8 replies to this topic

[Zealous Donkey]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

This is just the beginning, the Europeans have so much yet to teach us.

[Sluggo]

Heard of utilitarianism?

Why spend $10 million on one baby, when you can spend the same amount to vaccinate thousands of babies against diseases? You save more lives with the same amount of money.

[Zealous Donkey]

Heard of utilitarianism?

Why spend $10 million on one baby, when you can spend the same amount to vaccinate thousands of babies against diseases? You save more lives with the same amount of money.

Do Physicions in Europe take the Hippocratic oath?

Why does it cost $10 Million to save a baby?

Who decides which babys are worth saving and which ones are not?

[Zealous Donkey]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQ4O...GQ1YTk1Njk4NTA=

[DonkSlayer]

I've heard of the Hippocratic Oath, but I don't think it covers humans who ARE dying. Euthenasia is different.

I don't dig Euthenasia but letting nature run it's course vs. spending millions, especially in a country with socialized medicine, is a tough call.

[Zealous Donkey]

I've heard of the Hippocratic Oath, but I don't think it covers humans who ARE dying. Euthenasia is different.

I don't dig Euthenasia but letting nature run it's course vs. spending millions, especially in a country with socialized medicine, is a tough call.

There are certain life sustaining treatments that can already be refused. Certainly that is OK. We are talking about killing disabled babies.

[brvheart]

There are certain life sustaining treatments that can already be refused. Certainly that is OK. We are talking about killing murdering disabled babies because they are "unacceptable", even though they could easily sustain life without mechanical assistance.

FYP

[Canada]

There are certain life sustaining treatments that can already be refused. Certainly that is OK. We are talking about killing disabled babies.

The second article is, but I'm pretty sure the link in the OP is the C of E talking about ceasing life sustaining treatments.

Significant differences.

From the article

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."

The problem is where do you draw the line in the sand; how do determine that a child would never have any quality of life? How do you know when all alternatives have been considered?

[Zealous Donkey]

The second article is, but I'm pretty sure the link in the OP is the C of E talking about ceasing life sustaining treatments.

Significant differences.

From the article

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."

The problem is where do you draw the line in the sand; how do determine that a child would never have any quality of life? How do you know when all alternatives have been considered?

I'll put it this way. If they decide in the affirmative in the first article, then the second article will 100% happen. I will gaurantee it with certainty. I have never been wrong about these groups, never. They are predictable. They are elitists who will be more than willing to define quality of life for you. Look at how abortion has progressed. They are basically performed 90% outside the womb already. Look how the health of the mother clause has been abused. All they have to do is say they are depressed, and bam, dead baby.