006 @ 3:37 pm
“Why isn’t it a good solution? If you like, Tookie Williams, are too much trouble to have around society kills you. I don’t have a problem with that.”

Tookie Williams forfeited his right to life when he killed other people, was tried and convicted of the crimes, and lost his multiple appeals. This is a far cry from infanticide.

“Why is a new born baby with problems owed millions of dollars of medical care?”

Not sure who said they were “owed” more health care, but civilization has determined that we tend to spend more resources on the young so that they will grow up. And I’d rather spend billions on neonatal health care, even for a terminally ill baby, than one thin dime on a murderer on death row.

“Particularly medical care which it is very likely it does not want.”

This is such a great argument. And how, exactly, do you KNOW the infant wouldn’t “want” the care he/she is given? Are you telepathic?
sharon (e51965) — 3/6/2006 @ 4:15 pm
Yes, so everyone is supposed to bend down and pay homage because your kid was in NICU? So what? At least you didn’t try to have it put to sleep.
Wow.
No, I don’t need you to bow down at my suffering. It wouldn’t mean much anyway.
Sharon, the world is a messy place that doesn’t comfort people who see in black and white, such as yourself.
I’m am not sure of your profession or your life experiences, but I am gambling that you have never had this decision thrust solely upon you. I get the feeling that this whole discussion is an abstraction to you. For only in that instance can you make such arrogant, almost hateful statements against these peoples suffering.
As for your offer to refrain from taking a bench appointment in the event of my death? Well, that would be a death of conveinence…to you.
Wow.
I guess you can have it all ways in your world.
paul (464e99) — 3/6/2006 @ 5:09 pm
“Sharon, the world is a messy place that doesn’t comfort people who see in black and white, such as yourself.”

And well it shouldn’t. But I’ll take being uncomfortable as long as I can be right.

“I’m am not sure of your profession or your life experiences, but I am gambling that you have never had this decision thrust solely upon you.”

Well, you don’t know a single thing about my life, so this is an assumption you make to fit your theories, isn’t it? For example, I could tell you a lot about my background and family history that leads me to the conclusions I draw, but those are simply irrelevant. What IS relevant is when you haughtily assert that we “treat animals better,” when all I did was state unequivocally that killing someone because WE have decided it is too much for them to bear is still murdering someone. You can call that mercy killing if it makes you feel better, I suppose. Sorry you have no more spine than that.

“I get the feeling that this whole discussion is an abstraction to you.”

And if it weren’t? Suppose I were to tell you that I have a sickly elderly parent that I have moved into my home and who I care for 24/7? Does that give me more authority with which to speak? Why would it make any difference whatsoever?

“For only in that instance can you make such arrogant, almost hateful statements against these peoples suffering.”

I’ve said nothing hateful “against these peoples (sic) suffering.” I merely stated that it is for the convenience of others that these children’s lives are being sacrificed. That’s it.

“As for your offer to refrain from taking a bench appointment in the event of my death? Well, that would be a death of conveinence…to you.
Wow.
I guess you can have it all ways in your world.”

Honey, you started the argument. You are the one who snidely said that we treat animals better, then acted offended when I used that terminology. You are the one who haughtily threw out the argument about not wanting me to serve on the bench. If you don’t like the fight, don’t start it.
sharon (e51965) — 3/6/2006 @ 6:05 pm
I didn’t realize I was here to fight. Been there done that, none too productive.
My position:
There comes a time in which modern medical science can do nothing but prolong suffering in certain medical conditions. In those situations, after an exhaustive review of all options, a being
can hope for a final relief in death.
What I think your position is:
Regardless of the length of a beings suffering,which should be attenuated by all means possible, life must be maintained at all cost. Death, when it comes, should be the result of a failure of the current medical technology.
Have I captured the essence of the debate without snide or haughty commentary?
paul (464e99) — 3/6/2006 @ 6:35 pm
No, Paul, you have not. Life is fragile and ephemeral and the only evidence we have is that it exists only on this planet. With a possible infinity of death facing us, every speck of life is precious. (Don’t start on the ethical use of bacteriocides). The priests promise us a better world but the only evidence is that this is the only one we have. Life, all life, a good life, a bad life, is something. Death is nothing. For all we know, worse than nothing. Nobody has come back to tell us. Eat a pizza, drink a couple of beers, look at a pretty girl or two and say “This is good”. Are you suffering? If you are alive there is hope that you will not be suffering tomorrow. If you are dead you will be nothing tomorrow. Even if you are suffering tomorrow, you might be making someone else’s life better just by being alive tomorrow. Isn’t that good? I think it’s a cultural thing and not a philosophical or religious thing. Some of us have learned to value life and some of us haven’t. Should the second number exceed the first, we will have a perfect universe without suffering.
nk (fac604) — 3/6/2006 @ 7:38 pm
NK,
I agree with your praise of life. All of it. Especially the pizza and beer. However, death is inevitable. I’m not sure who said it first but “nobody gets out of here alive.”
What I want to know is when, or if, our reverence for life is trumped by the need to relieve suffering. I have been moved by the suffering of Pope John Paul II towards the end of his life as an example to all people of the world.
But, his suffering had meaning because he chose it.
But these rare infants who have no hope to recover ,save for a miraculous intervention, cannot choose to have their suffering allieviated by meaning something, for they are unaware. Their suffering is lifelong. I don’t mean that as a play on words either. Think about it. A child is brought into the world having nothing to face but a life filled with pain or worse.
I guess you could argue that the childs’ ability to withstand the ravages of whatever the disease, is offered up towards the parents, enhancing their faith.
But Sharon maintained that anyone seeking to relieve this suffering is doing it because … people do not like to deal with unpleasantness and in our sterile world, we think everyone should be saved from any suffering or discomfort or even having to deal with such things. Compassion is being there for the person suffering and doing things to help them, not kill them.

It is that statement that led me to what I thought was your position which I reiterate here with an added emphasis:
Regardless of the length of a beings suffering,which should be attenuated by all means possible, life must be maintained at all cost. Death, when it comes, should be the result of a failure of the current medical technology.

I value life. I spend a lot of my time helping people keep theirs. What I can’t abide is senseless suffering.
Hmmm.
A thought.
You and Sharon don’t want to trust anyone to define ‘senseless suffering.’
And in a way this backs us back into an abortion debate.
Does the Mother have the right to speak for an otherwise voiceless child in the question whether or not to hasten an inevitable death to alleviate suffering?
My guess is that you and Sharon say “no”
I say ‘maybe’.
paul (464e99) — 3/6/2006 @ 8:51 pm
I said it before Sharon. “It is our obligation to the people we love not to end their pain by death but to help them find joy in life despite the pain.” (On this post. Not that I necessarily felt it first.} So you are correct about my position.
nk (4cd0c2) — 3/6/2006 @ 9:23 pm
“Nobody gets out of here alive” — either Neil Young or Jim Morrison. I suspect Jim Morrison, it was the title of one of his biographies.
nk (2ab789) — 3/6/2006 @ 9:40 pm
Yeah, Jim Morrison. “Better to burn out than fade away” is Neil Young. Death cult stuff.
nk (2ab789) — 3/6/2006 @ 9:47 pm
Oh great! You guys “love“ me so I get to spend my entire life with tubes in my
throat and nose and needles in my arms. Whatever. Now tell me where the joy part comes in, in this life of mine?
niterunr (464e99) — 3/6/2006 @ 9:56 pm
Paul,

If you read my posts, you would know my position. I was quite simple about it in the beginning. First they come for the elderly, saying they wouldn’t want to live a life of suffering so long before death. Now they are coming for infants saying they wouldn’t want to suffer through life, either. What is next? The disabled? Oh, wait. We’ve had that one already. How about the depressed? Well, you can go to Europe and have a doctor off you because you are depressed. I’m waiting for the day that these “civilized” places decide enough people aren’t voluntarily killing themselves or having themselves killed by doctors and that more people need to have their “suffering” shortened.

All life is precious, Paul, even life that doesn’t seem so precious when looking in from the outside. There are things we learn from struggle and pain and those things make us human. There are also things we learn about compassion and love by caring for those who are in pain, suffering, even dying. I thought as a nurse you would know this but maybe you didn’t get that.

Niterunr, if you don’t have a durable power of atty or a living will telling the world what you want to happen to you when you are incapable of telling anyone, don’t complain that someone wants to keep you alive. You may get better and bitch us all out for saving you (seen it happen), but at least you’ll have that option. If I pull the plug because “I” wouldn’t want to live that way, I’ve just played God in the most insidious manner possible.

Paul, you brought up abortion. There’s a thread on this board that addresses that question. My position, in a nutshell, is that abortion should only be legal to save a mother’s life. Anything else is, indeed, murder. And don’t even start with the whole “mother should make the decision” crap. I’m all for people making decisions about their own bodies, just not the bodies of others.
sharon (fecb65) — 3/7/2006 @ 3:44 am
Got it.Re-read the abortion thread. Nobody but God. Got it. Don’t know what the real answer is though. A joke , of all things, keeps running through my head:
A town was beset by a horrible flood. In the town was the most righteous man. As the water rose he climbed upon his roof to await Gods salvation.
A man in a canoe went by he called out to the holy man and said”Come with me save your life!” The man said “No thank you God will provide.”
A while later a motorboat from the Coast Guard came by. “Come with us!” they call. The Righteous one replied “No, God will provide!”
As the water rose higher still a police helicopter came by and called down, “This may well be your last chance climb up the rope ladder!” And again the rightous man declined.
Sadly, the man drowned and in heaven he came face-to-face with God. The man lamented:
“God I prayed and served your word my whole life and yet you let me perish?”
God replied; “I sent a canoe, a motorboat AND a helicopter, what more did you want?”
I’m not sure why I felt the need to share that. Good luck to all. Keep those AD’s updated folks!
paul (464e99) — 3/7/2006 @ 4:24 am
Re-read your post.
There are also things we learn about compassion and love by caring for those who are in pain, suffering, even dying. I thought as a nurse you would know this but maybe you didn’t get that.
Who does the day-to-day care of these people? Lawyers? Believe me, we get it. We do it every day, every week, every month, every year. Talk about a haughty, snide comment. I guess without a law degree we aren’t able to see or think clearly. Thanks for your insight. I’ve had enough.
paul (464e99) — 3/7/2006 @ 4:32 am
niterunr wrote:

Oh great! You guys “love“ me so I get to spend my entire life with tubes in my throat and nose and needles in my arms. Whatever. Now tell me where the joy part comes in, in this life of mine?

Well, niterunr, if you want to decide to kill yourself, go right ahead: it’s your life, after all! But don’t arrogate to yourself the right to take that decision for others.
Dana (3e4784) — 3/7/2006 @ 4:53 am
It really amazes me just how easily healthy people who have every reason to live can decide for others that they have no reason to live.

Why is it that people who hear the words, “You have cancer,” don’t go and stick a pistol in their mouths and commit suicide all that often? Why is it that paraplegics aren’t all slitting their wrists? Why is it that people with arthritis aren’t all jumping off bridges?

It’s really easy to say that we wouldn’t want to live like that (whatever “that” might be), when such a statement doesn’t mean taking the decision to commit suicide.

When it’s your life you are talking about, fine, it’s your life, and you can do anything you want with it. When it’s someone else’s life, no, you don’t have the right to decide whether he wants to live or die.
Dana (3e4784) — 3/7/2006 @ 5:00 am
Dana,
“When it’s someone else’s life, no, you don’t have the right to decide whether he wants to live or die. ”
Does that mean my sister the firefighter can’t stop doing CPR until they put the person on a machine? I mean they have a machine for everything right? So nobody dies?
So I guess we do nothing for those who can’t talk for themselves but force them to live? OK.
I just hope you never have to walk the talk.
niterunr (464e99) — 3/7/2006 @ 5:38 am
“Who does the day-to-day care of these people?”

Usually family.

“Lawyers?”

If they have family that need the care, yes.

“Believe me, we get it.”

Oh, good! You had me worried with your snide remarks that I say “only God gets to decide,” then leave a joke.

“We do it every day, every week, every month, every year.”

So do the families of the sick and infirm.

“Talk about a haughty, snide comment.”

Yes, I thought yours were.

“I guess without a law degree we aren’t able to see or think clearly.”

Who said that? You seem to be hung up on the law degree. I admit, it takes quite a bit more schooling to get one, but it has nothing to do with whether killing someone that you *think* would want to die is logical or moral.

“Thanks for your insight.”

You’re quite welcome!

“I’ve had enough.”

Good for you!

“Does that mean my sister the firefighter can’t stop doing CPR until they put the person on a machine?”

My understanding of the law is that no, she can’t, until the person has been declared dead. Besides, I’m not sure I want a firefighter who isn’t dedicated to the idea of keeping people alive if they can.

“I mean they have a machine for everything right?”

Not everything. People still die.

“So nobody dies?”

Have you seen the cemetaries lately? Seems like people still die.

“So I guess we do nothing for those who can’t talk for themselves but force them to live?”

Interesting that you use the word “force.” I’m sure most of them would use the word “help.”

“OK.”

All right.

“I just hope you never have to walk the talk.”

Well, frankly, I hope not either. But I’ve spent a lot of time, particularly since the Terri Schiavo case, letting every person I know know exactly what I want to happen to me if I can’t decide for myself. That’s what you should do if you are so concerned that someone’s gonna *force* you to live.

BTW, you might try reading about handicapped people or paraplegics who had to learn to live in a world that considers them less valuable and more expendable. It’s amazing the insights you can get from people who know what it’s like to be treated as a nuisance or an inconvenience.
sharon (e51965) — 3/7/2006 @ 9:05 am
Sharon wrote:

BTW, you might try reading about handicapped people or paraplegics who had to learn to live in a world that considers them less valuable and more expendable. It’s amazing the insights you can get from people who know what it’s like to be treated as a nuisance or an inconvenience.

Here’s hoping that you aren’t wasting your breath.

If you’ve got some good links to such information, at least some of us would like them.
Dana (3e4784) — 3/7/2006 @ 9:29 am
I thought I was done.
I was wrong.
I witnessed first hand the truimph of the human spirit over many different physical and mental challenges.
I never considered my patients parapelgic, handicapped or otherwise to ever be a nuisance.Ever.
paul (3370f7) — 3/7/2006 @ 10:53 am
Looking at these 2 cases below , makes me wonder [loud] why these babies have to go through these short painful lifes, where without euthanasia, they would have die eventually, a bit later. While I agree that they be mercifully put to death, I will carry these stories of their plight and impress these stories on my inner world view perception of rebirth doctrines, and why these children have such short painful lifes to the point of being unbearable to the child and parent and doctor and others knowing of the child’s plight.

On Chanou baby case, that the parents and doctor waited 7 months before taking the decision to end Chanou’s life suggests a great deal of reflection by all parties concerned, given the pain and throwing up of milk is a daily nightly occurrence. 7 months would enable one to make an informed carefully considered decision. 7 months also allows the parents to bond with the child and from that strong bonding forged in pain and difficulty, a decision is made, as what is best for the child in suffering. Against this backdrop, I can understand the parents sense of peace and well deserved sense of peace as to the decision they made for Chanou from love and respect and from deep bonding. The deep bond sprouts peace.

What amazes me about Chanou’s parents story is that, even with this, they had the courage to try another pregnancy and when that failed, they again tried another and had a healthy baby . It takes courage to try under such circumstances, as well as faith and hope. Like the later Sanne’s story, it makes me think and ponder, why these babies are born this way, whether as Chanou with live birth and then life ended or with the fetus after Chanou who was detected with the same medical disorder and whose life ended at 11 weeks. 11 weeks is very early. I think aloud whether it was the same spirit or soul of Chanou and if so, what did Chanou seek to learn in coming back in the second fetus whose life ended at 11 weeks? I am thinking aloud. ..

They struggled around the clock against their baby’s pain. “We tried all sorts of things,” said Anita, a 37-year-old local government worker. “She cried all the time. Every time I touched her it hurt.”

Frank and Anita began to believe that their daughter would be better off dead. “She kept throwing up milk that was fed through a tube in her nose,” said Anita. “She seemed to be saying, ‘Mummy, I don’t want to live any more. Let me go’.”

Chanou was suffering from a metabolic disorder that had resulted in abnormal bone development. Doctors gave her no more than 30 months to live. “We felt terrible watching her suffer,” said Anita at their home near Amsterdam. “We felt we were letting her down.”
Eventually, doctors agreed to help the baby die at seven months. The feeding was stopped. Chanou was given morphine. “We were with her at that last moment,” said Anita. “She was exhausted. She took a very deep last breath. It was so peaceful. It made me feel at peace inside to know that she wasn’t suffering any more.”

After her daughter’s death, Anita became pregnant again but a test at 11 weeks showed her child to be suffering from the same metabolic disorder as Chanou and she had an abortion. Then she gave birth to Damian, a healthy toddler.

I have never heard of a case like Sanne but then again I am not in the medical line. I cannot imagine how such cases can ever be even remotely compared to creating a master race by removing handicapped children. If there is a worry about the slippery slope, surely such a case would fall clearly on the side where euthanasia is properly considered. How can one live if the skin of the inside falls apart as much as the skin of the outside? If not for medical intervention, such a child born during earlier times would have died. In comparison, the Spartans brought their new born and dipped them in river so that the strong ones survive and weak ones are eliminated in a group of people who believe in combat and survival through combat skills.

Sanne had a severe form of Hallopeau-Siemens syndrome, which meant that her skin would detach itself from her body if anyone touched it. The membranes inside her mouth and oesophagus fell away whenever they tried to feed her through a tube.

To experts, it is obvious when babies are in pain, and not only because of the type of shrieking. The way they clench their fists is another indicator. This was a child in great pain but pain relievers seemed to make no difference; and every time nurses replaced her bandages a little more of her skin fell off. She came to resemble a mummy. Verhagen did not know what to do.
Yi-Ling (0b24f3) — 3/7/2006 @ 11:20 am
Yi-ling,
Good Luck. In this thread all suffering has a purpose and can only be ended in Gods mercy. Not mans’.
paul (3370f7) — 3/7/2006 @ 11:45 am
Dana,

Specifically, I was referring to Joni Eareckson-Tada who wrote a book many years about being a paraplegic and her struggles with finding purpose and overcoming depression and wondering why she didn’t simply die (don’t rmbr the name of her book).

Like Paul, I also have personal experiences, but unlike Paul, I am loathe to drag them into this discussion. However, I will. My ex-husband has cerebral palsy and together we frequently ran into people who had the, “Gosh! You’re so brave! Didn’t you ever wish you could die?” mentality. It is not uncommon, particularly in our society which seems determined to find rationalizations for euthanasia.

You can try the Not Dead Yet website for statistics:

http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/disqual.html

Yi-ling,

Since Paul seems obsessed with the legal view, there’s an old saying among lawyers: hard cases make bad law. The cases you site are heart-breaking, to be sure. But endorsing infanticide would inevitably lead to killing babies because of far less severe handicaps. We have seen this with abortion where parents choose to abort their babies because of cleft palates and other things which can be fixed. There are, in fact, already doctors asserting that euthanasia is far more widespread and less regulated in the Netherlands than has been thought.

http://www.hospicepatients.org/euth-experts-speak.html

In short, as I have said repeatedly, the problem with euthanasia is not a lack of compassion for suffering, for we all have compassion for them. It is that there will be no end to who gets put to death because SOMEBODY decided their life wasn’t worth living anymore. Perhaps Paul, who seems to sneer at God, is more comfortable playing God than I.

Paul,

I hope I never, ever have to see a nurse like you in my lifetime. I come from a family of nurses: my mother’s mother was a nurse, my mother was an oncology nurse, my sister is a cardiology nurse, my niece is studying to become a nurse, my cousin is a nurse. You exude a holier-than-thou attitude based on nothing other than your statement that you are a nurse. Too bad you really DID skip all that compassion stuff you are supposed to have.
sharon (e51965) — 3/7/2006 @ 12:40 pm
sharon, I don’t know for certain what a infant slowly dying in great pain would want which is why I said “very likely”. However most people consider it obvious that a quick painless death is preferable to a prolonged painful death. Consider for example the continual search for quick and painless means of legal execution. Or consider the people who jumped from the World Trade Center thereby expressing a preference for a quick death.

Society invests in the young because society expects a return when they grow up. Expensive medical care to prolong the life of an infant with no chance of growing up is a bad investment for society.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/7/2006 @ 12:43 pm
Paul,

I appreciate your stand and your life work, but when you say it can be ended in God’s mercy, not mans’, I wonder how God works? God works through man when parents and doctors decide to end the child’s life? And that is said to be ended in God’s mercy?

While I have an inner world view of a non theistic world of rebirth , I understand the theistic view having taken Christian classes, and even being baptized after attending the Rites of Christian Initiation [RCIA run by the Roman Catholic Church for a year] and further classes beyond that and having myself felt consolation, the feeling of presence of God in Church. For me, maybe I need an inner structure with explanatory power, that I lean to the Buddhist inner world view, but am enamored with the Christian engagement with the world, in terms of care and social matters and secular education. Having said that, the decision of Chanou’s parents and doctor in consultation with other doctors, was the decision to end Chanou’s life. God then makes them , each one of them decide to end the child’s life?

I have come across accounts of pending death of old people and have tried to help, and pleaded once with an energy healer to use her skill to help, and she said that, with such advance liver cancer, and with her advanced old age, it is a matter of time and Life will not take one second away from her or add one second to her life. On hindsight it is true, she goes when she goes, whether, one calls it God ends her life or Life ends her life as determined or predetermined. In those cases where timing is left to nature, one can more easily make a case for God’s choice or Life’s choice. In cases like Chanou where there are human instrumentalities, like the decision to be made by the parents and the doctors, and how long they take to make that decision; that I tend to think it is their choice than God’s choice, as they have free will to make the choice to end it or not and to end it at 7th month or 8th month or 9th month and so forth….. If one says, God determines or predetermines that choice for each human character, then its like, we are automatons where God has already made the choice for us, and we just have to travel anguish and finally still arrive at the same choice that God had earlier made for us. How then does free will figure, for it is no longer true free will to decide, for God had decided and we just execute, whether consciously or subconsciously or unconsciously or para consciously.

If we take the further different example of a woman who goes for abortion because the birth would be inconvenient because of her career taking off at that point in time [ assuming it is before viability] then it is her choice to end the life of the fetus below 20 weeks . It is not God’s choice. If we impute God’s choice to use His mercy to end the suffering fetus life or the child’s life, as in Chanou’s case and the fetus of 11 weeks after Chanou, then we would be obliged to also impute that it is God’s choice to end the fetus life [ where we assume there is no suffering as without medical disorder] than the woman’s choice or that the woman was only carrying out God’s choice.

If things are destined to happen, I would think it means, that, I have acted in a certain manner, developed certain habits, and over time, this affects or builds my character, and eventually one day, a convergence of certain events would allow the character and habit to play out as if it was destined, when it was built on choice made every day for many years, whether this life or in past previous lifes.

I therefore submit it is the human player’s choice [ based on free will ] to end the suffering of the child with severe medical disorder and in severe pain with expected short life span, and it is the human sense of mercy fought between ideas of not taking life, and taking life to end suffering of another life.
Yi-Ling (0b24f3) — 3/7/2006 @ 1:01 pm
Sharon,

I glanced through the link you furnished for your concerns of abuse of euthanasia and you mentioned the gross case of abortion because of cleft palates. They should have offered the child to me and I would have adopted her. Cleft palates are surgically fixed easily after birth or soon after. I have had three unsuccessful IVF and may probably adopt a few year down the road. The last one shed some insights for me, changing my belief that life existed at conception and thus abortion from conception to viability is wrong and taking of life. I had three embryos in the fertility clinic freezer and was thinking of deferring the third attempt to after passing my Bar exam, but was concerned about whether the embryos would feel cold in the super cold freezer where they are hibernating. Time stands still at such cold temperatures. They do not age. I was worried whether the ‘soul’ of the embryos would feel cold. For practical reasons I would have wanted to defer the third IVF attempt to later, but my anguish concern of the soul of the embryoes feeling cold, made me pick up the phone and speak to a psychic who also happens to be a nurse too. From her I gathered the soul comes in when there is warmth after impregnation, otherwise the soul sort of hovers around and moves in and out of the embryos. I had previously taken a fixed view that the soul enters the embryo on fertilization and the soul stays inside the embryo. This fixed view made me very worried about the state of the soul inside the embryo where time is on a standstill and the embryo does not age one second and it is very very very cold. I do not like hiding inside a cold fridge and did not like the embryo staying inside a cold freezer, either.
I mention these, because of a series of events and conversations, I came to the conclusion that abortion in very early stages is OK. The soul is not killed. The person is not killed. But the experience and encounter with religion made me develop a sensitivity to soul and fertilized embryo and while I appreciate it, I have become less fixed about being totally against abortion [ first ten weeks] or morning after pill. These views are personal to me because I walked through religion and through some personal encounters. While my understanding made me then choose to remove the three embryos to my womb for implantation when it was not the best of time, the decision was made then, in my perceived best interest of their welfare. Today if I have any excess embryos I would have decided otherwise, but it took walking through the process to revise my view of life at conception.

I do wonder what the spirit wanted to tell me or what she or he needed from me and what I could have given them. But I notice after 3 IVF my sensitivity to the soul of children I meet has heightened. I am more aware of them than before.
So I conclude we adhere to principles to develop a side of our self to the extent we need to and maybe at some point, we loosen the string a bit so that the music can play more smoothly with a relaxed string than a tight string. To have no principles at all would be a waste of development and to carry principles to extreme would be to over develop one aspect of our self to the detriment of other aspects.

Thus euthanasia is a good principle for the right reason and we should not worry that abuse should stop us from it altogether. We cannot be our brother’s keeper , guarding their values and development.
Yi-Ling (0b24f3) — 3/7/2006 @ 1:29 pm
James,

You should read some of the information on the Not Dead Yet site before assuming everyone wants a quick death. To be sure, I doubt anyone wants a painful death, but this is not the same as saying, “Kill me now!” Your example of capital punishment is not exact, either. The reason we search for quicker, less painful means of execution is in an attempt to pursuade anti-death penalty people as to the rightness of it. This, of course, will never happen, so I don’t really know why they bother. If you want quick, just shoot ’em.

“Society invests in the young because society expects a return when they grow up. Expensive medical care to prolong the life of an infant with no chance of growing up is a bad investment for society.”

What a barbaric view, but one, I suppose that supports killing people that someone has decided is no longer valuable to society.

Yi-ling,

First, let me give you condolences on your failed IVFs. It is, indeed, a tragedy for those trying to conceive when this happens. Like you, I struggle with the IVF dilemma because I do believe life begins at conception. For that reason, I am uncomfortable with IVF, even though I have seen the beautiful children conceived this way. I don’t claim to speak for God or to have the answers to our questions about such matters. What I do know is that it is an extremely slippery slope we step on when we determine that some people’s lives are worth ending because they don’t have the same “quality of life” that we expect. That is why I oppose such policies as that listed here.

Your comments to Paul about God made me smile. Paul doesn’t think these decisions should be left to God. That was his mischaracterization of my position. I will leave it to him to explain the difference. 🙂
sharon (e51965) — 3/7/2006 @ 2:18 pm
“Perhaps Paul, who seems to sneer at God, is more comfortable playing God than I.”
That one got my attention.
I don’t want to play God.
I try my damnedest every day for my patients.
I’m sorry for having come off holier than thou, thats a first for me.
But after 30 years of watching it all, you get angry at your- *my*- personal impotence. Surely each and everyone of the nurses in your family has felt that way one time or another.
This topic must have come up at my time.
My wife was an oncology nurse, now she’s in psych.
I never once thought that any of her patients should’ve be euthanized.
But even 18 years later, I can’t get the agony and pain of those anacephalic babies and their parents out of my heart.
And if faced with the opportunity to care for you or your loved ones, I hope I could change your mind.
I am not so sure of my position on this topic any longer. Well done. Harsh, but well done.
paul (464e99) — 3/7/2006 @ 2:32 pm
What I do know is that it is an extremely slippery slope we step on when we determine that some people’s lives are worth ending because they don’t have the same “quality of life” that we expect. That is why I oppose such policies as that listed here.

Sharon,

I was exposed to the first of the three branches of Buddhism that takes an orthodox view of killing. I used to argue and ponder over the purpose of life, if the aged person was suffering. My monk teacher would say, it is wrong to end the aged person’s life. It is me who cannot stand the suffering and want to end my misery. One has only to be in the midst of the suffering of a loved one, to suffer just as much if not more. I used to take that as the base line, and one could not go beyond it, and looked inward at myself for not being able to accept the necessary suffering of another. It was my own battle over myself and my inability to watch the suffering of another.

Maybe it is age or years or experience or a loosening of strict rules, I lean now to euthanasia for the right reason in circumstances that loved ones and the attending doctor together with other fellow doctors, think, it is an option.

Once I was very involved with the idea of attaining Nibbana which is the ultimate in Buddhist thinking, and thus would be very circumspect about the rules, less my journey there in delayed or slowed down or impeded. These days I do not aim there and so maybe that accounts for my relaxation and taking a case by case basis of each situation.

In Buddhism, when one seeks meditation as the route to Nibbana one needs to keep the moral principles otherwise there is slowed down progress. Its like germs in everyday life is OK and safe but not in an Operating Theatre where there should be no germs or germ free environment. Meditation requires that germ free environment for proper progress. It is fitting for those who have chosen a secluded life in forest monasteries for meditation. I no longer seek that path actively.

So, I would say, the principles we adhere to determine the path we chose to take and the kind of development we seek for ourselves. We have an inbuilt innate tendency to subscribe others to our values and beliefs and principles. So there will be those who think , euthanasia is the road down the slippery slope to abuse and thus should be outlawed even when it is fitting for certain legitimate cases. There will be those who think that as a principle it is reasoned and sound. There will be those who cling to anti euthanasia based on their taught belief that it is sinful or wrong. There will be others.

If my vote matters, I would vote for right to euthanasia whether infant, adult, and if it applies to animals then to them too. Maybe the word euthanasia is predicated on human life and human being.
Yi-Ling (0b24f3) — 3/7/2006 @ 2:34 pm
sharon said:

What a barbaric view, but one, I suppose that supports killing people that someone has decided is no longer valuable to society.

That is why society kills people like Tookie Williams. Some people think this is barbaric but I don’t.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 3/7/2006 @ 2:34 pm
Pain , some past reflections or ideas that came by on this subject

1. Once reading a book on life after death, there is this story from one man who came back to life from his near death experience. He mentioned that he saw his whole life pass him very fast and yet he saw every detail of it. He saw one incident where he bullied another boy and recalled that event too as he saw it live in action. What was very different this time is, he could feel how the other boy felt when he was punched. He could feel the other boy’s hurt and pain.

2. Kahlil Gibran had this to say of pain – pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses our self understanding

3. some book I read once about diamond series , where the student asked why his dying grandmother had to suffer so much pain before she died, as he was caring for her for those three months. The guide told him, you have now opened your green heart of compassion where it was not opened before you started caring for your grandmother in pain.
Yi-Ling (0b24f3) — 3/7/2006 @ 3:08 pm
But even 18 years later, I can’t get the agony and pain of those anacephalic babies and their parents out of my heart.

Paul, you are a person with a big, very kind heart. God bless. and many thanks.
Yi-Ling (0b24f3) — 3/7/2006 @ 3:12 pm
Yi-ling,
Thanks. I don’t think its big or kind right now. Confused, for sure.
paul (464e99) — 3/7/2006 @ 3:21 pm
Paul,

I apologise for my piece on God’s mercy and mans’ mercy. I recall at the back of my mind some raging debates about predetermination. Googling the word ‘predetermination’ and ‘theology’ I find the definition and that it also relates to Calvin. There is a whole developed school of theology on predetermination even to the point of final salvation. There are many branches of theology. You may wish to pursue that which suits your interest , noble profession and acumen. I am sorry to add to the confusion, and hope that all your good deeds and intent , will aid you clear your confusion.
Yi-Ling (0b24f3) — 3/7/2006 @ 3:48 pm
If it is “playing God” to end life, why isn’t it called “playing God” when we extend it?
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/7/2006 @ 5:46 pm
If it is “playing God” to end life, why isn’t it called “playing God” when we extend it?

Neither one deserves invoking the name of God. We have been cursed with the ability to end life and blessed with the ability to fight against some of the causes of death. That we “extend it” is an illussion. We have no more power to extend it than we do to create it. We simply do not give up fighting death.
nk (835d39) — 3/7/2006 @ 6:59 pm
JBS, What a barbaric view, but one, I suppose that supports killing people that someone has decided is no longer valuable to society.

That is why society kills people like Tookie Williams.

I’d argue that we execute people like Tookie Williams to deprive them of the rights of which they have deprived others, as just punishment.

I would also respectfully suggest that to juxtapose capital punishment with infanticide, merciful or otherwise, is to pose a false dichotomy. The question in my mind is one of relative innocence. As has been mentioned previously above, Tookie Williams had the benefit of years of legal consideration and appeals and was arguably punished justly for his crimes.

In the case of infanticide or euthanasia in general not only is this not the case, but often the recipient of the “merciful” death is unable to express their opinion or perhaps too young or otherwise mentally incapable of forming an opinion to express if they could. Thus, someone must assume the awesome responsibility to make the decision for them.

nk, That we “extend it” is an illussion. We have no more power to extend it than we do to create it. How very true. To think that we can add one breath to our life, apart from God’s mercy, is to arrogate to ourselves power that we simply do not and cannot possess.

Psy, so there is no “Thou shalt not kill” moral absolute anyway. The Hebrew moral injunction is more accurately translated “Thou shalt not murder”, and that is clearly a moral absolute. Comment by Harry Arthur — 3/5/2006 @ 10:00 pm

Harry Author, to say “Thou shalt not murder” may be a moral absolute in a way, but notice how murder is always regarded as wrong – so you are actually saying “We should not kill people when we should not kill people,” which is a tautology and therefore next to meaningless. Different cultures and different periods of history have determined what was called “murder” when people are killed and what wasn’t. So there really is no moral absolute there.

I think you missed my point which was clearly directed at the “Thou shalt not kill” proscription of murder found in the Ten Commandments which you quoted and which I clarified. My thoughts were directed to our own western civilization in which that moral “absolute” which is based on the Hebrew scriptures known as the Ten Commandments is found. Different cultures and different periods in history are really irrelevant to me. Though I think it would be a challenge to find a culture any where at any time in history that allowed either indiscriminant killing or prohibited all killing. There is clearly a firm line somewhere in that continuum.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 3/7/2006 @ 10:20 pm
Harry Arthur,

I think you missed my point which was clearly directed at the “Thou shalt not kill” proscription of murder found in the Ten Commandments which you quoted and which I clarified. My thoughts were directed to our own western civilization in which that moral “absolute” which is based on the Hebrew scriptures known as the Ten Commandments is found. Different cultures and different periods in history are really irrelevant to me. Though I think it would be a challenge to find a culture any where at any time in history that allowed either indiscriminant killing or prohibited all killing. There is clearly a firm line somewhere in that continuum.

To my understanding, Western civilization, even on the question of moral absolute, is founded not just on Judeo-Christian values but also ancient Greek philosophy, Roman law and the Renaissance. Significant portion of western thinking can be traced from root ideas of the ancient Greek philosophers developed through the ages.
To my further understanding, while, it is good for one to seek one’s base line from any excellent tradition, example of one such excellent spiritual tradition , The Judeo-Christian tradition, it does not mean Western civilization is wholly synonymous with the Judeo-Christian tradition, nor does the or any spiritual tradition alone have monopoly on the norm of moral absolute.

Further, by quantitative statistics, Christians in USA today comprise about 84% of the population, with many other minorities. [Christian (84.12%), Jew (1.92%), Muslim (1.55%), Buddhist (0.91%), Ethnoreligionist (0.39%)]. In this, I do not know or at least as yet the figures for the atheists and agnostics. The relevance of different cultures comes in when they find resonance in the hearts and minds of Caucasoids, like at the forest monastery at Red Wood Valley, CA http://www.abhayagiri.org/index.php/main/news/ .

Further, even within the quantative statistics, for Christians, of which my husband numbers as one of the 84% , there are still shades of understanding as he very early in his life, on his own volition found and read one of the Hindu text, The Bhagavad Gita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita and holds that in high regard as he holds the Bible. I say this to show that the quantitative statistics, has room for various understanding of Christianity or less conventional Christian views as does my husband. The Bhavagad Gita is mentioned as it deals with issue of killing in war between people known to each other on the other side of the warring party and the justification for it.

While it is true and workable that different cultures and different periods are really irrelevant to you, it has relevance in two ways. One is the ancient Greek culture, the Roman laws, the Renaissance, are relevant to many in the West, and secondly, different spiritual traditions are relevant to a minority in the West, whether they are Caucasoids or otherwise.
If you are interested in the prohibition of all killing[ one as extended meaning of killing, beyond human beings and two as how other such spiritual traditions treat and justify or reject euthanasia], you might wish to look up the Jains in India. Jainism is a religion, that carries non killing of all sentient beings to a high degree of care. I recall reading they wear a mask over the nose and mouth so that they do not accidentally swallow an insect flying about and entering the mouth by mistake. Naturally they are vegetarians. The prohibition of killing is taken as non killing of all sentient life and that thus includes insects, animals. The Old Testament non killing is taken to mean non killing of human beings. The spiritual traditions that lean to non killing of all sentient life are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism. The social issues of euthanasia and abortion in these grouping of Hinduism Buddhism Jainism might then interest you. Being a Buddhist myself, though not a scrupulous one, I am inclined to think for myself and think that compassion dictates relieving another of unnecessary suffering where it is a hopeless situation . I agree with James here at http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/buddhism-and-euthanasia.html . If there is negative merit or negative karma [ bad deeds points] from euthanasia, I am prepared to accept the demerit points and thus lengthen my round of rebirth. I am not in a hurry to attain Nibbana and seek to lead a normal worldly life, not a secluded monastic life wholly focused on attaining Nibbana. I think there are many lessons for me to learn of normal family worldly life and thus, would take the risk that by endorsing euthanasia, I could have gained demerit points, but I would have helped a person in real life from immediate real suffering. I will accept the demerit points for breaking the law if that is what it is, and if that is not it, then I may not have gained demerit points but instead have gained merit points for upholding compassion.
Yi-Ling (787220) — 3/8/2006 @ 11:30 am
Yi-ling,
Don’t know that I can just accept the demerit system on my soul. Interesting viewpoint though.
And the large percentage of Judeo-Christians in our society seems to set us up for an absolutist point of view.
But the main point, that I have finally come to see is, where does it stop? I say “ok, anacephalics they can die.” The someone says “Well then what about the Microcephalics?” then on and on. I don’t think there are people out there who wouldn’t accept the moral responsiblity of infant euthanasia. I am/was one.[yes I’m still confused]
I mean it’s nice that you’d take responsiblity for you action/inaction in relieving suffering. But on a societial level can we or do we want to start down that slope.
One of the things I know about my newly forming opinion on this is that we have a great many tools at our disposal to allieviate pain and suffering.
Since we never get the chance to find out what this infant would have wanted in this instance, it seems that we are obligated to err on the side of caution.
One of the things that confuse me however, is this; In all other issues in child-rearing, the child is at the mercy of the value-set that the parents possess. [religion, racism etc]
In this instance, are we forcing our value set on people, even though it may well save their life. I can’t come up with an example right now, but there are people who would rather die than go outside their values.
But then it goes back to my other statement, we don’t have the chance to see what the child would want so we assume that it would be to live.
And here is where I start chasing my tail. Any help besides an absolutist ‘It’s wrong.’?
paul (3370f7) — 3/8/2006 @ 12:47 pm
paul, thoughtful posts. IMHO you have found the answer: Since we never get the chance to find out what this infant would have wanted in this instance, it seems that we are obligated to err on the side of caution.

It seems to me that this is also a large part of the answer to the abortion question as well?
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 3/8/2006 @ 12:52 pm
Paul,

And the large percentage of Judeo-Christians in our society seems to set us up for an absolutist point of view.

My husband whose dad’s side is from Italy and his mom’s side is from UK-Ireland, surprised me when he disagreed that there should be no abortion if it is rape case or incest case. I gather that the new law passed by one of the states, outlawed abortion across the board even for rape and incest. I mentioned that, since we are married and if I am raped by a third party rapist, I would keep the child as the child is innocent and unsaid, is, I would not like to abort a life, however the life chose to come to me. He said that is different , it is not the State imposing on you to keep the baby. It is your choice and I would let you make the choice. I said, I thought you would agree the state should outlaw abortion since the decision is I think motivated by Christian values of life is sacrosanct from conception, there being no blurred lines between what kind of conception [ meaning whether conceived through consensual sex or non consensual sex/rape or illegal consensual sex of incest through prohibited degrees of blood relationship]. I mentioned my concern of incest because of the likelihood of genetic disorders because of close blood relationship, example father-daughter incest. But I thought to myself, this goes back to the issue of whether abortion is allowed for baby with genetical defect like mongoloidism. I would think an absolutist position would be blanket catch all position as the state that passed the law that outlaws all abortion even from conception arising from rape and incest. I wonder how many Judeo-Christians in our society would agree with the absolutist position taken, and whether they would be like my husband who thinks outlawing abortion for all cases except rape and incest is OK. I am not really sure what all the other cases are, but the dividing line, for my purpose of absolute versus non absolute position is, whether it catches rape and incest. If majority of Judeo-Christians are comfortable with outlawing abortion for rape and incest, then I would say, yes, majority of Judeo-Christians in our society would generally across the board take an absolutist position, even on issues of abortion. If majority of them bulk at outlawing abortion for rape or incest, then surely some other factors have come to play, making them exclude abortion from an absolutist position. The question then is what are these other factors.

But the main point, that I have finally come to see is, where does it stop? I say “ok, anacephalics they can die.” The someone says “Well then what about the Microcephalics?” then on and on.

But on a societial level can we or do we want to start down that slope.

One of the things I know about my newly forming opinion on this is that we have a great many tools at our disposal to allieviate pain and suffering.

Yes with new and high end , cutting edge technology, there are more choices with ethical spiritual overtones and economic cost issues. The very strength becomes a weakness. In Hindu society where the cow is revered for her milk, and farm work, she is not killed even when old. Too many old sickly unproductive cows because of the value of not killing animals especially the holy cow , because of her life sustaining value in agricultural society in rural India. Forgive me for making this comparison, but the cost of life sustaining support, if publicly funded, and widespread, because people hope that maybe one day one year medical science will be advanced enough to find a cure and thus make a vegetative life an active productive life, is a strength as well as a weakness. Just as the Hindu would revulse at the thought of killing the cow so as to be better of economically, the Westerner would revulse at the suggestion that cost issue, money issue , should come into the consideration of whether to remove the life support system, for many one day, if the situation arises, with aging population and more living wills for life support system. The cost would be borne by us all, working and by the future generation. While I think there is value in the suspended state, I would not use state funds for life support less it deprive others of other social welfare or disability benefits, as the pool is not bottomless and someone is paying the cost and footing the bill. If I can pay it out of my own pocket, then yes, I would use the life support system. As long as the number using the life support system is small and the cost is manageable , there is no crisis , no issue. But if the numbers increase and the cost escalates, then, who is footing the bill ? I think we owe it to the living who need support, whether disability or unemployment insurance and health care for the living and walking, and productive [ by that I include grandmothers who take care of grandchildren from time to time, even when they do not earn a salary figuratively] to spread the use of limited resources for legitimate purposes or more important purposes. One Terri Schiavo case of 15 years of government support is OK, and affordable but if there are millions of them, at what cost and to whom? Forgive me for being economically minded, but I think countries are run on economy as much as on spiritual traditions and ethics and other things. Judicious and wise use of resources secures the future for our future generation. Irresponsible use of resources depletes resources for the future generation and we owe a living as much to the future generation as to the present and those on life support. A difficult balancing act needs to be done, and economics of cost needs to be studied and explored.

Since we never get the chance to find out what this infant would have wanted in this instance, it seems that we are obligated to err on the side of caution.

It just struck me that the Golden Rule that runs across Criminal Law is that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that , possibly the Golden Rule that runs across spiritual traditions, is that, a man [woman and babies] are presumed to want to live until proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they want to die [ and even then, right thinking minded doctors, not just one , the attending doctors, but also other doctors consulted by this doctor, must agree that the circumstances justify the option for ending life, with the adult’s consent and on his/her request] .

How can we ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt the child in Chanou case wants to live? The child cannot speak. The parents make the decision. How can we ever know if the decision is motivated by desire for getting rid of pain the parents feel or by desire to end the suffering of the child. If I am Chanou’s parent, I would search my heart and from the facts I would assume that even if it is get rid too of the suffering I feel, it is ‘also” too, to get rid of the suffering Chanou feels, when, the circumstances are not right for her to be a full human being. However, I am law abiding for my peace of mind. If the law outlaws infant euthanasia, I would not secretly beg the doctor/nurse to end her life, out of concern for the doctor, administering nurse, whose career could be put at jeopardy if it became disclosed inadvertently. My concern for the doctor, would outweigh my concern for lifting the suffering of Chanou. However I would work for legislation to lift the ban on infant euthanasia using my child’s case as an example for the need for legalizing infant euthanasia. In the draft bill, I would seek to have

[a] written request of the parents, both parents
[b] consent of attending doctor
[ c] consent of the board of directors in the field concerned in the hospital where the infant is primarily treated
[ d] consent of the medical association of the state where the hospital is located .

I would seek these safeguards so that the decision to end the child’s life, is a serious well considered decision, considered as a sound medical rational reasonable decision by rational adults , who are parents, doctors and the state’s medical association, besides the hospital board. These consent would have to be in writing.

At the time of ending her life, the parents, the attending doctor, a representative from the hospital board and a representative from the state medical association should be in attendance and they should sign for the drugs and medical means to be used to end the infant’s life. If this is challenged, the proof is there, in writing, allowing it , detailing the circumstances and the method of execution, and witnessing of the execution. I would think, we thinking people are capable of knowing the difference between useful and purposeful suffering and needless and unnecessary unwanted suffering. I would think, we are capable of making difficult decisions like these and that we can count on each other, to together, bravely make these difficult all too human decisions.
Yi-Ling (787220) — 3/8/2006 @ 2:08 pm
Yi-ling,
Well, I can’t say you haven’t thought this through.
My original position was “…Yes, a rigorous review of each request should be undertaken. Yes, there should be more than the caregivers involved in that review. And yes, there is a place to relieve boundless suffering with death.”

Sharon maintained that anyone seeking to relieve this suffering is doing it because “… people do not like to deal with unpleasantness and in our sterile world, we think everyone should be saved from any suffering or discomfort or even having to deal with such things. Compassion is being there for the person suffering and doing things to help them, not kill them.”

C.S.P.Schoenfeld Noted:
“I note that both Holland and Sweden have persistent euthanasia and forced sterilization scandals involving the handicapped, and certain racial groups. Remember who we are talking about: a people who are so nice that they almost made Socialism work for decades. Yet the introduction of the euthanasia idea lead some of their medical people to the practice of eugenics.

I[f] you want to make it a matter of custom that a person who kills a terminally ill child routinely gets pardoned, I’m OK with that. If God doesn’t like it, God will have eternity to explain this to all parties. But I don’t like giving Doctors the power of life and death – their record isn’t any too good.”
You expressed a hope that these difficult choices can be made through a rigorous review process. And the part of me that can still ‘taste’ the suffering of those parents I met all those years ago, hopes so with you.
But the part of me that is still in awe of Gods’ greatness [thats the part that sharon ‘slapped’ awake.] can’t and probably won’t take up that syringe.
But the thought that won’t let me lay this issue down is the one in my last post;
“In all other issues in child-rearing, the child is at the mercy of the value-set that the parents possess…”
I mean if we step in and stop the euthanasia when the parents value-set tells them it’s appropriate…then what is that?
paul (464e99) — 3/8/2006 @ 3:24 pm
Paul, there are precious few moral absolutes when you stop and think about it. Right here in America not too long ago, didn’t they hang criminals just for stealing horses? Today that would be called murder, wouldn’t it?

You should also realize that a slippery slope is actually a logical fallacy. “If the camel sticks his nose in the tent, he may or may not come all of the way into the tent.” We can’t know that beforehand. So don’t let that aspect of it stump you.

If the child will certainly die in a few weeks and is in constant agony – not just a little discomfort – then I would say that morally the child should be euthanized. I would call this erring on the side of caution since a lot of children will still die in vain and in agony.

The legal slippery slope is a different subject, so I’m not talking about that aspect of it. I’m not sure what kind of system we should put in place to make sure that euthanasia wouldn’t be abused at times.
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/8/2006 @ 4:19 pm
Points well taken psy.
I guess I’m going to have to get used to being conflicted [that a word?] on this topic.
paul (464e99) — 3/8/2006 @ 7:44 pm
If the child will certainly die in a few weeks and is in constant agony – not just a little discomfort – then I would say that morally the child should be euthanized.

Is your moral statement above relative or absolute? What is your basis for this judgement?

Does this apply to everyone? After all, why should children be the only ones to accrue the benefit of this moral choice?

Can I make this choice for grandpa? How about mom? How about my wife? Absent a living will providing guidance to the contrary, of course. In due respect, if euthanasia is the moral response to accute pain, I take it that to allow the child to die a natural death even while doing everything possible to treat the pain medically would be immoral?

Apparently we can know beforehand that the child will “certainly die in a few weeks” but not whether the “camel will come all the way into the tent”? I would argue that we already know what the camel will do. Simply take a look at those societies that allow euthanasia. The camel is well into the tent, where the tent remains standing.

Paul, there are precious few moral absolutes when you stop and think about it. Right here in America not too long ago, didn’t they hang criminals just for stealing horses? Today that would be called murder, wouldn’t it?

It was called murder then if done by a mob. Your argument really says little about the concept of moral absolutes. Can you suggest a few examples of the precious few absolutes with which we are left?

You should also realize that a slippery slope is actually a logical fallacy. “If the camel sticks his nose in the tent, he may or may not come all of the way into the tent.” We can’t know that beforehand. So don’t let that aspect of it stump you.

The legal slippery slope is a different subject, so I’m not talking about that aspect of it. I’m not sure what kind of system we should put in place to make sure that euthanasia wouldn’t be abused at times.

Now I’m conflicted. So, is this a “slippery slope” or isn’t it? Just because a slippery slope argument can be logically falacious doesn’t imply that there are no slippery slopes, as you seem to have admitted.

Acknowledging that euthanasia on demand would be very difficult to police, are you still comfortable with your moral statement on euthanasia? I’m not trying to be argumentative, just trying to explore where your moral judgements lead.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 3/8/2006 @ 10:11 pm
I saw this some hours ago on yahoo reuters news and thought it has some relevance on cost issue of health care, more particularly cost of prolonged life sustaining support. I could be wrong. It could be other aspects of health care cost. Or a bit of each of these and that. If you read this, below, reflect on the possible areas that could be cut, to meet the proposed trimming , assuming if the trimming is carried through hypothetically.

In all likelihood, the circumstances would lean towards it not being carried through, with even 100 Republicans in the House opposing. Even if as is likely, it is not carried through, it does alert one to the reality and need for saving on health care cost, and that it is not a bottomless pit.

Without examining more of this proposal, or whether it will pass or not,

[1] the existence of such a proposal and
[2] the actual recent cut in health care in recent past ,

suggest the need for prudent budgetary examination of cost/money issue.

House Republicans oppose Bush’s Medicare cut

[1] Bush proposed trimming $36 billion over five years — and $105 billion over 10 — from Medicare, the federal health plan for America’s elderly, mostly by slowing payments to hospitals, nursing homes and similar health care providers.

[2] The proposed Medicare cuts would be in addition to $39 billion in cuts for health and other social programs recently enacted after a bitter congressional debate.
Yi-Ling (42f2e3) — 3/8/2006 @ 11:05 pm
Considering our government is using depleted uranium, which causes horrific birth defects, maybe we should stop supporting the war that brings on such horrors. Oh yeah, cancer as well. Big time cancer resulting. Ask vets of the last Iraq war when we used depleted uranium too. And yes babies are being deformed now, more so. Both in Iraq, and our soldiers’babies. It is especially horrific when you acknowledge that Iraq did not attack us, was not going to attack us, and could not attack us. It is a tragedy beyond words.
blubonnet (8ba69f) — 3/9/2006 @ 1:16 am
Yi-ling,

Don’t know if you know this or not, but any time a politician or reporter talks about a “cut,” what he means is a reduction in the increase of something. Nothing in the U.S. budget is EVER actually cut. The cuts in increases is a way used to bring deficits under control without having to increase taxes or fees.

Also, Psy, just as there is no way to know if the camel will come into the tent or go out of the tent, when a doctor tells you someone will live “only a few weeks,” there’s no way to know if they will actually do so. I know a man, for instance who was given 6 mos to live from a brain tumor. 3 years later, he is still as fit as he was in the first place. Imagine if his family had decided it was “too painful” for him and euthanized him.
sharon (e51965) — 3/9/2006 @ 6:55 am
It is especially horrific when you acknowledge that Iraq did not attack us, was not going to attack us, and could not attack us.

I acknowledge no such thing.

Iraq was in serial violation of the cease fire and multiple UN resolutions over more than a decade. That alone was adequate reason to resume hostilities. As for what would have happened in the future, who knows? Have you listened to the tapes of Sadam and Aziz discussing the use of bio warfare against the US?

Probably not a lot of that on the web sites you visit I’d wager.
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 3/9/2006 @ 7:04 am
sharon, excellent point. I’d like to see the budget number for this year and those years in the future. If they go down, that’s a cut, at least to this simple country boy. I’m certain that is not the case. However, in Wash DC, it is possible to “cut” a budget while increasing it??

WARNING! This budgetary math only works in Wash DC when done by paid professionals. Do not try this at home.
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 3/9/2006 @ 7:08 am
Sharon,

Thank you for your interpretation. I will not be able to quickly verify your reading and will wait when I happen to have dinner [ it may be some time as we are in different towns in CA ] with our friend a CPA to ask him, what cuts mean. Pending that, my point is that, all discussion in abstract on prolonging life, without taking into account government cost and government’s ability to afford such spending, is unrealistic, as there is a cost to be paid, and it is through our tax monies, via government spending on Medicare for many.

Much as we like in an ideal world, to have all principles enshrined not just in our hearts and mind but executed in action, whether by us, or by the government, or others; we live in the real world, where it takes money to get things done, and we live in the real world where there are competing and many priorities and a balancing , juggling act has to be done, pragmatically and practically.

To totally exclude cost issue, eg. Medicare cost issue in execution of living wills, is unrealistic. To utilize Medicare for such life support system, especially if it is in aggregate over the years, expensive, is to give less thought of the need of others for the same tax dollar spent; whether the need is disability pay out or unemployment insurance etcetra. Health care is one facet of the budget, and money saved there, can be used for education, science and technology, energy, ectetra. The recent and future spending on security and in Iran and Afghanistan has off course tilted the scales of the budget. But reality sometimes throws us spanners and makes for corrections in health care spending than otherwise would have been, if not for the recent two wars and security concerns.

If anyone has had the opportunity to counter check with a CPA on the meaning of fed cuts, before me, please advise.
Yi-Ling (619ace) — 3/9/2006 @ 7:58 am
Unwittingly, I think you’ve made a great argument against national healthcare.
sharon (e51965) — 3/9/2006 @ 9:15 am
Sharon,

It is how you choose to interpret it. Based on what I perceive to be your assumption that ALL life should be treated equally, even life on life support system in ALL cases, without exception, that therefore , you conclude that a case for limiting national health care is necessarily the same as the case against national health care totally.

It is because, I do not subscribe the principle that, new technology exists can prolong life in many cases, I can easily and with no emotional hurdles, look at the cases [ if it is my job, but it is not] and decide on rational basis, which are deserving cases for medicare or medicaid.

The hidden inner spring that says and subscribes and attaches to total commitment to life, especially when new technology can be used to lengthen it, impedes your ability to look at other competing factors for the national budget.

Let me give you an example. In my younger days, I was very committed to not taking sentient life, the first of five precepts [ just five principles] for Theravada Buddhism. If my biscuit tin had ants for some reason, I would patiently take the biscuits out and slowly take each ant out and set it free. If a mosquito bit me, I see it and let it feed on me, since I could chase or shoo it away, but it will come to me or another because it needs food and its food happens to be someone’s blood. I would let it fed and once its stomach was bloated, I would gently nudge the mosquito to fly away. This attachment to life at all cost, interferes with my judgement. When over the years through series of events, I let go of this deep attachment, I could allow other factors to come in and see the difference between them. Emotion and commitment to principle at all cost, tends to cloud one’s judgement and one’s perception.

Below is the debate a year ago, 2005 February, on cuts . http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/19/national/a123758S80.DTL Nowhere does any party suggest eliminating national health care, only different ways, how to tackle the situation where , I assess is basically, redress situation of ‘projected expenditure will outweigh projected funds or government allocation’. Its then a question of budgeting and determining what are essentials for national health care and what are non essentials. I do not see any of the proposals made a year ago as, making the case for eliminating national health care.

Unwittingly, I think, you belie the attachment to life at all cost and under all circumstances, honorable, praiseworthy, idealistic, but unrealistic in real life, at least at national life. It may work for the individual where the noble praiseworthy individual like yourself is prepared or has made great sacrifices to live out the principle you espouse in thought through deed and intent, but it is not workable at national level.
Yi-Ling (619ace) — 3/9/2006 @ 11:37 am
Paul,

But the thought that won’t let me lay this issue down is the one in my last post;
“In all other issues in child-rearing, the child is at the mercy of the value-set that the parents possess…”

I mean if we step in and stop the euthanasia when the parents value-set tells them it’s appropriate…then what is that?

It is not easy to grasp what you are wrestling with above. I could be off the mark, tell me please.

You seek consistency of principle that where “In all other issues in child-rearing, the child is at the mercy of the value-set that the parents possess…” that so and thus for the issue of euthanasia or not, the parents should decide, not the law as “ I mean if we step in and stop the euthanasia when the parents value-set tells them it’s appropriate” . Is that it? You want a uniform standard.

If yes, then why do you seek a uniform standard? Underlying your asking the question of same rule to apply, which rule is “In all other issues in child-rearing, the child is at the mercy of the value-set that the parents possess…” there is an implicit assumption and presumption that the parents know best. You conclude the parents know best, because they are so bonded with the child that they know or think they know what the child feels and wants. Is this it?

If it is, then you would go on to assume that since the parents know best or understand all the circumstances, they would do best for the infant, and thus their wish to have infant euthanasia should prevail over societal norm of outlawing infant euthanasia.

Why then the double standard?

In one way, it is actually one standard, and that is the standard that assisted suicide or euthanasia is outlawed except when it is specifically legislated allowing it. Thus each piece of legislation is piecemeal. It goes by forward by little steps and halter and falter as it goes along. It could be that until the cases of justifiable instance for infant euthanasia comes to light, it just did not draw the attention of legislators. So it was excluded. It could also be that, consent of the victim [ so called, or the patient] was imperative and thus, it was assumed that, only adults could give consent. It then goes back to the same question you posed earlier, how do we know beyond a reasonable doubt what the little infant wants if he or she cannot talk to us because he or she has yet to acquire language communication skills. Yet all the pain and suffering interferes with the normal development and time is still required for speech development and ideas development. So it’s a catch 22 situation, and we can never really know what the little infant wants without the little infant being able to telephatically tell us if only we could telephatically receive such telephatic communication, which we usually cannot.

I do not know what is really at issue here, except that, in the scene of action, try not to be conflicted or have conflict under management through some action plan. An example of action plan would be

a) If you are for abolitionist standard, then, stand by it, and express your care as you are. Read up more on Christian doctrines [eg http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/euthanas/ ] and reasoning for such absolutist standard to enable you to see beyond the pain and suffering you, the infant, the parents feel as you all keep vigil. If your first hand experience tells us you to adjust the doctrine as taught and as given, consider [b] then.

b) If you are for infant euthanasia, then seek out a work place that shares your values and work towards promoting cause for infant euthanasia, with the cases you have at hand, always on the understanding you would never sanction infant euthanasia without the law allowing it, and if they as aggrieved parents have gone through the hardship, they , some, might be willing to promote the cause of infant euthanasia.

Imagine if a general were conflicted about sending his men up the hill tomorrow to take the forte and winning a military victory at the probable cost of high casualty and feeling conflicted about the grief that the family of the ‘to be’ deceased men [ high casualty expected as part of the cost] it would be difficult for him to do his job and strategise well as he would be burdened by the grief and pain and suffering of the family left behind by his dead men.
Yi-Ling (619ace) — 3/9/2006 @ 2:40 pm
Yi-ling,
I don’t quite agree with you military analogy, although the point you’re making is taken.
I guess the only thing for me to do is deal with it if , and when, it ever comes up again.
paul (464e99) — 3/9/2006 @ 6:16 pm
Paul,

God bless, take care and many thanks 🙂 >
Yi-Ling (df9fb6) — 3/9/2006 @ 6:29 pm
Harry Arthur,

I have not specifically thought about the philosophical underpinnings of the morality issue of euthanasia. So when you posed the question,

“In due respect, if euthanasia is the moral response to accute pain, I take it that to allow the child to die a natural death even while doing everything possible to treat the pain medically would be immoral?”

my first knee jerk reaction was “Ah if euthanasia is the moral response to acute pain , then, it seems to suggest that allowing the child to die a natural death even when doing everything possible to treat the pain medically would be immoral”. But then another knee jerk reaction, says, the latter cannot be immoral. Hmmm… I don’t know, let me check google and see what others think and write. I could not find this aspect. Instead I find aspect of measuring action to end life against legal definition of murder. The kind of taking apart each of the elements that needs to be proven as satisfied before it can be said to fit the description of murder. Then I thought, it can be because of this tendency of predominant use of Aristotelian logic or Linear logic in the West, where, if A+B=C, therefore A+B cannot be D. So it is like saying, if Euthanasia is moral, and if, here I am doing something incorrect in that I am inverting it, but I am just sharing with you , why I thought this was why I think it could be immoral. If we consider ‘moral’ to be ‘A+B’, then C is euthanasia, and thus, D cannot be something else than C. Please, this is not the way, A+B=C goes, but it is just a thought association to explain to myself silently, when I wondered why did I fall into the trap of wanting to think “ I take it that to allow the child to die a natural death even while doing everything possible to treat the pain medically would be immoral?” and in the absence of knowing why it is easy to follow your line of thought, that I fall back on an associated idea that was plucked out of my mind. Maybe it has to do with some other fine points of logical arguments, but I am not seeking that out because of time and energy constraint. I thought of your responses, this was the one that pulled at me and I would like to respond to it as best as I can with limited time to research think and write craft a reply to you for your thinking.

Then the next thing that came to my mind, is that, that is why they call it an option, to suggest that, there are two moral options, you can choose which one you like. So, going back to your “I take it that to allow the child to die a natural death even while doing everything possible to treat the pain medically would be immoral?” I would have to say that “I take it that to allow the child to die a natural death even while doing everything possible to treat the pain medically would ALSO be moral!”

A little bit more of why this thought of Aristotelian logic suddenly flashed into my mind. I had long ago read Erich Fromm’s The Art of Loving, in which he drew to the readers’ attention to the main difference between logic in the West and logic in the East. He mentioned somewhere in some short paragraphs in his book, that, In the West, it is mostly Aristotelian Logic or Linear Logic, where if A+B=C, therefore A+B CANNOT be D . While in the East, where Paradoxical Logic exists, if A+B =C, then A+B can also be D. Maybe he did not use this exact equation, but the principle of it is something like that. You might like to check on google. I have checked once and there are a number of articles on the difference between these two patterns of logic.

And if I think back of the Chanou and Sanne cases, those were cases were pain relief seemed not to work sufficiently for the infant. One had the inability to swallow milk and threw it out all the time. Another had skin inside and outside peeling off on contact. I do not know if we drugged the infant to give total pain relief, whether it would be good to just honor our idea that we do not take life, even when we know such drugging would interfere with normal growth process. Unlike adults, drugging them to relief pain, does not interfere with normal growth development as they are already fully grown human beings , just in declining decaying process. Personally, I would be for infant euthanasia in justifiable cases like Chanou and Sanne, if the law permits it. I would consider doctors and nurses and care givers should abide by the law, as their first moral duty is to themselves , their family, and any jeopardy in their noble helping profession would jeopardize their life, and that of their family. They cannot help an infant where helping the infant to die where the law forbids it on pain of punishment by the state, with prospect of losing their livelihood and maybe even licence, would cause deeper and greater pain to themselves and their family and their other dependents. Neither do I think they should help if the institution where they work is not agreeable with the idea of offering ‘side’ help by promoting the cause of infant euthanasia [ not ending infant life by infant euthanasia], as it could jeopardize their career [ differences with higher ups policies] and thus affect them and their family, who are their first moral priority. I then consider to follow the law , [ not conceived spiritual law, because I lean to thinking there is one standard for religious recluse , and another for worldly ordinary folks in the hustle and bustle of life, where we have wars, security concerns, and other demands of ordinary life; but state laws] and then consider the higher priority of moral duty to their family and themselves. That way the path and journey would be smoother. After all if we are ever convicted of anything it is for the long haul. So what’s the rush?

One should take time to consider carefully, even if it means taking 10-30 years to consider, or at least three years as a minimum, for by one’s considered action, and reflection, if one subscribes to others, I take it as one is responsible for the idea. This is my personal take, just thinking aloud.
Yi-Ling (89c022) — 3/10/2006 @ 8:57 am
Psyberian

You should also realize that a slippery slope is actually a logical fallacy. “If the camel sticks his nose in the tent, he may or may not come all of the way into the tent.” We can’t know that beforehand. So don’t let that aspect of it stump you.

The came sticking his nose in the tent stumped me, so I decided to google ‘camel’ ‘tent’ ‘nose’ and I found this http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/camelsnose.html Before reading the article on this proverbial camel sticking his nose in the tent, I was musing whether it is like saying / thinking, “It is anyone’s guess what happens in after life” [ meaning whose current idea or version of life after death, is anyone’s guess] .

Reading the article on this mysterious camel sticking his nose into the tent, I was wondering where the camel would come in with all these slippery slope arguments, pages after pages and analysis after analysis and critique on slippery slope argument. I begin to wonder if the camel sticking his nose in the tent is a slippery slope ‘short form’ or ‘short hand’, like you put your foot in the door and then inch it and go in. So it seems to be saying, that, we can know when to stop, apply the brakes, and do not slide all the way down this terribly slippery slope, just as this clever camel knows when to stay in the tent and not go further , crashing out the other side of the tent.

If the future decision (the “danger case,” as Schauer calls it n9) is bad, but the prior decisions are good, why not simply refrain from making the bad decision down the road? The slippery slope argument seems to rob our future selves of the ability to make reasoned decisions. It treats future decisionmakers as automata who cannot resist doing the wrong thing. We call this the automaton objection.

I find this very abstract arguments, and I would think my way of going about it, would be to get down to numbers and cost and figures of hospital care, types of pain, types of problems that are serious enough though they are not pain types, current population statistics and baby boomers age, and curve of the aged, working age group, and how much in social security for each, and where USA stands economically with respect to the rest of the world and who are catching up and how far behind they are and by which year or century the gap narrows down or closes, and how the international trade rules affects the changing form of business, where businesses are governed by the profit rule seeking cheaper places of production for lowered cost of production, and even if Dems do not want to play by that rule [ or at least at the political rhetorical level ], the existence of EU Japan and others who play by that rule and thus catch on big plane building businesses for their companies. Seeing this, I figure would deal with the reality and be better able to determine where our society should go down the road , ten decades later, one century later and more. I find the argument in abstract of , we will know when we can stop versus we won’t be able to know when we can stop, very abstract. I would rather look at numbers social patterns, trade patterns, economy rules, and existing situation and measure ideal versus reality.

And since euthanasia deals with life after death as it ends life prematurely as we understand the word prematurely, I would also compare religious values and doctrines versus social reality. But in the ultimate analysis I would always put the welfare of the living and productive ahead of the living and dying to remain a competitive society. I would rather tax dollar be spent on the poor and hungry in the street than on the person hooked on life support, unconscious, in the hospital bed for 6 years. Maybe its just me, but when I ate at an express food Chinese restaurant one day, called Little Mandarin in Berkeley [ next to the Downtown Berkely bart and opposite Wells Fargo bank] I saw the food was good and hot [warm] and cheap for people looking for affordable meal. It was fried rice with vegetables of different kind plus one dish , different types of meat or vegetable dish for $ 2.50 and if with two dishes it is $ 3.50 and with three dishes it is $ 4.50. The helping was very big. There was free cool water as one wished, with small and big cups to choose from. I watched with deep interest the people who came in, of different and all ethnic groups, working people, students, etc, to eat or to take away, and felt happy that with $ 2.50, a good warm nutritious and nourishing wholesome food could be had. In my heart of hearts, I decided that one day, when I can, I would like to ask this owner if I could contribute financially to be a sleeping partner and if we could open more such shops. I would be very happy to see people walking in from the streets to have a good meal for very low price of $ 2.50 in downtown Berkeley or some other places, and be energized by it and go about doing their thing after that. They may not agree, but this is what and how , I see think feel … and perceive and whirl around in my little world.
Yi-Ling (89c022) — 3/10/2006 @ 12:21 pm
And lastly, seeing this concern, today, about trade deficit again
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060310/ts_csm/atradegap;_ylt=Ali50tJrnRVGPuVWRzXIxM9g.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4b3FrcXQ0BHNlYwMxNjkz
made me dig up old articles on what I consider ‘positive-reverse’ rationale for trade deficit as here
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-dg081999.html
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-002.html ; as well as underscores the point about budgetary restraint and constraint for health care.

It also reminds me of the port deal and the unsaid parallel co-issue of protectionism in knocking off the Dubai port deal when security concerns aroused strong concerns/objections. It is the clash of trade protectionism understanding of the President’s office and Congress and it is early days of the direction that protectionism could take and the effect on trade generally and thus consequentially, our wealth.

Reading today’s article , first above mentioned, one prof puts it

“We are so rich as a country,” says Robert Lawrence, a Harvard University economist. “We’re borrowing, we’re running down our assets, but we’re very wealthy.” He wouldn’t be surprised, though, to see the gap shrink eventually.

And it begs the question , “what gap?” he is referring to. If you read this, balance it with CATO’s view [ second and third mentioned above] on trade deficit and then seek out other views for comparison and reflection and further analysis.
Yi-Ling (89c022) — 3/10/2006 @ 2:46 pm

3/4/2006

Beautiful Infanticide

96 Responses to “Beautiful Infanticide”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out