alt_edChurch backs calls for babies to be killed at birth!
September 7th 2008 14:38
Breaking from their traditional dogma in a remarkably bold move the Church of England has called for doctors to be given the power to let sick newborn babies die.
Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.
And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
-Source UK's Daily Mail
The churches shock new policy has provoked a massive outcry from the disabled.
The UK Disabled People’s Council, representing tens of thousands of members from 140 different organisations said:
How can the Church of England say that Christian compassion includes killing of disabled babies either through the withdrawing or withholding of treatment or by active euthanasia?
It is not for doctors or indeed anyone else to determine whether a baby’s life is worthwhile simply on the grounds of impairment or health condition.
The Daily Mail article went on to say:
The church's surprise call comes just a week after the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology sparked fury by calling for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled infants.
But it has been made in a carefully thought out official Church of England paper written by Bishop Butler for a public inquiry into the ethical issues surrounding the care of long premature or desperately ill newborn babies.
The inquiry, by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, began two years ago and its findings are due to be published in London - but the church's contribution to the debate has been leaked in advance.
The Nuffield Council, an independent body which issues ethical guidelines for doctors, began the inquiry to take account of scientific advances which mean increasingly disabled and premature babies can technically be kept alive.
In practice, doing so can be controversial - with the three months premature Charlotte Wyatt a case in point.
The Portsmouth baby weighed just 1lb at birth, and had severe brain and lung damage. Doctors wanted to be allowed to leave her to die, but her parents successfully campaigned through the courts against them.
Now that the child is three, however, and could be cared for at home, her parents have separated and are considered unsuitable to look after her. In future cases doctors may work to guidelines proposed by the Nuffield inquiry.
Bishop Butler wrote, in the Church of England's contribution to the inquiry that:
It may in some circumstances be right to choose to withold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death.
The church is maintaining however, that it is not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained".
Bishop Butler's submission continued with:
There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved.
Disproportionate treatment for the sake of prolonging life is an example of this.
The church said it would support the potentially fatal withdrawal of treatment only if all alternatives had been considered, "so that the possibly lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance.
Reverend Butler's submission makes clear that there are a wide range of acceptable reasons to withdraw care from a child - with the cost of the care among the main considerations.
Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided.
The submission went on further to state:
The principle of justice inevitably means that the potential cost of treatment itself, the longer term costs of health care and education and opportunity cost to the NHS in terms of saving other lives have to be considered.
Furthermore, the church is also urging all parties involved in care of critically ill babies to be realistic in their expectations, demands, and claims.
The principle of humility asks that members of the medical profession restrain themselves from claiming greater powers to heal than they can deliver.
"It asks that parents restrain themselves from demanding the impossible.
In the Daily Mail article, the UK Dissabled Peoples Council spokeswoman Simone Aspis said the group's members were appalled that the Church was joining doctors in calling for disabled babies to be left to die.
It appears that the whole debate on whether disabled babies are worth keeping alive is being dominated by professionals and religious people without any consultation with disabled people,
In the United Kingdom at present, 98% of babies born at 22 weeks of pregnancy or less die... whilst in Holland, babies born within the first 25 weeks are not given medical treatment.
Christians have long argued that life should preserved at all costs - but a bishop representing the national church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.
And the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Council, has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
-Source UK's Daily Mail
The churches shock new policy has provoked a massive outcry from the disabled.
The UK Disabled People’s Council, representing tens of thousands of members from 140 different organisations said:
How can the Church of England say that Christian compassion includes killing of disabled babies either through the withdrawing or withholding of treatment or by active euthanasia?
It is not for doctors or indeed anyone else to determine whether a baby’s life is worthwhile simply on the grounds of impairment or health condition.
The Daily Mail article went on to say:
The church's surprise call comes just a week after the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology sparked fury by calling for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled infants.
But it has been made in a carefully thought out official Church of England paper written by Bishop Butler for a public inquiry into the ethical issues surrounding the care of long premature or desperately ill newborn babies.
The inquiry, by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, began two years ago and its findings are due to be published in London - but the church's contribution to the debate has been leaked in advance.
The Nuffield Council, an independent body which issues ethical guidelines for doctors, began the inquiry to take account of scientific advances which mean increasingly disabled and premature babies can technically be kept alive.
In practice, doing so can be controversial - with the three months premature Charlotte Wyatt a case in point.
The Portsmouth baby weighed just 1lb at birth, and had severe brain and lung damage. Doctors wanted to be allowed to leave her to die, but her parents successfully campaigned through the courts against them.
Now that the child is three, however, and could be cared for at home, her parents have separated and are considered unsuitable to look after her. In future cases doctors may work to guidelines proposed by the Nuffield inquiry.
Bishop Butler wrote, in the Church of England's contribution to the inquiry that:
It may in some circumstances be right to choose to withold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death.
The church is maintaining however, that it is not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained".
Bishop Butler's submission continued with:
There may be occasions where, for a Christian, compassion will override the 'rule' that life should inevitably be preserved.
Disproportionate treatment for the sake of prolonging life is an example of this.
The church said it would support the potentially fatal withdrawal of treatment only if all alternatives had been considered, "so that the possibly lethal act would only be performed with manifest reluctance.
Reverend Butler's submission makes clear that there are a wide range of acceptable reasons to withdraw care from a child - with the cost of the care among the main considerations.
Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided.
The submission went on further to state:
The principle of justice inevitably means that the potential cost of treatment itself, the longer term costs of health care and education and opportunity cost to the NHS in terms of saving other lives have to be considered.
Furthermore, the church is also urging all parties involved in care of critically ill babies to be realistic in their expectations, demands, and claims.
The principle of humility asks that members of the medical profession restrain themselves from claiming greater powers to heal than they can deliver.
"It asks that parents restrain themselves from demanding the impossible.
Bishop: Argued cost of keeping ill babies alive should factor in life or death choices
In the Daily Mail article, the UK Dissabled Peoples Council spokeswoman Simone Aspis said the group's members were appalled that the Church was joining doctors in calling for disabled babies to be left to die.
It appears that the whole debate on whether disabled babies are worth keeping alive is being dominated by professionals and religious people without any consultation with disabled people,
In the United Kingdom at present, 98% of babies born at 22 weeks of pregnancy or less die... whilst in Holland, babies born within the first 25 weeks are not given medical treatment.
Shouldn't these be the parents choices?
| 78 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
interesting position by the Church of England though, they are very unorthodox in many ways
Comment by alt_ed
Pop Culturer
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
Comment by obviously
Comment by alt_ed
Pop Culturer
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
But either way, should this decision not be left to the parents? If they feel they have the capacity to care for a child with special needs, should we just say 'No, sorry.. You can't' and let the child die??
Comment by Sara Dobson
Love Mate
Parents Precinct
The Travel Map
My Turn
My brother had a baby born at 27 weeks who is severely disabled and was told she would only live a few days. However when you are a parent you would lay down your life for your child anhd they wanted to do everything to save her.
That was 8 years! So even the doctors got it wrong. It is hard but I believe that babies once born shouls be given the same rights of revival as every one else. My neice has downs syndrome and is severely handicapped but she has enriched myt brother and his wifes lives so much. Therefore her life is just as important
Comment by alt_ed
Pop Culturer
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
alt_ed
Comment by Anonymous
these kids is just gonna be a burden on society and out tax goes up to pay for them!
Why parents want to have a sick kid live anyway when they let it go, and just have another healthy one
So the churches is saying the right thing, kill the sick that is a waste and let people have healthy babie
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
I'm not saying that children with Down's Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis etc be left to die, the very thought is heinous but there are cases when the doctors do know best. For example a baby born with such a severe disability that causes hundreds of painful seizures a day knowing that they will die within the first or second year of life. Are we doing the best thing for a child to take extraordinary measures which will almost certainly result in untold suffering, or are we, as parents, doing what is best for us?
This is a subject that will never have agreement all around. There will be advocates on both sides with valid arguments. I think legally we are still a ways off a decision being made.
Sometimes advances in medical technology are not always a blessing.
Comment by Cheryl J
Funny Videos
Rhythmatism
Zentertainment
Budget Centsability
Comment by alt_ed
Pop Culturer
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
That comment is just plain vile... your contribution to this post is little more pointless conjecture!
Comment by alt_ed
Pop Culturer
Alted Opinion
ArtCombat
Thanks for dropping your thoughts.. I can definitely see both sides to this issue, my main stance is that I think it should be left up to the parents.
I just don't think this is an area where we can set a standard policy... and if such a policy was set, would it then manifest it's way through the system; could it then be applied to other cases where an adult patient was being kept alive on life support?
The one certainty here, and you too have pointed it out...
I think it is certainly one that requires more discussion nonetheless between both medical professionals, family groups and parents..
I'm still going to remain firm on my opinion that I think it be left to the parents to decide.. much like my pro-choice stance towards abortion; its simply the parents decision.
alt_ed xx