Euthanasia battle's new focus: Infants

Specialties NICU

Published

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/classifieds/real_estate/10325794.htm

Euthanasia battle's new focus: Infants

The Dutch were the first to legalize adult cases. But newborns? A hospital stunned critics.

By Toby Sterling

Associated Press

AMSTERDAM - A hospital in the Netherlands, the first nation to legalize euthanasia, recently proposed guidelines for so-called mercy killings of terminally ill newborns and then made a startling revelation: It already had 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 the Netherlands on whether to legalize euthanasia for 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 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 irreversible coma after an accident.

The Health Ministry is preparing its response, 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 lives of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when a 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 is best.

Examples include extremely premature births, in which children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions, and diseases that would allow a child to survive only on life support for the rest of his or her life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermolysis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.

The hospital revealed it had carried out four such deaths 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 say the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.

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

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

"As things are, people are doing this secretly, and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, the 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 involved other hospitals.

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

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium also has legalized adult euthanasia. In France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is under debate. In the United States, 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 say 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. "Everybody knows that it happens, but there's a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they're not going to do."

Euthanasia in the U.S.

Euthanasia, the deliberate killing of a human being for medical reasons, is illegal in the United States for children and adults.

While doctors used to debate whether newborns experienced pain, experts now conclude that they do and say that it should be treated thoroughly.

No hard and fast rules exist on when to stop providing care for extremely premature or critically ill newborns in the United States. Doctors must evaluate a newborn's expected quality of life from the child's perspective and predict future developments. The question is handled by doctors consulting with parents. U.S. hospitals tend to undertake more heroic measures than in Europe, in part because of the wide availability of technology and doctors.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES: When Children Die: Improving Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Children and Their Families, Institute of Medicine, 2003. Treatment Decisions for Seriously Ill Newborns, American Medical Association

Specializes in private duty/home health, med/surg.
There are troubling aspects to the active euthanasia crowd though . . Phillip Nitschke is a prominent proponent of "death on demand" .. ."anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly bereaved [and] the troubled teen."

"the Dutch parliament seems set on lowering the age of consent to be killed to twelve years old."

I guess I want us to be very careful about walking this path ...

steph

So someone who is suffering from depression or a troubled adolescent should have the option of "death on demand" instead of counseling and medication? What an asinine philosophy. There are many people out there who have been suicidal and managed to get past that to a happy, fulfilled life.

Active euthanasia is a revolting idea to me. There is a huge difference between giving medications for the sole purpose of bringing about death, and administering medications such as morphine to relieve pain (and in the process, risk bringing about death sooner.) I also don't see how removing artificial life support from a terminal patient could be considered euthanasia.

It's a common misperception that Hitler launched Germany on a slippery slope toward concentration camps by first 'euthanising' the elderly, feeble-minded, etc. In fact he began with the idea that there was 'life unworthy of life' - a category that included those who he believed could not contribute to society (the frail elderly, the feeble-minded, the profoundly disabled) and those whose genes would pollute the general population (Jews, gypsies, dissidents, people of colour and homosexuals, among others). His goal was to create a tall, Nordic, intelligent super-race.

Calling any of what he did 'euthanasia' is at best semantic confusion; at worst it's outright deceptive. Euthanasia is not performed with the aim of improving society as a whole, but with sparing individuals with dire outlooks from pain and suffering. If they're a competent adult, it's done at their repeated request, if it's an infant it is performed at the parent's request.

The common mis-perception happens to be true though. Henry Friedlander shows in great detail how the T-4 euthanasia program evolved into the Final Solution - not as a prologue, but as an integral part of the dehumanization process that made the whole ghastly thing possible. Then there were immensly popular movies of the time, like *I accuse* which justifies *mercy killing* - the story of a husband and wife, she's a concert pianist, he's a doctor; she has MS, he finally puts her out of her misery to the soothing notes of a piano. She's terribly saddened to be a burdern to her long-suffering husband and even begins to refer to herself in self-abasing, non-human terms (how often do we hear that sentiment nowadays? - I still hear it). After killing her, he's brought to trial and stands accused of murder, but persuades the judge and jury that he did the right thing and accuses the legal system and the antiquated old-belief system for leaving countless people in misery and excruciating pain when they could be painlessly put out of their misery. This along with other forms of incessant pro-euthanasia propaganda.

The German medical community colluded with and then participated in the Nazi euthansia program - hardly surprising considering their long-term involvement in eugenics and forms of social Darwinism - the idea that humanity is evloving to a new inevitable plane and that it was the job of enlightened individuals, like those in the medical profession, to speed the process along. This has ramifications today with embyonic stemcell research and therapeutic cloning - the modern-day offspring of the American, British and German eugenics movements of the early twentieth century. Eugenics is the long thread that connects abortion to euthanasia.

Slippery slope to a new holocaust, based on past precedent?? Yes, but I believe that it would be by a different methodology, but the outcome would be the same - look at the statistics in the Netherlands since euthanasia was legalised there. (Please refer to my next post for clarification).

robsta

:)

Here's an interesting article from the *California Nurses' Association* that I thought would be of interest to readers of this forum. - robsta

Euthanasia- A New Book Dissects the Debate

Kit Costello, RN

CNA President

Imagine a forty two year old man in a severe car accident that renders him comatose for 16 months. A feeding tube is inserted for hydration and nutrition. The patient regains consciousness and some functional abilities though his deficits render him severely disabled. He can maneuver a motorized wheelchair on command, hand a ball to his therapist 80 to 100 percent of the time and show appropriate emotional responses such as kissing his mother's hand. His wife requests that the feeding tube be removed and he be transported to a nursing home where he will die from dehydration. The hospital ethics committee agrees. The patient's mother and sister intervene through the courts and an injunction is obtained to prohibit the dehydration.

It's a real case. The man is Robert Wendland and the hospital is Lodi Memorial in California's Central Valley. The California Supreme Court is now scheduled to hear the case and decide whether the lives of conscious disabled people who cannot make their own medical decisions can be intentionally ended.

This and other cases are discussed in a book by Wesley J. Smith titled Force Exit. An attorney and opponent of euthanasia and assisted suicide, Smith argues that these and other legal test cases and some ballot initiatives are creating a slippery slope that will eventually legitimize the killing of marginalized people-the poor, disabled, mentally ill and others- in the name of a "poor quality of life".

To bolster this view, Smith recounts the post World War I euthanasia and eugenics movement in Germany where between 1939 and 1945 more than 200,000 people were euthanized. This was done with the active participation of doctors and nurses who had accepted a new "quality of life ethic", a distinct departure from the equality of life ethic. Of these thousands whose lives did not represent a "quality" existence, they included the cognitively or physically disabled, people with mental disease, infants born with birth defects, the senile elderly and even severely wounded German soldiers. Smith presents a chilling side-by-side analysis of the 1920 book by two respected professors Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding (Permitting the Destruction of Life not Worthy of Life), and current arguments advanced by proponents of the euthanasia and assisted suicide. The German academics' pre-Third Reich work ignited and legitimized the early euthanasia/medicalized killing movement in Germany. Hoche eventually turned against the euthanasia movement after one of his relatives became a victim.

I wish I had read this book in 1992 when I served on CNA's Legislative-Regulatory committee. CNA was asked to consider supporting California Proposition 161, a euthanasia ballot initiative, that was ultimately rejected 54-46 percent by the voters. In discussion, I and others pointed out that a minimum standard to prevent abuse would be universal access to health care. Unless treatment was equally available to all for conditions like depression, mental illness and terminal illnesses (complete with effective pain control and hospice services), it would be dangerous to endorse any such measure.

Medically uninsured or underinsured people could conceivably choose assisted suicide to spare their families the expense of a long illness. Or, their families might persuade the patient to "do the right thing". We ended up not supporting the measure, but many questions remained that Forced Exit goes a long way in answering.

One question that is answered is defining the time frame, court cases and medical ethics panel pronouncements by the AMA and others that redefined tube feedings as "artificial nutrition". In this way, tube feedings went from being considered an element of humane care (like shelter, cleanliness and comfort) to a status of medical treatment. I remember going to an ethics seminar in 1982 where this was discussed. At the time I wondered how providing fluids and calories is any different than turning a patient or suctioning their airway. After all, wouldn't the patient reach for food, change position or cough and clear his or her throat if he or she was able? Wouldn't we consider not turning a patient to intentionally cause death by tissue necrosis and sepsis an appalling inattention to basic needs?

In the book, Smith details the "food and fluid" legal cases as well as case studies of real people where death by dehydration was advocated or permitted. Some of these patients were not comatose nor in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). When this shift in ethical rationalization occurred, the withdrawing of food and fluids was to be strictly applied to those with PVS.

The Wendland case shows how the boundaries are shifting. Smith maintains that this environment of redefining what is medical treatment and under what conditions it can be withdrawn, is contributing to the slippery slope of acceptability of both assisted suicide (physician and otherwise) and medicalized active euthanasia.

Smith details the evolution of the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands case. In a country with universal healthcare, it could be assumed that there would be protections and safeguards. In reality, studies have revealed even then abuses occur. The Remmelink Report detailed Dutch euthanasia deaths in 1990 - 11,141. Of these, 5,981, or more than half, were involuntary! In other words, patients did not consent yet physicians and others actively euthanized people. Some of these patients were conscious and capable of objecting.

Smith maintains that current lack of access to healthcare and cost incentives that allow profit from undertreatment are a dangerous foundation for any further liberalization of euthanasia via case law and legislation in the United States. In Forced Exit, he outlines several other deficiencies in our healthcare system that push people toward assisted suicide such as insufficient knowledge of treatment and pain control therapy, lack of resources for the disabled to achieve quality lives/ independent living and poor recognition and treatment of depression.

As nurses it behooves us to question the euthanasia and assisted suicide movement in the context of our obligations as healers and helpers, the surrounding social policy issues regarding access to health care, and protection for disabled and other vulnerable people.

***

robsta

:)

I think you missed Talaxandra's point. If I'm not mistaken, her point is that you are clouding the issue by brining up Hitler. Hitler's goal was to create a super race. That is not the goal of people who advocate the right to euthanasia today, so why continue to bring it up? I've said before in other debates that I think people throw the holocaust around far too easily, not to prove their point, but just to cloud the issues at hand.

Personally, I would like to have the option of deciding for myself exactly what sort of quality of life is enough to make my life worth living. I don't understand why the people who most want the government to stay out of our lives are the most opposed to giving me the power to decide that for myself.

I think you missed Talaxandra's point. If I'm not mistaken, her point is that you are clouding the issue by brining up Hitler. Hitler's goal was to create a super race. That is not the goal of people who advocate the right to euthanasia today, so why continue to bring it up? I've said before in other debates that I think people throw the holocaust around far too easily, not to prove their point, but just to cloud the issues at hand.

Personally, I would like to have the option of deciding for myself exactly what sort of quality of life is enough to make my life worth living. I don't understand why the people who most want the government to stay out of our lives are the most opposed to giving me the power to decide that for myself.

No, I didn't *miss Talaxandra's point* - what you meant to say was *I didn't agree with her point* which is entirely different. ;)

It's disingenuous to claim that bringing up *Hitler* and the *Nazis* clouds the issue. We have so few historical precedents to work with regarding legalised euthanasia, that if we go back in history and look at which governments supported legalised euthanasia, inevitably Nazi Germany comes to the fore - and until the Netherlands, and now Belgium, Nazi Germany has been the only government that I'm aware of that legalised euthanasia... hence their inclusion in the discussion. And I included my reasoning for including the Nazis in my previous post, which you may not agree with.

Liberals hate to think that they're supporting a cause that was championed by the Nazis - which is understandable. But as I mentioned in an earlier post elsewhere, this ain't a left vs. right debate. It goes much deeper than that.

robsta

:)

That's no different from people who say "Well, Hitler was a vegetarian!" when discussing vegetarianism. Or people who say "Hitler wouldn't allow good women to abort" when discussing abortion. Or people who discuss the similarities with Bush and Hitler. What does that have to do with TODAY? Nothing.

The only way comparing euthanasia today with euthanasia under Hitler is valid is if you think the goals and methods of each are similar and that our societies are similar. Do you think people who would allow euthanasia today are trying to create a super race through a government program designed to kill people without their permission? If you do, I'd think you were a little out there, but at least then I could understand your need to compare them to Hitler. If you don't, you are clouding the issue and I personally think it's a little icky to use the holocaust as a debating tactic. So do you think people like me want to kill all the feeble minded and diseased in order to create a super race?

It makes much more sense to look at Oregon and Belgium and the Netherlands if you really want to discuss the implications of euthanasia in this century doesn't it?

Hitler practiced genocide.He was not euthanizing humans in severe pain or with zero quality of life. And the way he murdered people was terrifying and painful.

You could remove an infant from a vent and withhold fluid and nutrition. But sometimes infants with severe anomolies, anacephalic and only a hole in the middle of their face, can last for days like this. That is inhumane torture, for the baby, the parents and the staff caring for the baby.

That's no different from people who say "Well, Hitler was a vegetarian!" when discussing vegetarianism. Or people who say "Hitler wouldn't allow good women to abort" when discussing abortion. Or people who discuss the similarities with Bush and Hitler. What does that have to do with TODAY? Nothing.

The only way comparing euthanasia today with euthanasia under Hitler is valid is if you think the goals and methods of each are similar and that our societies are similar. Do you think people who would allow euthanasia today are trying to create a super race through a government program designed to kill people without their permission? If you do, I'd think you were a little out there, but at least then I could understand your need to compare them to Hitler. If you don't, you are clouding the issue and I personally think it's a little icky to use the holocaust as a debating tactic. So do you think people like me want to kill all the feeble minded and diseased in order to create a super race?

It makes much more sense to look at Oregon and Belgium and the Netherlands if you really want to discuss the implications of euthanasia in this century doesn't it?

Pro-euthanasia advocates seems to want to discuss the issue from one perspective only - the pro-euthanasia one; as if we both agree with the rationale behind euthanasia and are just quibbling about whether or not it should be legalized. Then they attempt to control the material that can be discussed and included in the debate.

Fergus51 keeps on mentioning *Hitler* in her posts and believes that I should not include references to *Nazi Germany* in this discussion. I referred to legalized euthanasia in Nazi Germany as a historical precendent, and stated that I, along with others who have researched this, believe that the same rationale of declaring certain groups of people *non-persons* led the German medical community down the *slippery slope* that ended in their participation in the Holocaust.

To quote what I wrote in an earlier post to support my premis »

The German medical community colluded with and then participated in the Nazi euthansia program - hardly surprising considering their long-term involvement in eugenics and forms of social Darwinism - the idea that humanity is evloving to a new inevitable plane and that it was the job of enlightened individuals, like those in the medical profession, to speed the process along. This has ramifications today with embryonic stemcell research and therapeutic cloning - the modern-day offspring of the American, British and German eugenics movements of the early twentieth century. Eugenics is the long thread that connects abortion to euthanasia.

I don't expect pro-euthanasia advocates to agree with me on this, BTW.

The legacy of mid-nineteenth and twentieth century eugenics lives on today - and it's this movement that so strongly influenced the Nazi euthanasia program. And it's ticking along today under other popular banners, like population control, right-to-die movements, abortion on demand, the sterilization of the populations of India and Nigeria, etc.

To quote former President George. H. Bush, Jr. in his foreword to *World Population Crisis* »

World Population Crisis: The United States Response by

Phyllis Tilson Piotrow; Praeger Publishers

Foreword by George H. Bush, Jr.

U.S. Representative to the United Nations, 1973

"Few issues in the world have undergone such a rapid shift in

public attitudes and government policies over the last decade as

the problems of population growth and fertility control. My

own first awareness of birth control as a public policy issue

came with a jolt in 1950 when my father [Prescott Bush] was

running for the United States Senate in Connecticut. Drew

Pearson, on the Sunday before Election Day, "revealed" that

my father was involved with Planned Parenthood...As

chairman of the special Republican Task Force on Population

and Earth Resources, I was impressed by the arguments of

William H. Draper...General Draper continues to lead through

his tireless work for the UN Population Fund. Now the

recommendations of the Commission on Population Growth

and the American Future, chaired by John D. Rockefeller 3rd,

have urged many agencies to take on a larger role and have

called for the U.S. government to adopt a national population

policy....one of the major challenges of the 1970s, the Second

United Nations Development Decade, will be to curb the

world's fertility... private organizations, like the Population

Crisis Committee, Planned Parenthood, the Population Council,

the Population Reference Bureau, the Population Institute, Zero

Population Growth, and others, have played a major role in

assisting government policy makers and in mobilizing the

United States response to the world population challenge

described in this volume."

Signed, George Bush

U.S. Representative to the United Nations

This is a matter of public record, and one of a huge library of documents showing that global population control is alive and well at the start of this century. You may believe that population control is a good thing - I don't, but that's another debate. But I do believe that the genuinely compassionate and tender feelings that underpin many pro-euthanasia advocates sentiments are being manipulated by powerful forces within our governments that have an entirely different agenda regarding both abortion and euthanasia to the one we assume they have.

I just wrote this to clarify my position, not necessarily to get into a debate on any of the above that's outside the scope of the immediate discussion. ;)

robsta

:)

Hitler practiced genocide.He was not euthanizing humans in severe pain or with zero quality of life. And the way he murdered people was terrifying and painful.

Here's an interesting article that expresses my opinion on the matter. Please note the underlying parallels from the early part of the twentieth century, most of which pre-dated the Nazi era, and today.

Lessons from History:

Euthanasia in Nazi Germany

by PJ King

Present day death proponents of the "right-to-die" movement disavow any analogy between what they are selling and what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930's. And, if one does not examine the facts too closely, there appears to be none. After all, Hitler was bent on exterminating the Jews, even though he destroyed a few thousand others before he found his focus. His was a dictatorship, not a democratic nation. His agenda was political, not moral. He fed on hate, not compassion. And one could add to the list.

However, if we look back to German society of the twenties and thirties, we find a civilized culture not so unlike our own. As a nation, Germany took pride in its art, its culture, and its science. People engaged in business, went shopping, enjoyed their families, followed the news. Genocide did not seem a likely development. But the seeds had already sprouted, though few foresaw into what kind of twisting vines they would soon grow.

In 1920 was published a book titled The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life, by Alfred Hoche, M.D., a professor of psychiatry at the University of Freiburg, and Karl Binding, a professor of law from the University of Leipzig. They argued in their book that patients who ask for "death assistance" should, under very carefully controlled conditions, be able to obtain it from a physician. The conditions were spelled out, and included the submission of the request to a panel of three experts, the right of the patient to withdraw his request at any time, and the legal protection of the physicians who would help him terminate his life. Binding and Hoche explained how death assistance was congruent with the highest medical ethics and was essentially a compassionate solution to a painful problem.

Death assistance, according to the authors, was not to be limited to those who were able or even willing to ask for it. They would have such mercy extended as well to "empty shells of human beings" such as those with brain damage, some psychiatric conditions, and mental retardation, if by scientific criteria the "impossibility of improvement of a mentally dead person" could be proven. The benefits to society would be great, they said, as money previously devoted to the care of "meaningless life" would be channeled to those who most needed it, the socially and physically fit. Germans needed only to learn to evaluate the relative value of life in different individuals.

An opinion poll conducted in 1920 revealed that 73% of the parents and guardians of severely disabled children surveyed would approve of allowing physicians to end the lives of disabled children such as their own. Newspapers, journal articles, and movies joined in shaping the opinion of the German public. The Ministry of Justice described the proposal as one that would make it "possible for physicians to end the tortures of incurable patients, upon request, in the interests of true humanity" (reported in the N.Y. Times, 10/8/33, p. 1, col. 2). And the savings would redound to the German people if money was no longer thrown away on the disabled, the incurable, and "those on the threshold of old age."

A 1936 novel written by Helmut Unger, M.D., further assisted the German people in accepting the unthinkable. Dr. Unger told the story of a physician whose wife was disabled by multiple sclerosis. She asks him to help her die, and he complies. At his trial he pleads with the jurors to understand his honorable motive: "Would you, if you were a cripple, want to vegetate forever?" The jury acquit him in the novel. The book was subsequently made into a movie which, according to research by the SS Security Service, was "favorably received and discussed," even though some Germans were concerned about possible abuses.

With the public now assenting, the question turned from "whether" to "by whom" and "under what circumstances."

The first known case of the application of this now-acceptable proposal concerned "Baby Knauer." The child's father requested of Adolph Hitler himself that his son be allowed death because he was blind, retarded, and missing an arm and a leg. Surely, in his condition, he would be better off dead. Hitler turned the case over to his personal physician, Karl Brandt, and in 1938 the request was granted.

Over the next few months, a committee set out to establish practical means by which such "mercy deaths" could be granted to other children who had no prospect for meaningful life. The hospital at Eglfing-Haar, under the direction of Hermann Pfannmuller, M.D., slowly starved many of the disabled children in its care until they died of "natural causes." Other institutions followed suit, some depriving its small patients of heat rather than food. Medical personnel who were uncomfortable with what they were asked to do were told this was not killing: they were simply withholding treatment and "letting nature take its course."

Over time Pfannmuller set up Hungerhauser (starvation houses) for the elderly. By the end of 1941, euthanasia was simply "normal hospital routine."

In the meantime, no law had been passed permitting euthanasia. Rather, at the end of 1939, Hitler signed this letter:

"Reichleader Bouhler and Dr. Med. Brandt are responsibly commissioned to extend the authority of physicians to be designated by name so that a mercy death may be granted to patients who, according to human judgment, are incurably ill according to the most critical evaluation of the state of their disease."

Interestingly, physicians were not ordered to participate, but merely permitted to if they so wished. It was to be a private matter between the doctor and his patient (or the family if the patient was unable to speak for himself).

Brandt, testifying at his trial in Nuremburg after the war, insisted:

"The underlying motive was the desire to help individuals who could not help themselves and were thus prolonging their lives in torment. ... To quote Hippocrates today is to proclaim that invalids and persons in great pain should never be given poison. But any modern doctor who makes so rhetorical a declaration without qualification is either a liar or a hypocrite. ... I never intended anything more than or believed I was doing anything but abbreviating the tortured existence of such unhappy creatures."

Brandt's only regret was that the dead patients' relatives may have been caused pain. Yet he justified even that: "I am convinced that today they have overcome their distress and personally believe that the dead members of their families were given a happy release from their sufferings." (A. Mitcherlich & F. Mielke, The Death Doctors, pp. 264-265.)

Decide for yourselves whether parallels can be drawn between Germany in the thirties and forties and the world scene in the nineties (and today - my edit).

***

robsta

:)

This is a matter of public record, and one of a huge library of documents showing that global population control is alive and well at the start of this century. You may believe that population control is a good thing - I don't, but that's another debate. But I do believe that the genuinely compassionate and tender feelings that underpin many pro-euthanasia advocates sentiments are being manipulated by powerful forces within our governments that have an entirely different agenda regarding both abortion and euthanasia to the one we assume they have.

I just wrote this to clarify my position, not necessarily to get into a debate on any of the above that's outside the scope of the immediate discussion. ;)

robsta

:)

You think euthanasia is being used for population control??? Tell me, what type of nursing do you do?

Plus, the type of medicine we have today to inprove quality of life was not available in the 30's. I'm sure there were hundreds of invalides killed back then by the Nazis that may or may not have lived a life of any substance. The point is, Hitler did not only kill these people. He killed anyone that was not of the "Master Race" I see no parallel to that in the euthanasia of a child born with his brain falling out of his skull or his skin inside out.

That's the problem Robsta. You can point out the parallels all you like, but if you're unwilling to acknowledge all the differences the argument makes no sense. It's like a Bush hater saying "Bush is a white Christian leader, just like Hitler and look what Hitler did".

You think euthanasia is being used for population control??? Tell me, what type of nursing do you do?

Plus, the type of medicine we have today to inprove quality of life was not available in the 30's. I'm sure there were hundreds of invalides killed back then by the Nazis that may or may not have lived a life of any substance. The point is, Hitler did not only kill these people. He killed anyone that was not of the "Master Race" I see no parallel to that in the euthanasia of a child born with his brain falling out of his skull or his skin inside out.

Did you actually read the contents of the article I posted? You may not agree with my position, but there's a large body of work out there that supports my position. Other than the ethical issue of terminating life before natural death occurs, pro-lifers are also engaged in opposing the global depopulation agendas beloved of eugenicists (see the litany of organizations quoted by former President Bush in an earlier post). You might consider doing some of your own research into the subject before wanting to know what kind of nursing I do - do you know how to use *Google*? BTW, rehab. ;)

I'm sure there were hundreds of invalides killed back then by the Nazis that may or may not have lived a life of any substance. The point is, Hitler did not only kill these people.

I think you answered your own question. You're agreeing with what the author of the article wrote - that the doctors in Germany during the Nazi era (and before) killed (euthanized) many people that, quote: «may not have lived a life of any substance». This is the premis for modern day euthanasia also - we're both in agreement, are we not? This is the same ethical sentiment regarding euthanasia that exsited in Germany during Weimar.The author concludes that there are similarities between then and now. That the German euthanasia movement began in hospitals for compassion's sake, then progressed to the formation of T4 - and that T4 was instrumental in setting up the death camps in the East can be historically proven. Again, please feel free to do the research if you feel that I'm in error.

robsta

:)

+ Add a Comment