Today's random rage...

[conuly]

First we get the disabled girl who was sterilized and given hormones so she'd stay small (so she'd be easier to care for, an admirable goal, no matter how dubious the decision - and this is pretty damn dubious), naturally without her consent....

And just when you're getting over the WTF-ness of that....

Doctors: let us kill disabled babies (actual title!)

I haven't even gotten past the title yet. Taken a gander at the "related articles" section, with such gems as "Haunted mother who backs mercy killing" and "It's your right to die if you want to". Mind, I tend to agree with the second, disabled or not (though adding in proper help first, because it is a shame to up and kill yourself without a better reason than most seem to have), but it hardly applies to babies. I mean, let's say that word again - b a b y.

It's like we never left the dark ages. At least they were more honest about it, just stuck their unwanted children outside.

Comments

[erinlin.livejournal.com]

... I don't freaking *believe* this

[ciara-belle.livejournal.com]

That is absolutely sickening.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

First one, bizarre. I have the same fears with Ted but never would I think to keep him SMALL. And the second? If the kid is that bad, DNR is ok with me, I guess, but to actively kill? A disabled kid = disabled family? I can't speak.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm in favor of infant killing under certain circumstances. The case of Sanne won me over. I forget what rare condition she had, but she couldn't be touched without her skin coming off. Babies need touch to thrive and grow in healthy ways, plus, you can't suspend her in mid-air. Every physical contact appeared to cause her pain. Plus, her chances of survival were extremely low, because of the obvious risks of infections she'd have forever. She seemed to be suffering badly, and her parents couldn't stand it, and they asked for euthanasia. It was denied becuase it was illegal. She went home, and was dead within six months anyway, which wasn't at all surprising. There are other cases where the life expectancy is low and the suffering is high, and I just don't see that killing someone in that situation, preferably in as painless a manner as possible, is a bad thing.

I agree that any form of acceptable killing people can be abused. And careful review should be done. But I just don't think it's always wrong. I mind torture more than death in many cases, and if your life is likely to contain nothing but agony, then I don't think death is a bad alternative. And sometimes there is no way to ask the person in question (if the person can be consulted, then obviously they should be). Yes, sometimes you may misjudge and the person may be happy and want to live, and that is a tragedy. But no matter what we do, we will make mistakes sometimes. And I don't think absolute perfection is required. Yes, it's a huge msitake to kill someone who doesn't want to die, but so is letting people live who are in agony and would prefer it to all be over.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Doctors: let us kill disabled babies (actual title!)

Well, of course it is. Who would get up in arms about an article titled "Doctors: Ethics committee should debate euthanasia"?

[adina77.livejournal.com]

I'm not even going to comment because I Know I'll get my head cut off. As someone with a disability, I can't believe they would write such a thing. I think all humans are precious like everything else. Grrr. I'm going to keep my mouth shut for the rest of this.

[raleighj.livejournal.com]

Wow...I guess it was kinda inevitable, though. We can keep more people alive, and treat more conditions, and prolong life, much better than we used to be able to...I'm assuming that babies with the conditions they mention would have shortly died, in the past. It seems in large part a question of, "Just because we CAN save and prolong a life, SHOULD we?"

I mostly found it ironic that it's usually the anti-abortion people saying stuff like this, with the opposite intent: “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?”

[erinlin.livejournal.com]

... I don't freaking *believe* this

[ciara-belle.livejournal.com]

That is absolutely sickening.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

First one, bizarre. I have the same fears with Ted but never would I think to keep him SMALL. And the second? If the kid is that bad, DNR is ok with me, I guess, but to actively kill? A disabled kid = disabled family? I can't speak.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm in favor of infant killing under certain circumstances. The case of Sanne won me over. I forget what rare condition she had, but she couldn't be touched without her skin coming off. Babies need touch to thrive and grow in healthy ways, plus, you can't suspend her in mid-air. Every physical contact appeared to cause her pain. Plus, her chances of survival were extremely low, because of the obvious risks of infections she'd have forever. She seemed to be suffering badly, and her parents couldn't stand it, and they asked for euthanasia. It was denied becuase it was illegal. She went home, and was dead within six months anyway, which wasn't at all surprising. There are other cases where the life expectancy is low and the suffering is high, and I just don't see that killing someone in that situation, preferably in as painless a manner as possible, is a bad thing.

I agree that any form of acceptable killing people can be abused. And careful review should be done. But I just don't think it's always wrong. I mind torture more than death in many cases, and if your life is likely to contain nothing but agony, then I don't think death is a bad alternative. And sometimes there is no way to ask the person in question (if the person can be consulted, then obviously they should be). Yes, sometimes you may misjudge and the person may be happy and want to live, and that is a tragedy. But no matter what we do, we will make mistakes sometimes. And I don't think absolute perfection is required. Yes, it's a huge msitake to kill someone who doesn't want to die, but so is letting people live who are in agony and would prefer it to all be over.

[sparkofcreation.livejournal.com]

Doctors: let us kill disabled babies (actual title!)

Well, of course it is. Who would get up in arms about an article titled "Doctors: Ethics committee should debate euthanasia"?

[adina77.livejournal.com]

I'm not even going to comment because I Know I'll get my head cut off. As someone with a disability, I can't believe they would write such a thing. I think all humans are precious like everything else. Grrr. I'm going to keep my mouth shut for the rest of this.

[raleighj.livejournal.com]

Wow...I guess it was kinda inevitable, though. We can keep more people alive, and treat more conditions, and prolong life, much better than we used to be able to...I'm assuming that babies with the conditions they mention would have shortly died, in the past. It seems in large part a question of, "Just because we CAN save and prolong a life, SHOULD we?"

I mostly found it ironic that it's usually the anti-abortion people saying stuff like this, with the opposite intent: “We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?”