Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

[excathedra]

Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

Nov 30, 4:24 PM (ET)

By TOBY STERLING

quote:

---

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives - a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

In August, the main Dutch doctors' association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will," including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.

The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said.

Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.

Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.

The hospital revealed last month it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital or the doctors.

Roman Catholic organizations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to the announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.

"The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into a vertical cliff," said Wesley J. Smith, a prominent California-based critic, in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outside Holland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.

"As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting."

According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen, but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals.

Groningen estimated the protocol would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country of 16 million people.

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge.

However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.

"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," said Lance Stell, professor of medical ethics at Davidson College in Davidson, N.C., and staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."

More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it's really about management and method of death, Stell said.

---

roman catholic organizations and the vatican are outraged. HA !

[krys]

I just don't get it! If a mentally sound adult having intractable pain and no hope of recovery cannot request relief from his doctors, via medical means, that sounds to me like torture.

Doctors take an oath which says "first do no harm". There's no harm in insisting that such individuals live a few more days or weeks in such conditions, but it IS harmful to shorten their agony?

Don't tell me that I don't believe in the sanctity of life, because I do! But I also believe in mercy and I don't understand why a patient beging for relief must be denied.

[excathedra]

i agree kryssie. i also agree when there is no hope for life of an infant

[Abigail]

We had a very long and sad court case about this issue here in Michigan. If you want to read about it google "Dr. Messenger" and "Michigan", I'm sure you'll find it. He was prosecuted for removing his premature infant from life support after the infant was placed on life support against his orders. I believe he is now in the process of suing the hospital.

Michigan is also the home of the infamous Jack Kevorkian (sp) who pushed this issue to the point of prison for himself.

I agree with you 100% on this issue. It is cruel to force someone to live in pain, especially when they no longer wish to.

[def59]

What right do we have to play God. All this does is degrade human life. What other unneccessary people will go next?

[Abigail]

One could equally argue it is playing God to keep a person alive with machinery when that person otherwise would have died.

[sirguessalot]

god. wow. just passin thru.

what a story.

i'll say this...

to be able to live and die with grace

is that very rest we say we seek

even tho we've had it all along

since the beginning of time

peace,

Todd

Edited December 5, 2004 by sirguessalot

[parsley]

This is a very tricky issue. There is a difference between administering lethal doses of sedatives and withholding life sustaining treatments.

And of course, there is a difference between mentally sound adults wanting to end their lives, and babies not having the mental capabilities to make that decision or voice it.

I know that the system in America is not right. I am not opposed to euthanasia. Granted, it is hard to regulate, but there is surely a place for it in a humane society.

[Galen]

parsley:

"This is a very tricky issue. . . . there is a difference between mentally sound adults wanting to end their lives, and babies not having the mental capabilities to make that decision or voice it."

Many in our society would argue that "mentally sound adult" and "wanting to end their lives", are not possible to co-exist.

The idea that anyone who attempts suicide is by default mentally-ill, means that under no circumstances could you maintain mental soundness and contamplate suicide.

hmm.

[excathedra]

hmm is right

as far as "playing god," seems to me some folks are playing god when they prolong death for a dear suffering soul

[excathedra]

dear (((((((( sir ))))))) would you drop me an email when you have a sec. ?

[ChasUFarley]

quote:

---

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.

---

How is this any different from an adult, with a poor prognosis, who does not have Advanced Directives, a plan for dying, have the decision to remove all life support and have only "care and comfort measures" made by his/her children and medical team?

Life support is removed in neo-natal ICUs eveyday here in America because it is felt that herotic measures for sustaining the baby's life will not make a difference in the outcome. The suffering of the baby is greater than the potential for survival, even on the most basic levels (brain activity with artificial support for life). How is the removal of those supports, with the consent of the parents and medical team, any different? No one really questions the removal of life support for an adult - "It was for the best." "They're in a better place." "They really weren't alive anymore." It's actually seen as a positive outcome for the patient, who had no other hope left.

The difference between us & the Netherlands article that was first posted on this thread is that we don't talk about these bio-ethical issues as much in this country because they are "ugly". No one wants to think that people are consenting to the death of a baby - but it happenes daily in this country. We have nicer clinical phrases for it and the outcomes are protected because of laws like HIPPA (Health Information Privacy Protection Act) and because healthcare quality data is "non-discoverable".

[Cynic]

quote:

---

Three years ago, the Dutch parliament made it legal for doctors to inject a sedative and a lethal dose of muscle relaxant at the request of adult patients suffering great pain with no hope of relief.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

---

This is not about removing infants from life support. This is about actively killing them.

[oenophile]

This is indeed a thorny topic. Those that argue that in no case should a person have the right to end their suffering when there is no liklihood of recovery obviously have not witnessed a loved one suffer in that condition. I watched as a nurse administered a handful of syringes filled with morphine to my dad and was grateful when his agony ended. Yet I am alarmed at the practice in the Netherlands. The state should never be allowed to play God by fiat passing death mandatory death sentences on whole classes of cases. The right to die should never become the duty to die. The decision to terminate suffering should be left to the patient (if mentally competent)or the person designated by the patient by power of attorney for medical matters and the attending physician.

[ChasUFarley]

Cynic -

Good point however, is it also actively offering these suffering/terminal infants "life" to have them remain in pain, dependant on pain medication, life-support and who-knows-what other herotic measures, just because...? Is it loving to keep them alive at all costs (not just financial, but otherwise)?

Remember this is a decision that involves the family as well as the medical team. It's not just a doctor deciding that since Baby Doe has an APGAR score of 6 after an hour that he should be euthanized. Or because he doesn't have blonde hair and blue eyes. It's because he has no/little chance of survival and is suffering.

[def59]

First we kill babies in the womb, now we do it outside.

Then we kill grandpa and grandma because they are in pain, then because its cheaper.

Sounds like some old regimes of the 20th century. As long as there are guidelines, then what could go wrong, go wrong, go wrong …

[krys]

I'm glad all your children are thriving and that all the rest of your friends and relatives are/were not inhumanely tortured as they approached their last breath.

[berrybabe]

where in the hell is the right in taking a life?!!?

[krys]

Berrybabe - - how about when someone we love and who loves us begs us to release them from their torure?

[markomalley]

Here's another perspective on Euthanasia from Great Britain:

quote:

---

Better for old to kill themselves than be a burden, says Warnock

Sarah-Kate Templeton

BRITAIN'S leading medical ethics expert has suggested that the frail and elderly should consider suicide to stop them becoming a financial burden on their families and society.

Baroness Warnock spoke on the eve of a Commons debate on the Mental Capacity Bill, which critics claim will allow "euthanasia by the back door".

In an interview with The Sunday Times, she said: "I know I'm not really allowed to say it, but one of the things that would motivate me [to die] is I couldn't bear hanging on and being such a burden on people.

"In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance.

"If I went into a nursing home it would be a terrible waste of money that my family could use far better."

Warnock, 80, a Lords' cross-bencher who helped frame Britain's legalisation on embryo research, also suggests that parents of premature babies should be charged to keep them on life support machines if doctors write off their chances of leading a healthy life. (Ed: to keep this in context, remember that the UK has the National Health Service, i.e., socialized medicine, that serves as their universal health insurance - single payer type)

"Maybe it has come down to saying 'Okay, they can stay alive but the family will have to pay for it.' Otherwise it will be an awful drain on public resources," she said.

(snip)

---