Church of England says OK to kill newborn babies that are severely impared
#1
11-14-2006, 08:52 AM
Church of England says OK to kill newborn babies that are severely impared
The Church of England has broken with tradition dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed 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.
The shock new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.
A spokeswoman for the UK Disabled People's Council, which represents tens of thousands of members in 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 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. In future cases doctors may work to guidelines proposed by the Nuffield inquiry.
In the Church of England's contribution to the inquiry, Bishop Butler wrote: "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 stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained".
The bishop's submission continued: "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."
Yet the Revd 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 considerations.
"Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided," he wrote.
"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."
The church also urges all the parties involved in care for critically ill babies should be realistic in their expectations, demands, and claims.
The submission says: "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.":
UK Disabled 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," she said.
Out of babies born at just 22 weeks of pregnancy or less, 98 per cent currently die. In Holland babies born before 25 weeks are not given medial treatment.
Link to the story...........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Didn't **** Germany try this once? I am sure they did and we all know the results of that. The only time it is acceptable to take a human life is when the person has been convicted of a capital crime (murder) where the punishment calls for death........
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.
The shock new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.
A spokeswoman for the UK Disabled People's Council, which represents tens of thousands of members in 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 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. In future cases doctors may work to guidelines proposed by the Nuffield inquiry.
In the Church of England's contribution to the inquiry, Bishop Butler wrote: "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 stressed that it was not saying some lives were not worth living, but said there were "strong proportionate reasons" for "overriding the presupposition that life should be maintained".
The bishop's submission continued: "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."
Yet the Revd 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 considerations.
"Great caution should be exercised in brining questions of cost into the equation when considering what treatment might be provided," he wrote.
"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."
The church also urges all the parties involved in care for critically ill babies should be realistic in their expectations, demands, and claims.
The submission says: "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.":
UK Disabled 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," she said.
Out of babies born at just 22 weeks of pregnancy or less, 98 per cent currently die. In Holland babies born before 25 weeks are not given medial treatment.
Link to the story...........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Didn't **** Germany try this once? I am sure they did and we all know the results of that. The only time it is acceptable to take a human life is when the person has been convicted of a capital crime (murder) where the punishment calls for death........
#2
11-14-2006, 10:49 PM
RE: Church of England says OK to kill newborn babies that are severely impared
I don't mean to offend but people who say it is not right for abortion would turn around and kill a deer and mount it on his/her wall as a trophy. It just hacks me off when people say it is okay to kill animals but wrong to "kill" babies. Like the small animals that some people kill because they are "messing up their yard" are trying to live, but they shoot/trap them anyways.
I'd like to add that babies do NOT know what is going on when they first come out plus the world is WAY overpopulated. I mean overpopulated because have you ever noticed that the rich people have one to two children and the poorer people have three or more children. So if conservatives want to conserve their money(from not paying taxes) then why do they cry about a baby being "killed" when you problably spend about several years worth of taxes on raising ONE baby.
Just think about it.
Sorry for going a little too off topic there, YeuEmMaiMai.
I'd like to add that babies do NOT know what is going on when they first come out plus the world is WAY overpopulated. I mean overpopulated because have you ever noticed that the rich people have one to two children and the poorer people have three or more children. So if conservatives want to conserve their money(from not paying taxes) then why do they cry about a baby being "killed" when you problably spend about several years worth of taxes on raising ONE baby.
Just think about it.
Sorry for going a little too off topic there, YeuEmMaiMai.
#3
11-15-2006, 03:19 PM
RE: Church of England says OK to kill newborn babies that are severely impared
not even a valid comparison there
Human life > all other life on the planet. End of discussion
now with that said, one should not kill animals for sport. God commands us only to kill what we can eat in terms of animals for food. There are other acceptable circumstances when killing of an animal is approperiate such as a wild beast attacking another human or it was hit/attacked and it isn't going to live.......
Most deer hunters actually EAT what they catch so mounting of the deer head as a trophy is totally acceptable in this case since he/she ate the rest of it.....
Also we are dependant upon other life on the planet for our well being so we should be careful what we kill off
Human life > all other life on the planet. End of discussion
now with that said, one should not kill animals for sport. God commands us only to kill what we can eat in terms of animals for food. There are other acceptable circumstances when killing of an animal is approperiate such as a wild beast attacking another human or it was hit/attacked and it isn't going to live.......
Most deer hunters actually EAT what they catch so mounting of the deer head as a trophy is totally acceptable in this case since he/she ate the rest of it.....
Also we are dependant upon other life on the planet for our well being so we should be careful what we kill off
#5
11-15-2006, 07:00 PM
RE: Church of England says OK to kill newborn babies that are severely impared
ORIGINAL: Trav20
If you believe we evolved from monkeys then we are animals and we compare to animals.
If you believe we evolved from monkeys then we are animals and we compare to animals.
if you believe in evolution from mokeys, I feel for you.....God created man in his image, not the image of a monkey.............
#6
11-16-2006, 06:30 AM
RE: Church of England says OK to kill newborn babies that are severely impared
ORIGINAL: YeuEmMaiMai
if you believe in evolution from mokeys, I feel for you.....God created man in his image, not the image of a monkey.............
ORIGINAL: Trav20
If you believe we evolved from monkeys then we are animals and we compare to animals.
If you believe we evolved from monkeys then we are animals and we compare to animals.
if you believe in evolution from mokeys, I feel for you.....God created man in his image, not the image of a monkey.............
#7
11-16-2006, 09:25 AM
Administrator
RE: Church of England says OK to kill newborn babies that are severely impared
I'm staying out of this one guys and gals....
WheelBrokerAng
WheelBrokerAng
#8
11-16-2006, 09:40 AM
RE: Church of England says OK to kill newborn babies that are severely impared
Plus, God didn't create man to be superior to animals...man was an animal at one time then adapted with the other species to survive in the wilderness.
#9
11-16-2006, 03:56 PM
RE: Church of England says OK to kill newborn babies that are severely impared
ORIGINAL: Trav20
Plus, God didn't create man to be superior to animals...man was an animal at one time then adapted with the other species to survive in the wilderness.
Plus, God didn't create man to be superior to animals...man was an animal at one time then adapted with the other species to survive in the wilderness.
"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
I would say that if we were to have dominion over something.... well figure it out for yourself.... Also, in order to properly dispitue evolution you must define what evolution is. For example if you view evolution as a change in the human race or just change in general then you can easily PROVE that it exists.... Take for example this basic explination. There are many differnet races/nationalities I'll use two opposites to site this: Black and White, traditionally in the past (a not so long time ago) there was no "Half Black Half White" however now there is. This shows that two opposites have found a middle ground and eventually if the world continues to breed at the rate and in the fashion that it has we will start leaning towards and become of one color and one severly mixed up race... If this is possible that through breading specific traits can take the "forefront" of others (which can be seen by simply reviewing dominant and recessive traits) then isn't it possible that through breeding dominant traits continued to bring forth things that were different essentially meaning that we changed or "evolved" into what we are now....
I'm just playing devils advocate here...
#10
11-16-2006, 05:46 PM
RE: Church of England says OK to kill newborn babies that are severely impared
considering that the THEORY of evolution is full of holes, yes. It's not called the FACT of evoluition now is it?
to all of you that think a dog or a cow holds the same value as a human....this is why the world is messed up no common sense what so ever...and since human life is really not worth more than a unwanted dog or cat, it makes abortion that much easier to do......since after all our lives are not any more value than a flea.
I still don't see any half man half monkeys walking around, do you? after all if the theory of evolution is true, then you should still see things evolving even now becuase the theory would still be going on since after all we as humans should be evoling into something else.......
It is much more logical to suggest that there is GOD who created man in his own image than to believe that majically out of nothing the whole universe exploded into existance and that over billions of years everything just happned to fall into place at the right time........
well we each have free will to think what we want so you can believe as you wish but a lot of people are going to be suprised when they stand and see that there really is a God and He did exactly what he said he did........
to all of you that think a dog or a cow holds the same value as a human....this is why the world is messed up no common sense what so ever...and since human life is really not worth more than a unwanted dog or cat, it makes abortion that much easier to do......since after all our lives are not any more value than a flea.
I still don't see any half man half monkeys walking around, do you? after all if the theory of evolution is true, then you should still see things evolving even now becuase the theory would still be going on since after all we as humans should be evoling into something else.......
It is much more logical to suggest that there is GOD who created man in his own image than to believe that majically out of nothing the whole universe exploded into existance and that over billions of years everything just happned to fall into place at the right time........
well we each have free will to think what we want so you can believe as you wish but a lot of people are going to be suprised when they stand and see that there really is a God and He did exactly what he said he did........
