Infanticide

[karisma]

Is it ok for infants born with very severe disabilities?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

no

 

[karisma]

Keep in mind, I'm not talking down sydrome.

I worked as a pca all through college, and I have worked with some severe cases.

By far the worst was a teenage boy who was born with a disability that left him unable to move at all- except for small movements of his head. He had the mentality of an infant and would stay that way his whole life. He'd had literally dozens of surgeries on him- g-tube, bone alignment, hips, etc (25+ surgeries). He needed round the clock care obviously and as he was growing care for him was becoming much more difficult as he had no muscle tone at all and trying to lift 90+ pounds of dead "floppy" weight was extremely hard, meaning less time for him out of his bed/wheel chair and fewer times being readjusted for comfort by staff, increasing chances of skin deterioration etc.

Is that a life worth living? Just because we have the technology, does it mean that it must be used in every case to prolong life at all costs no matter what?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Is that a life worth living? Just because we have the technology, does it mean that it must be used in every case to prolong life at all costs no matter what?

It's not for us to decide what kind of life is worth living. I have a child who was diagnosed with brain trauma while in utero, and he does have some problems but he is healthy 6 years later.

You may be able to decide what kind of life is worth living for someone else, but I cannot. I accept what is given to me and I treat it as such, a gift. Peace

 

[karisma]

So you believe that all forms of technology must be used to preserve all life at any costs?

Edit: The person that I mentioned was only a single case. There are other cases in which a baby might be born with zero chance of long term survival (say anencephaly, in which the baby is born missing most parts of their brain). This baby will never achieve consciousness and will die very young. Is it worth it to use disproportionate means and possibly millions of dollars to prolong a life that has zero chance at long term survival? Or is it more humane to simply end this life as quickly as painlessly as possible?

I realize this can be a slippery slope, and decisions like this would have to be made with the utmost caution and strict protocols in place. I am NOT advocating euthanasia for Downs, spina bifida, etc. I am only referring to cases such as I already mentioned, in which an infant is born with very severe mental and physical disabilities with no chance of long term survival or that would have an extremely poor quality of life, require countless surgeries just to maintain life, and have a high emotional cost to the family and high financial cost to the state.

I guess I was hoping to hear from more pro-choicers on this one. I'm not surprised pro-lifers would be opposed.

 

[Ave Maria]

No, absolutely not! Would you murder my friend who is stuck in a wheel chair for his life?

 

[karisma]

No, absolutely not! Would you murder my friend who is stuck in a wheel chair for his life?

Umm, no? Of course not?

I thought I made it pretty clear in the OP that this would have to be a decision only involving very severe cases and would have to be made within a short time from birth, not randomly killing people in wheelchairs who are children/adults.

 

[angelpie545]

After thinking pretty carefully one this one, I am going to say a resounding "no". Absolutely not should anyone be "put down", even for disabilities that are incompatible with life. In such cases, there are such things as a DNR (do not resuscitate) order, so when the patient begins to die he/she will be allowed to do so peacefully. I had a friend whose son was born with anencephaly, and he was not expected to live past his first birthday. Of course my friend was devastated, but she did everything she could to make his time here comfortable and when it was time for him to go, he did. It is not up to us to decide when someone will live and when they will die, even if we think it's cruel to keep them alive.

 

[karisma]

^Anencephaly is a perfect example. There is no possible way for the baby to survive long term. It's an emotional and financial drain, with no chance for a happy ending. If the parents are willing, I think simply performing euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide, whichever you prefer to call it) should absolutely be an option. Although the people that you know wanted to have that time with their child, I think other parents might decide it would be harder in the end to be bonded, and then see their child die.

Although not entirely related, I am also in favor of physician assisted suicides for those who are suffering terminal illnesses, for those in chronic pain that are about to die anyway. I think people should be in charge of being able to end their own life with dignity. There are worse things than death.

 

[Trashionista]

no

I actually agree with Jet_A_Jockey on this?!

I don't think infanticide is justified. I'd say more resources may have to be put towards to group homes and such, but I still don't think its justifiable.

Although not entirely related, I am also in favor of physician assisted suicides for those who are suffering terminal illnesses, for those in chronic pain that are about to die anyway. I think people should be in charge of being able to end their own life with dignity. There are worse things than death.

I don't have any real qualms about euthanasia, but infanticide is not the same as physician-assisted suicide. The patient must make it clear that they want to die - I don't see how an infant in an extreme situation could.

 

[karisma]

I actually agree with Jet_A_Jockey on this?!

I don't think infanticide is justified. I'd say more resources may have to be put towards to group homes and such, but I still don't think its justifiable.

Quirk, you are pro-choice I believe, am I right? If you support abortion in the case of a severaly disabled fetus, what happens between being in-utero and the travel down the birth canal, that suddenly after birth it is definitely NOT ok in any scenario to terminate it?

I don't have any real qualms about euthanasia, but infanticide is not the same as physician-assisted suicide. The patient must make it clear that they want to die - I don't see how an infant in an extreme situation could.

Guardians sometimes have the right to "pull the plug" on braindead relatives, without knowing their wishes. What is the difference? In either case, it is a severe mental, emotional, and financial drain to support people who are essentially braindead, either via accident or disability (only EXTREME cases of disability I am referring to here, such as anencephaly).

 

[Trashionista]

Quirk, you are pro-choice I believe, am I right? If you support abortion in the case of a severaly disabled fetus, what happens between being in-utero and the travel down the birth canal, that suddenly after birth it is definitely NOT ok in any scenario to terminate it?



Guardians sometimes have the right to "pull the plug" on braindead relatives, without knowing their wishes. What is the difference? In either case, it is a severe mental, emotional, and financial drain to support people who are essentially braindead, either via accident or disability (only EXTREME cases of disability I am referring to here, such as anencephaly).

I am pro-choice. However, I can't support infanticide. You've made the decision to go through with the pregnancy, you take on the decision to be a parent to that baby. You've already had 9 months to deal with potential fears and to abort. In my mind, a decision has been made.

The mother has the right to put the baby up for adoption in the case of minor disabilities, and I'd say she has the right to enlist group home and help from the health field in the rearing of that child. But she has no right to kill that baby.

And I don't think a guardian has that right in the second one. Not without clear direction from the patient. So long as that consent or those directions of DNR have not been outlined, I think you have to err on the side of caution.

 

[karisma]

I am pro-choice. However, I can't support infanticide. You've made the decision to go through with the pregnancy, you take on the decision to be a parent to that baby. You've already had 9 months to deal with potential fears and to abort. In my mind, a decision has been made.

Suppose the mother had no idea until after the birth, or for another scenario suppose the trauma of birth (say oxygen deprivation from choking on the umbilical cord) caused the baby to be brain dead.

The mother has the right to put the baby up for adoption in the case of minor disabilities, and I'd say she has the right to enlist group home and help from the health field in the rearing of that child. But she has no right to kill that baby.

No matter what the emotional and financial cost?

And I don't think a guardian has that right in the second one. Not without clear direction from the patient. So long as that consent or those directions of DNR have not been outlined, I think you have to err on the side of caution.

Do you mean you think family shouldn't have the right? Because they do have the right, in this country at least, hence the need for living wills.

 

[Chajara]

I'm torn on this, because I'm not sure it's our right to decide for someone if their life is worth living or not, but in the case of babies born with severe disabilities like the ones described, my heart aches at the thought of allowing them to live and suffer until their poor bodies finally give out. Why not perform euthanasia as an act of mercy? Why not allow the child to pass peacefully with family standing by? Why not mourn the child's passing, have a funeral, bury the child with dignity and respect, and then honor his or her memory from that point on just like if he or she would have died naturally? We do it for our pets, whether they're born malformed or are just too ill or injured to live without pain any longer. If it's merciful to do it to an animal, why not a human?

Again though, I'm just not sure it's our place.

 

[Trashionista]

Suppose the mother had no idea until after the birth, or for another scenario suppose the trauma of birth (say oxygen deprivation from choking on the umbilical cord) caused the baby to be brain dead.

No.

No matter what the emotional and financial cost?

Which is why I highlighted the importance of state funding for things such as group homes.

Do you mean you think family shouldn't have the right? Because they do have the right, in this country at least, hence the need for living wills.

Unless it's been written in the will or been decided upon by the still-conscious party, then no. Its for the patient to decide.

 

[karisma]

No.

Ok, but what is your reasoning?

Which is why I highlighted the importance of state funding for things such as group homes.

Yes, but who pays the state?

Unless it's been written in the will or been decided upon by the still-conscious party, then no. Its for the patient to decide.

A lot of these people who get in severe accidents don't have living wills. What do you suggest? Keeping them on life support for 30+ years, if that's what it takes? Where do you draw the line?

 

[karisma]

I'm torn on this, because I'm not sure it's our right to decide for someone if their life is worth living or not, but in the case of babies born with severe disabilities like the ones described, my heart aches at the thought of allowing them to live and suffer until their poor bodies finally give out. Why not perform euthanasia as an act of mercy? Why not allow the child to pass peacefully with family standing by? Why not mourn the child's passing, have a funeral, bury the child with dignity and respect, and then honor his or her memory from that point on just like if he or she would have died naturally? We do it for our pets, whether they're born malformed or are just too ill or injured to live without pain any longer. If it's merciful to do it to an animal, why not a human?

Again though, I'm just not sure it's our place.

I agree. Just because we have the capability, does it mean that heroic measures must be taken in every single case to prolong a life?