blog.bioethics.net

This is a fruit of abortion Art. If it's ok to terminate these pregnancies using PGD or amnio the next logical step is that if we miss them there we can euthanize them after birth.
This is what we mean when we say that abortion is a slippery slope. It's not far down the hill from A to (in this case) E.

- by Sarcasticus Bioethicus on Dec 7, 2006 at 12:47 PM | link

Duh...of course it is.
The Dutch data show that most of the cases are myelomeningocoels. They don't operate, then the kids develop meningitis or another painful infection, and start screaming in pain, and voila, we need to kill them.
You need to look up the letters to the editor attacking Nat Hentoff in the NYTimes after the Baby Jane Doe case almost twenty years ago. Imperfect kid? Trash can...
Alas, people are mixing up these cases with whether to treat tiny premies or children with irreparable defects.

- by Boinkie on Dec 8, 2006 at 1:44 AM | link

Art, I respectfully disagree. I think the article "smacks" of benevolence. Scientific advances like amnio allow us to identify and avoid any severe teratological events that would be a huge potential harm to the fetus, should it be brought to term and delivered. It is a complete avoidance of pain (and thus,harm) by eliminating it before it can come to fruition.
You question why controlling the pain and suffering isn't adequate enough of an action for chronically disabled infants. I'm wondering how you could possibly justify this as an acceptable retort. Pain is pain, subdued or not. Avoidance of pain altogether is clearly the most altruistic option.

- by Jessica on Dec 8, 2006 at 6:02 PM | link

Well, hell, how we treat pain management in this country is something I could rant about for a while - but needless to say, we have little conception of how to do it properly, at least on any mass scale. Way too many people live in pain they shouldn't, simply because there are doctors who're afraid of enabling junkies, or being accused of dealing by the FDA.
But beyond that, it does seem like it bears some thought - not necessarily action, but thought. Medical advances have gotten to the point where we can keep a preemie alive, but now we have to ask if we should. Why should we inherently keep alive a baby that was born pre-term (one assuemes for a non-voluntarily, potentially health related reason), especially when we're often talking of such severe disabilities that consciousness itself can be questioned? Certainly we extend moral value to a severely disabled preemie, but isn't part of being a good and moral person determining when it's better to cease heroic efforts and allow nature to happen (could argue that for either side of life, really)?
I'm not certain why financial concerns should simply be ignored. Didn't a recent article here about the new English recommendations for ~22 weeks preemie infants discuss how there simply is not the necessary social, medical and financial support systems set up to deal with the huge influx of disabled children flooding the system, due to the 'miraculous' interventions of medical staff at birth? It's well and good to say it should be different, but how do we overhaul not just one or two, but multiple systems that are all under strain because of the supposedly noble and life-saving efforts that are creating (an admittedly small) population of people forever dependant upon others?
...hm, a lot of questions, and no answers. ;)

- by Kelly on Dec 9, 2006 at 1:28 AM | link

It is a shame that we cannot at least agree that it is wrong to euthanize babies, especially given the history involved with such matters. Moreover, Art is exactly right. Infanticide can be done in the Netherlands without fear of significant legal consequences based on a "livable life," which goes far beyond the experience of pain, and can involve such issues as future social gratification. The Dutch are indeed treading close to "life unworthy of life" territory. If they formally legalize infanticide, which I expect they will, I intend to work as hard as I can to see whether the country or killing doctors can be brought up on human rights charges.

- by Wesley J. Smith on Dec 9, 2006 at 1:40 PM | link

"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
Jessica ... you can't completely avoid pain. Nobody can. I get a migraine every single month when I am premenstrual. Every, every month. Ibuprofen controls it to the point that I am functional, which is acceptable to me. I would not say that my life is not worth living because I have to put up with this. If an infant's pain is controlled, as Art says, putting it out of its misery is just not that urgent.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Dec 11, 2006 at 10:48 PM | link

Laura:
I appreciate your counterpoint, but the fact that you compare your premenstrual migraines which are manageable with an ibuprofen to a fetus who will no doubt suffer from one or multiple very painful congenital defects is offensive. They are not even close to being on the same plane!

- by Jessica on Dec 17, 2006 at 9:26 PM | link

"a fetus who will no doubt suffer from one or multiple very painful congenital defects"
Jessica, that is my point. You are making a tremendous assumption here. It's very possible that with proper pain medication these babies will suffer no more than I do with my migraines. You have not a scrap of evidence to say otherwise. Perhaps you are aware that in the UK, although late-term abortions are illegal except in cases of profound fetal abnormalities, it was found that women were getting these abortions because their babies had cleft palates. Your assumption that all of these babies will suffer horribly even if their pain is managed is totally unfounded.

- by Laura(southernxyl) on Dec 20, 2006 at 10:01 PM | link