British Medical College: Kill Disabled Babies.

[War Lord]

Stephen Hawking wasn't born disabled. He developed a motor neuron disease in college which progessed rapidly leaving him the way he is now. Remarkably, he has survived much longer than anybody ever thought he would.

That's because he keeps a temporal displacement handy.

 

[November Rain]

meh I don't see the fuss. In the uk there is a national health service which all tax payers contribute towards.

now if a child was born of a condition that wasn't detected at abortion stage within the mother and became apparent at birth, and the family didn't either have the financial or physical support required to handle and care for this child, other than adoption, i don't see why the life of this child should be nutured in guilt at the expense of the tax man. yeah you can always give your child up for adoption as well but ultimately the child is the responsibility of the parent.

If they sign a consent form wishing for the child to be killed mercifully then so be it.

I'm not sure where the rest of you stand but I don't see any entity as a life until it becomes self aware and up to that point (recalling of earliest memories), the child is at the full responsibility of its parents.

The doctors obviously won't be able to make any decision against the parent's wishes and would need signed consent forms and so forth.

So in theory i think it's fine. The problem is when it comes to disability, the term covers so many different people with ranges of mental and physical capacities. One could easily say 'as a parent' that they don't want a child because of something some people would fine minor.

To cover this, i would say if a child was born with a well documented condition which meant that the child would prove no benefit to society at all (since no other people born with it have been so far) and also required constant care (a drain of resources), then at the will of the parents who don't wish to take on such a burden, the child should be mercy killed.

Saying this, most disabled people can contribute in some manner or the other so you end up on the cutting room floor, even if your parents didn't want the stress, perhaps adoption would be a better bet.

 

[Matt]

meh I don't see the fuss. In the uk there is a national health service which all tax payers contribute towards.

now if a child was born of a condition that wasn't detected at abortion stage within the mother and became apparent at birth, and the family didn't either have the financial or physical support required to handle and care for this child, other than adoption, i don't see why the life of this child should be nutured in guilt at the expense of the tax man. yeah you can always give your child up for adoption as well but ultimately the child is the responsibility of the parent.

If they sign a consent form wishing for the child to be killed mercifully then so be it.

I'm not sure where the rest of you stand but I don't see any entity as a life until it becomes self aware and up to that point (recalling of earliest memories), the child is at the full responsibility of its parents.

The doctors obviously won't be able to make any decision against the parent's wishes and would need signed consent forms and so forth.

So in theory i think it's fine. The problem is when it comes to disability, the term covers so many different people with ranges of mental and physical capacities. One could easily say 'as a parent' that they don't want a child because of something some people would fine minor.

To cover this, i would say if a child was born with a well documented condition which meant that the child would prove no benefit to society at all (since no other people born with it have been so far) and also required constant care (a drain of resources), then at the will of the parents who don't wish to take on such a burden, the child should be mercy killed.

Saying this, most disabled people can contribute in some manner or the other so you end up on the cutting room floor, even if your parents didn't want the stress, perhaps adoption would be a better bet.

Wow, that is the most disgusting post I have read in my 6 years on the Hype.

 

[November Rain]

what's so disgusting? I ultimately said it's up to the decision of the parents as long as the doctors determine that the child would not be able to contribute to society

 

[Matt]

what's so disgusting? I ultimately said it's up to the decision of the parents as long as the doctors determine that the child would not be able to contribute to society

A human life is more than a contribution to society, ever consider that?

 

[November Rain]

wha?????

That's absurd. If you don't contribute to either the economy or the recreational aspects of those around you, then what is the point of your being?

if you are born and you are taken to the woods and left there on your own for the rest of your life, then what was the point of your birth in the first place?

what's the point of having children if they provide no emotional benefit to you, the parent or to other children around or to soceity if when they grow up either economically or to those around them.


honesly, other than that, what's the point of having kids

It might be because i'm young but i don't see any other reason for having kids

 

[Matt]

wha?????

That's absurd. If you don't contribute to either the economy or the recreational aspects of those around you, then what is the point of your being?

if you are born and you are taken to the woods and left there on your own for the rest of your life, then what was the point of your birth in the first place?

what's the point of having children if they provide no emotional benefit to you, the parent or to other children around or to soceity if when they grow up either economically or to those around them.


honesly, other than that, what's the point of having kids

It might be because i'm young but i don't see any other reason for having kids

This should sum it up. Just because you do not see a child as contributing to society, does not mean another will not. If a parent doesn't want their disabled child give it up for adoption. To kill it is murder, there is no way around that.

This disgusts me. My son was born severely disabled and had he survived there is no way I would have considered him unviable or a crippling to my family. Jordan would have been loved and cared for as any other child in my family. This is barbarism and elitist genocide. Jordan lived 3 and a 1/2 days and never once did I wish his death.

 

[November Rain]

yeah but Dew's child contributed to her wellbeing emotionally, he wasn't seen as a burden, that case is within the boundaries or my viewpoint

 

[Matt]

yeah but Dew's child contributed to her wellbeing emotionally, he wasn't seen as a burden, that case is within the boundaries or my viewpoint

Even if it is a burden to the parents, why not give it up for adoption? Why would it have to die? There are a countless number of couples on waiting lists for adoptions, who would take a disabled child in a heart beat.

 

[Halcohol]

According to the paper, geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal -— as did the mother of a severely disabled child -— while a prominent children’s doctor described it as "social engineering.”

John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College London hospital, told the Times: "Intentional killing is not part of medical care,” adding that "The majority of doctors and health professionals believe that once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It immediately becomes a subjective decision as to whose life is worthwhile.”

If a doctor can decide whether a life is worth living, he told the Times, "it changes medicine into a form of social engineering where the aim is to maximize the benefit for society and minimize those who are perceived as worthless.”

And Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People told the Times: "If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions it would tell adults with those conditions that they were worth less than other members of society.”

This is the part of the article that gets me the most. It's not up to the doctors of the world to determine the future evolution of the human species. Maybe we're all pre-destined to be wiped out in a few hundred generations by MS or spina bifida or something.

 

[logansoldcigar]

wha?????

That's absurd. If you don't contribute to either the economy or the recreational aspects of those around you, then what is the point of your being?

if you are born and you are taken to the woods and left there on your own for the rest of your life, then what was the point of your birth in the first place?

what's the point of having children if they provide no emotional benefit to you, the parent or to other children around or to soceity if when they grow up either economically or to those around them.


honesly, other than that, what's the point of having kids

It might be because i'm young but i don't see any other reason for having kids

the problem is, they aint saying "Kill kids if we dont think they can contribute", so you are maiking yourself look like an arse.

they are saying "Kill kids that aint gonna live anyway"

do i agree with that?
Not a chance. I can see the point of view, and in some cases, i can see how it would be the humane thing, but I just dont agree with it.

 

[November Rain]

firstly, I feel as a parent and if in sane mind, then you have ultimate say over your child up to it starting to be aware of its own existence. (or at least a child with an average rate of development).

Putting my views aside, in my post i said that termination should probably only be viewed if the child cannot contribute either recreationally or economically to anyone. This would be as the child would have a recorded disease where all sufferers have shown an incapacity to do such and are basically unaware of the world around them and require constant care.

now again, maybe i'm speaking as a young man but i'm not sure of anyone who would wish to welcome any child into their lives without a sense of rewarding feedback either of love or improvement or even the child's content. Perhaps there are but I would generally expect for adopting parents to take on a child which they give get at least something from.

i don't see whst the harm is of having that option. I'm pro-choice on abortions and i feel its somewhat in the same line as that.

if you're anti-abortion then i could see where you are coming from but if you are pro-choice then i'm a lil baffled.

 

[November Rain]

the problem is, they aint saying "Kill kids if we dont think they can contribute", so you are maiking yourself look like an arse.

they are saying "Kill kids that aint gonna live anyway"

do i agree with that?
Not a chance. I can see the point of view, and in some cases, i can see how it would be the humane thing, but I just dont agree with it.

well there isn't much from that article that gives the impression they are talking solely about terminal conditions exclusively. i feel my point stands. Medically I see fit to end life if it doesn't contribute to those around or if the pain of the individual is perhaps too much to warrant their existence, all of course given with the consent of closest responsible next of kin.