Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
A Bit Too Far ?
7 Answers
http://
I'm all for euthanasia for consenting adults (or those that choose it prior to loosing their marbles) but for children?
Of course the underlying problem is that we interfere with Nature and keep babies alive when they should die naturally and peacefully before developing. Some do live and have a quality life, but many don't and I guess this, along with other life terminating diseases is what they are on about.
Personally I am not convinced at the moment on child euthanasia but would be interested to hear other opinions.
I'm all for euthanasia for consenting adults (or those that choose it prior to loosing their marbles) but for children?
Of course the underlying problem is that we interfere with Nature and keep babies alive when they should die naturally and peacefully before developing. Some do live and have a quality life, but many don't and I guess this, along with other life terminating diseases is what they are on about.
Personally I am not convinced at the moment on child euthanasia but would be interested to hear other opinions.
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
\\\Of course the underlying problem is that we interfere with Nature and keep babies alive when they should die naturally and peacefully before developing.\\
and therein lies the problem ymg.
In direct answer to your question, I too would be unhappy of a child giving consent BUT would be happy for medical staff to give consent with the consent of parents where the dementia was associated with another gross medical abnormality, as it often is.
and therein lies the problem ymg.
In direct answer to your question, I too would be unhappy of a child giving consent BUT would be happy for medical staff to give consent with the consent of parents where the dementia was associated with another gross medical abnormality, as it often is.
" 'Thou shalt not kill' but need not strive, officiously, to keep alive"
The old midwives certainly didn't strive; they'd, ahem, 'allow' a baby to die.
I've a friend whose child is now in his early twenties. He was diagnosed with a fatal, debilitating, gradual disease at six. He now is unable to breath for long without an oxygen supply, cannot move any part of his body save the ends of his fingers,speaks in a barely audible whisper, if at all, and communicates by a specially arranged computer. Without help, he would quickly die. She has, more than once, been asked on a relapse whether he should be allowed to die, to which her response has been "Ask him!"
Now, the children we are talking about are not in that position. Whether it be termed euthanasia , by action, or 'not stopping immediate dying', seems to me to be academic in their circumstances.
The old midwives certainly didn't strive; they'd, ahem, 'allow' a baby to die.
I've a friend whose child is now in his early twenties. He was diagnosed with a fatal, debilitating, gradual disease at six. He now is unable to breath for long without an oxygen supply, cannot move any part of his body save the ends of his fingers,speaks in a barely audible whisper, if at all, and communicates by a specially arranged computer. Without help, he would quickly die. She has, more than once, been asked on a relapse whether he should be allowed to die, to which her response has been "Ask him!"
Now, the children we are talking about are not in that position. Whether it be termed euthanasia , by action, or 'not stopping immediate dying', seems to me to be academic in their circumstances.
1 to 7 of 7
