Dutch kill babies, the comatose and the mentally retarded!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


I take it that you disapprove of rude practices such as I describe only when conducted by the likes of O'Reilly, et al.

Man, how many posts does it take for you to finish whining about the same "bad" manners that you yourself partake in?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
There is no requirement that the illness be immediately terminal. There is a lot more emphasis on "pain" from incurable diseases (not necessarily terminal), from premature births, from brain damage, and from deformaties.

"Immediately" terminal? Okay, explain to me the distinction between "terminal" and "immediately terminal." I'm sure you can draw upon your extensive medical expertise to educate us on this.

Beyond your bull****ting, let's take this phrase again:

There is a lot more emphasis on "pain" from incurable diseases (not necessarily terminal), from premature births, from brain damage, and from deformaties.

Why do you want babies to live in pain, Ned? Does that allay your conscience, rather than them being killed?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
This list is just about as far as the Nazi's got before the German people called a halt. When the Nazi's tried to euthanize the elderly, they found that the German people would not accept this.

Still, when I was a kid, I was told of this Nazi practice as one example of their barbarism. I am not sure, but could some of the Nuremberg charges agains the Nazi leadership have included this euthanasia practice?

And again, what was the primary concern of the Nazis?

A) compassionately easing the suffering of those in pain
B) weeding out the weaklings for the betterment of the Master Race

Hint: B

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Pekka
You keep on making the Nazi references. I can not take that seriously. I claim you have failed to show the patterns between Third Reich, Nazis, and the Dutch. Your proof is not complete, and it's inconsistent at its best.

Given what the Nazis did to the Netherlands and how the Dutch opposed German occupation, it actually goes into the realm of the hideously offensive.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
There is no requirement that the illness be immediately terminal. There is a lot more emphasis on "pain" from incurable diseases (not necessarily terminal), from premature births, from brain damage, and from deformaties.

Tell me if these are not terminal:

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.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


And again, what was the primary concern of the Nazis?

A) compassionately easing the suffering of those in pain
B) weeding out the weaklings for the betterment of the Master Race

Hint: B

Dude, you are like the ultimate source of enlightenment.

[Hueij]

Ned, you have nothing to fear from us, as long as you are not a baby, not comatose or not menta... oh wait, maybe it's better if you stay on your side of the pond...

It's people like you that make me like my country

[Ned]

Boris, you are going to have to admit that the primary concern is pain and suffering. The Dutch are willing to put people out of their misery in the same manner as we shoot lame horses.

The main reason why I raise this whole issue is how one decides the issue of right or wrong. I have always been in favor of euthanasia because it does eliminate agony. The Church says taking any life for any reason is murder. I believe the Church is wrong.

The next question then, is whether someone else beside the person themselves can make the decision when one is incapable of making it themselves. I agree with the Dutch position on this score. A person in agony who cannot make the decision can have the decision made for him by his doctors.

What I find difficult is that the Third Reich did the same thing and they were condemned. Now, it may be true that they did it because the "liquidated" were useless to the State and only burderned the German health care system. But it this just propaganda?

But, why is one "good" and the other "bad" if the actions were the same actions?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

A little more on the whole issue of Groningen Protocol.

Point 1) the issue of parental consent is much more muted as advisory only.

Point 2) According to the hospital spokesman the decision to terminate lies wholly within the auspices of the comittee

Grand Forks Herald

The pertinent part quoted below

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.

"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."

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.

[Ned]

Ogie, it does look like the NAZI policy and is quite unlike euthanasia as advocated in the US where the consent of the person or the person's family is required even before life support is terminated, let alone lethal drugs administered.

Again, people, when socialists do the same thing as fascists (at least in this case), are they morally correct because they are socialists? In both cases, the right of the individual or his family to make the decision is eliminated in favor of a professional decision by doctors.

[Locutus]

Funny, the article Nacht mentioned earlier, which is the official press release by the hospital which wrote the protocol, says exactly the opposite. A rough translation I swiftly made (of the most important section):

In the protocol, which came about after deliberation with paediatricians throughout the Netherlands and the office of the Public Prosecutor, is described in great detail in which cases the medical team may spare the child from further suffering. Among other conditions, it must be the case that there is unbearable suffering which cannot be alleviated through other means, such as medication. Also, there may not be any chance of improvement (hopelessness). The entire medical team involved (a seriously ill child is usually surrounded by a multidisciplinairy team of treating doctors and nurses) has to be convinced that there is no alternative means to help the child, and also the external counseling doctors have to agree. Also, permission of the parents is mandatory. Finally, the actually termination of life itself has to meet all criteria of carefulness and consciousness.

I find it appalling the the American conservative press would actually resort to outright lies to prove their point. A very, very dangerous situation which, like Hueij said, makes me very, very grateful I was born in the Netherlands and not the USA (which is saying something considering our current political climate).

Edit: typos

[Ned]

Locutus, thanks. But I wonder how the US got it wrong. I don't think it was intentional.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Ned
Locutus, thanks.

Always happy to help get the facts straight.

I don't think it was intentional.

Reading Ogie's article again, it seems they based that section of the article on hearsay and wasn't actually double-checked with the hospital. I must conclude my claim that the newspaper was outright lying might have been somewhat hasty, but it's obvious the journalist who wrote that article didn't actually consult "experts and critics" as he claimed, he probably only consulted critics, without bothering to find out how reliable these critics were and without double-checking their claims with either actual experts, advocates of the system or the hospital itself. Still very poor and biased (and IMO dangerous) journalism...

I think the misinformation was unintentional, the bias however not.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Locutus


Always happy to help get the facts straight.



Reading Ogie's article again, it seems they based that section of the article on hearsay and wasn't actually double-checked with the hospital. I must conclude my claim that the newspaper was outright lying might have been somewhat hasty, but it's obvious the journalist who wrote that article didn't actually consult "experts and critics" as he claimed, he probably only consulted critics, without bothering to find out how reliable these critics were and without double-checking their claims with either actual experts, advocates of the system or the hospital itself. Still very poor and biased (and IMO dangerous) journalism...

I think the misinformation was unintentional, the bias however not.

Agreed. Thanks for the clarification.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, you are going to have to admit that the primary concern is pain and suffering. The Dutch are willing to put people out of their misery in the same manner as we shoot lame horses.

I wouldn't admit anything else, but we must clarify that it's pain and suffering in the context of a terminal condition. Both pain and the terminal nature of the condition have to be factors.

I don't like equating this to shooting lame horses, because while lameness is irreparable, it isn't terminal for a horse. So it's not the same.

What I find difficult is that the Third Reich did the same thing and they were condemned. Now, it may be true that they did it because the "liquidated" were useless to the State and only burderned the German health care system. But it this just propaganda?

Again, I don't agree with your statement that it was the "same." It wasn't the same. The Nazis didn't euthanize under the strict guidelines imposed by the Dutch, nor did they restrict themselves to terminal cases. The goal of the Nazis was the eliminate the weak in order to relieve their burden on the state. The Dutch goal is to alleviate suffering as humanely as possible. 10 cases of this a year will hardly relieve much of the state's burden, after all.