The Wonders of Euthanasia.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Mikkip: " give us some facts!"

The Groningen Protocol.

The Groningen Protocol is the proposal of doctors in the Netherlands for the establishment of an "independent committee" charged with selecting babies and older people up to t ...[text shortened]... ..

The famous non-existing "Slippery Slope" in action !

For clarity's sake, here's the rest of the article:

The Health Ministry is preparing its response, which could come as soon as December, a spokesman said.

First nation to legalize euthanasia
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 life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the 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’s best.

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.

The hospital revealed last month it carried out four such mercy killings in 2003, and reported all cases to government prosecutors. There have been no legal proceedings against the hospital or the doctors.

Catholic organizations outraged
Roman Catholic organizations and the Vatican have reacted with outrage to the announcement, and U.S. euthanasia opponents contend the proposal shows the Dutch have lost their moral compass.

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

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

“As things are, people are doing this secretly and that’s wrong,” said Eduard Verhagen, 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 were from other hospitals.

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

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of 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 that 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, N.C. “Everybody knows that it happens, but there’s a lot of hypocrisy. Instead, people talk about things they’re not going to do.”

More than half of all deaths occur under medical supervision, so it’s really about management and method of death, Stell said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621588

Particular emphasis should be placed on: "The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the 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’s best." and that such guideline would apply to only an estimated 10 cases per year.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

What is your stance on the "Groningen" protocol ?

I reviewed your post on it and that is all I am responding to. There may be more involved in it, but I will respond to what you posted. As I said earlier, I try to help families, patients, and their medical personnel talk about patient's wishes for future care. In the US, it is very common for a patient with a severe unreversable condition to be told by the doctor that the life support will be disconnected as there is no hope for recovery. The law, at least in my state, supports this. An example of this would be a gunshot to the head where the patient is brain dead. My emphasis is soley on helping the family cope with this tragedy. Sometimes they find solace and hope in donating organs for transplant. The situation you described sounds a little different, though similar. There are some aspects of it that make sense to me such as when there is no hope for any recovery and to alleviate suffering. I am uncomfortable with going against parent's wishes, though I imagine there are times when parents hold out hope simply because it is their child. Regrettably the courts often get involved and it only escalates the heartache on both sides. I wish I could respond more but I do not know many of the particulars. I would find it fascinating to be on "the inside" of this system to see how it works and how the medical staff struggles as well.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I reviewed your post on it and that is all I am responding to. There may be more involved in it, but I will respond to what you posted. As I said earlier, I try to help families, patients, and their medical personnel talk about patient's wishes for future care. In the US, it is very common for a patient with a severe unreversable condition to be told ...[text shortened]... n "the inside" of this system to see how it works and how the medical staff struggles as well.

Ivanhoe's statement that the Groningen Protocol allowed doctors to euthanize infants contrary to their parent's wishes is false. Read my post above esp. the last paragraph.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Ivanhoe's statement that the Groningen Protocol allowed doctors to euthanize infants contrary to their parent's wishes is false. Read my post above esp. the last paragraph.

Thanks. Pain can usually be controlled. However, one of the side effects of good pain contol is that it may indeed hasten death as people are more likely to die peacefully when their pain is controlled. When patients are in severe pain, they tend to "fight" what is happening, thus linger in misery.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Ivanhoe's statement that the Groningen Protocol allowed doctors to euthanize infants contrary to their parent's wishes is false. Read my post above esp. the last paragraph.

Tell me No1, how are you going to fight doctors who want to perform euthanasia on your child and tell you "it's the best" ? What can one do ?

The discussion whether the parents approval is really necessary in case of infanticide is not yet over No1. Please don't be too eager in labelling some statements as false.

Whether it is done with or without the parent's consent, infanticide is and always will be an act without the consent of the person in question, unvoluntary euthanasia, one of the subjects we are discussing.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Tell me No1, how are you going to fight doctors who want to perform euthanasia on your child and tell you "it's the best" ? What can one do ?

Hopefully no one would ever say "it's the best." The conversation needs to focus on the reality of the situation, the tragic nature of the situation, and helping the family to make a decision and live with the consequences of their choice whatever that is.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Hopefully no one would ever say "it's the best." The conversation needs to focus on the reality of the situation, the tragic nature of the situation, and helping the family to make a decision and live with the consequences of their choice whatever that is.

You are only describing procedures. You are not giving any substantial comment. You do not take a substantial stance as a Christian preacher.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you refuse to define your terms, I don't know what you're talking about; I know what a "slippery slope" argument is in law, but it's not clear to me how you are using it HERE.

What's this I see? A request for a definition?

#1, my pupil, you were once the learner, but now are the master.

LOL!

Originally posted by kirksey957
Hopefully no one would ever say "it's the best." The conversation needs to focus on the reality of the situation, the tragic nature of the situation, and helping the family to make a decision and live with the consequences of their choice whatever that is.

Kirk: "Hopefully no one would ever say "it's the best."

The fact is doctors in the Netherlands are indeed and actually advising parents, in certain cases, to kill their infants. That's called infanticide.

Children with Down Syndrom and a small but easily operable "defect" are not being treated and die. They could easily be saved and lead a very happy life.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Tell me No1, how are you going to fight doctors who want to perform euthanasia on your child and tell you "it's the best" ? What can one do ?

The discussion whether the parents approval is really necessary in case of infanticide is not yet over No1. Please don't be too eager in labelling some statements as false.

Whether it is done with or without ...[text shortened]... ent of the person in question, unvoluntary euthanasia, one of the subjects we are discussing.

Here's the statement you cited with approval in describing the Groningen Protocol:

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

This statement is FALSE under the explicit terms of the Protocol given above. Therefore, you endorsed a FALSE statement, apparently for "shock" value. The idea that a parent's wishes would be disregarded is shocking, but it is also NOT TRUE.

Try to stick with the truth, Ivanhoe.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's the statement you cited with approval in describing the Groningen Protocol:

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a chi ...[text shortened]... Try to stick with the truth, Ivanhoe.

No1,

Please let's not get too naïve here no1.

Anyway, it is and remains a Euthanasia without the consent of the one that is going to be killed.

Originally posted by Nemesio
What's this I see? A request for a definition?

#1, my pupil, you were once the learner, but now are the master.

LOL!

I'm not playing that game, Nemesio; "slippery slope" is a term of art to me, but not to others: I was trying to determine if Ivanhoe was using in it's legal definition. Whereas others on this site have tried to use definitions as a way to substantively define issues away by adopting definitions contrary to legal practice. I use legal definitions when discussing legal matters; if others are using different definitions, I prefer they explicitly say so.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

You are only describing procedures. You are not giving any substantial comment. You do not take a substantial stance as a Christian preacher.

So I guess what you are saying is that I would have a substantial stance if I more readily parroted your views.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
No1,

Please let's not get too naïve here no1.

Anyway, it is and remains a Euthanasia without the consent of the one that is going to be killed.

Are you saying I'm naive to expect you to only use truthful statements, Ivanhoe?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you saying I'm naive to expect you to only use truthful statements, Ivanhoe?

No1,

I know this is difficult for you but please calm down. This issue is too important to come up with all kind of clever formal reasonings to try and dismiss the facts I am presenting here.

The Groningen protocol I presented is about involuntary Euthanasia. Can we agree on that conclusion ?