Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies

DOMS · 12-14-2004, 12:42 PM

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MEAA80.html

"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." (emphasis mine)

So let me get this straight, in Europe the death penalty is wrong, but killing a retarded infant is right?

Don't kill them at birth, just think of all the missed opportunities! Let 'em grow up and then kill them! Sort of like a retarded Running Man.

In this day and age:

Hitler, kills over 6,000,000 people: life in jail.
Jimmy, just a little too retarded: death

cappo5150 · 12-14-2004, 12:56 PM

Thats crazy, if you don't want the baby, then give him up for adoption. You don't need to kill it.

perfectbody · 12-14-2004, 10:36 PM

but HOlland is not a populated country right...why kill the infants

Rich46yo · 12-15-2004, 03:40 AM

"""""""So let me get this straight, in Europe the death penalty is wrong, but killing a retarded infant is right? """"""""

Try reading more then the title and then post an opinion. Why would anyone think it righteous to prolong the terrible pain of a terminally ill infant when its going to die anyway? Oh and since no-one read the article several doctors and the parents all have to agree.

Its sounds like mercy and compassion to me. It is pathetic in my mind that we "force" the terminally il to linger on with their pain even when they have no chance for any kind of meaningful life. This is one, and probably the only, issues I agree with Europeans with................Rich

Little Wing · 12-15-2004, 07:31 AM

retardation is not a terminal illness. hopefully this will be done or is being done only in cases where it is the compassionate thing.

Big Smoothy · 12-15-2004, 07:56 AM

Quote:

In this day and age:

Hitler, kills over 6,000,000 people: life in jail.
Jimmy, just a little too retarded: death

Dont' know what you mean by that.

But euthanizing babies is a good start.

The world is over-populated.

And....Jimmy isn't too retared, he is terminally ill.

perfectbody · 12-15-2004, 08:08 AM

whatever...if u want a less populated world..just kill people from India and China and Africa of course ( in larger proportion). Does it make sense???

Look who are really populating the world. The solution is not to kill people...but to control birth. This is a question of morale values.

BulkMeUp · 12-15-2004, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfectbody

Look who are really populating the world. The solution is not to kill people...but to control birth. .

But this is not an issue of world population control.

DOMS · 12-15-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich46yo

"""""""So let me get this straight, in Europe the death penalty is wrong, but killing a retarded infant is right? """"""""

Try reading more then the title and then post an opinion. Why would anyone think it righteous to prolong the terrible pain of a terminally ill infant when its going to die anyway? Oh and since no-one read the article several doctors and the parents all have to agree.

Its sounds like mercy and compassion to me. It is pathetic in my mind that we "force" the terminally il to linger on with their pain even when they have no chance for any kind of meaningful life. This is one, and probably the only, issues I agree with Europeans with................Rich

You should try reading up on their law. The definition of retarded and terminally ill is very vague. When there is a law regarding death, you should be very specific. Also, their definition of "child" extends to the age of 12. But hell, why stop there?

DOMS · 12-15-2004, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Snafu

Dont' know what you mean by that.

But euthanizing babies is a good start.

The world is over-populated.

And....Jimmy isn't too retared, he is terminally ill.

From the article:

"the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident."

**Dale Mabry** · 12-15-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich46yo

Why would anyone think it righteous to prolong the terrible pain of a terminally ill infant when its going to die anyway?

We are all gonna die anyway.

I agree with you, but I agree with you only if it is the child's choice.

BoneCrusher · 12-15-2004, 12:08 PM

I think the point Bitch is making is that we should be able, as humane people, to allow ourselves to make the hard choices. If a child is born terminal why prolong the agony? If at my age of 45 I became painfully terminal I would not wait to live any more. If I were not able to make the choice my self I would want someone to make that hard yet humane choice for me and end my suffering.

I've have worked with severely "retarded" children and in most instances these severe cases are not even aware of themselves or their own existence. There are no solutions for the poor souls that will allow them an existence. The recources used to deal with these unhelpable people could be redirected to those mentally challanged indeviduals who do have a shot at learning living skills and having a life.

Making hard choices is what this is all about really IMHO.

min0 lee · 12-16-2004, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfectbody

whatever...if u want a less populated world..just kill people from India and China and Africa of course ( in larger proportion). Does it make sense???

Look who are really populating the world. The solution is not to kill people...but to control birth. This is a question of morale values.

Stu · 12-16-2004, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfectbody

but HOlland is not a populated country right...why kill the infants

spot the fool that completely missed the point of the whole issue

Luke9583 · 12-16-2004, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich46yo

Its sounds like mercy and compassion to me. It is pathetic in my mind that we "force" the terminally il to linger on with their pain even when they have no chance for any kind of meaningful life.

My mother is terminally ill. She has MS. I'm glad I have her around.

Her sister, my aunt, also has MS. I would like to say that stem cell research could allow them to live normal lives.

"The value of life dimishes as you start stepping backwards and look at the crowd"

Rich46yo · 12-16-2004, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockgazer69

retardation is not a terminal illness. hopefully this will be done or is being done only in cases where it is the compassionate thing.

""""""""""""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.""""""""""""""

perfectbody · 12-16-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stu21Ldn

spot the fool that completely missed the point of the whole issue

let the others talk abt main point...
if u can't give any comment go away and have some whey.

Newt · 12-16-2004, 09:57 AM

This is like arguing over obortion. You will never get people to agree one way or the other.

min0 lee · 12-16-2004, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfectbody

let the others talk abt main point...
if u can't give any comment go away and have some whey.

Is he for real.

Stu · 12-16-2004, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perfectbody

let the others talk abt main point...
if u can't give any comment go away and have some whey.

your funny. but not in a good way

12-14-2004, 12:42 PM	#1
DOMS Metrosexual Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: In a van, down by the river... Posts: 21,439 Photos: 5	Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041130/D86MEAA80.html "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." (emphasis mine) So let me get this straight, in Europe the death penalty is wrong, but killing a retarded infant is right? Don't kill them at birth, just think of all the missed opportunities! Let 'em grow up and then kill them! Sort of like a retarded Running Man. In this day and age: Hitler, kills over 6,000,000 people: life in jail. Jimmy, just a little too retarded: death

12-14-2004, 10:36 PM	#3
perfectbody Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 302	but HOlland is not a populated country right...why kill the infants
perfectbody Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 302

12-15-2004, 03:40 AM	#4
Rich46yo Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 861	"""""""So let me get this straight, in Europe the death penalty is wrong, but killing a retarded infant is right? """""""" Try reading more then the title and then post an opinion. Why would anyone think it righteous to prolong the terrible pain of a terminally ill infant when its going to die anyway? Oh and since no-one read the article several doctors and the parents all have to agree. Its sounds like mercy and compassion to me. It is pathetic in my mind that we "force" the terminally il to linger on with their pain even when they have no chance for any kind of meaningful life. This is one, and probably the only, issues I agree with Europeans with................Rich
Rich46yo Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 861	"Death to Tyrants"!

12-15-2004, 08:08 AM	#7
perfectbody Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 302	whatever...if u want a less populated world..just kill people from India and China and Africa of course ( in larger proportion). Does it make sense??? Look who are really populating the world. The solution is not to kill people...but to control birth. This is a question of morale values.
perfectbody Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 302

12-15-2004, 12:08 PM	#12
BoneCrusher Lift or Die Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Austin Texas Posts: 8,492	I think the point Bitch is making is that we should be able, as humane people, to allow ourselves to make the hard choices. If a child is born terminal why prolong the agony? If at my age of 45 I became painfully terminal I would not wait to live any more. If I were not able to make the choice my self I would want someone to make that hard yet humane choice for me and end my suffering. I've have worked with severely "retarded" children and in most instances these severe cases are not even aware of themselves or their own existence. There are no solutions for the poor souls that will allow them an existence. The recources used to deal with these unhelpable people could be redirected to those mentally challanged indeviduals who do have a shot at learning living skills and having a life. Making hard choices is what this is all about really IMHO. Last edited by BoneCrusher : 12-16-2004 at 10:21 AM.

12-14-2004, 12:56 PM	#2
cappo5150 Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 2,318 Photos: 1	Thats crazy, if you don't want the baby, then give him up for adoption. You don't need to kill it.

12-15-2004, 07:31 AM	#5
Little Wing SEMPER~FIDELIS Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: United States Posts: 21,045 Blog Entries: 1 Photos: 191	retardation is not a terminal illness. hopefully this will be done or is being done only in cases where it is the compassionate thing.

12-16-2004, 09:57 AM	#18
Newt Drinking buddy Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 358	This is like arguing over obortion. You will never get people to agree one way or the other.
	" I know a man who gave up smoking, drinking, sex, and rich food. He was healthy right up to the day he killed himself."-Johnny Carson

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode