Infant mercy killings
Peter Singer published an article in the Los Angeles Times entitled Pulling Back the Curtain on the Mercy Killing of Newborns. The article addressed whether mercy killings should be extended to newborns whose quality of life or life expectancy is extremely low. The idea of whether mercy killings should be extended to newborns whose quality of life or life expectancy is extremely low.
I'm not sure how to react to this situation. It's not that I'm naive and don't know that situations like these arise; it's just that I have never thought of it before.
How awful it must be for the parents of a newborn child to sit by a hospital bed daily and watch them suffer. How terrible it must be for a doctor to tell these same parents that the only way to ease their child's suffering is to let it die. I couldn't imagine the turmoil these parents go through in an attempt to make a decision such as this.
The three groups that the doctor's of the Netherlands place these children in are interesting. I think it says that this is a well thought out process in which the doctors do not lump all terminally ill babies into a single category.
I'm not sure that as a parent I could agree to a mercy killing for my child if they were part of group one: infants who would die soon after birth even if all existing medical resources were employed to prolong their lives. If the child is in no pain, then there is a chance, no matter how small, that a miracle will occur. As a parent I believe I would wait for that miracle. If it didn't occur, then both parents and doctors would know they had done everything possible for that child.
Group two infants have an extremely low quality of life expectancy and will spend the remainder of life hooked up to machines. Speaking from experience, if this were an adult, I don't think there would be much discussion. My family has had to make the unfortunate decision to remove three family members from life support during the past fourteen years. All of these were elderly relatives who had experience brain damage and for all purposes were dead, except for the machine breathing for them. How, as a parent, could you expect a child to spend their entire existence lying on a bed and breathing by machine? Children in this group had suffered severe brain damage, and hope of recovery was nonexistent. I believe that ending this child's suffering would be the most humane thing a parent could do.
Children in group three pose a greater problem. These children are obviously in severe pain but could survive on their own without the help of intensive care. I'm not sure what the right course of action is in this case. I think that since these children are in unbearable pain it is unfair to expect them to live. On the other hand it doesn't seem fair to terminate life if the child can live without the help of machinery. I'm not sure that parents can be expected to commit their child to a lifetime of suffering and pain.
I believe that precautions should be taken to insure the death of the child is in the child's best interest and not an easy way out for parents who do not want the responsibility of a medically dependant child. I remember reading another article on this subject concerning the practices of infant euthanasia in Holland. In order for a mercy killing to occur a team of doctor's in addition to the parents and a doctor (not associated with the parents or situation) must agree this is the best course of action.
How awful it must be for the parents of a newborn child to sit by a hospital bed daily and watch them suffer. How terrible it must be for a doctor to tell these same parents that the only way to ease their child's suffering is to let it die. I couldn't imagine the turmoil these parents go through in an attempt to make a decision such as this.
The three groups that the doctor's of the Netherlands place these children in are interesting. I think it says that this is a well thought out process in which the doctors do not lump all terminally ill babies into a single category.
I'm not sure that as a parent I could agree to a mercy killing for my child if they were part of group one: infants who would die soon after birth even if all existing medical resources were employed to prolong their lives. If the child is in no pain, then there is a chance, no matter how small, that a miracle will occur. As a parent I believe I would wait for that miracle. If it didn't occur, then both parents and doctors would know they had done everything possible for that child.
Group two infants have an extremely low quality of life expectancy and will spend the remainder of life hooked up to machines. Speaking from experience, if this were an adult, I don't think there would be much discussion. My family has had to make the unfortunate decision to remove three family members from life support during the past fourteen years. All of these were elderly relatives who had experience brain damage and for all purposes were dead, except for the machine breathing for them. How, as a parent, could you expect a child to spend their entire existence lying on a bed and breathing by machine? Children in this group had suffered severe brain damage, and hope of recovery was nonexistent. I believe that ending this child's suffering would be the most humane thing a parent could do.
Children in group three pose a greater problem. These children are obviously in severe pain but could survive on their own without the help of intensive care. I'm not sure what the right course of action is in this case. I think that since these children are in unbearable pain it is unfair to expect them to live. On the other hand it doesn't seem fair to terminate life if the child can live without the help of machinery. I'm not sure that parents can be expected to commit their child to a lifetime of suffering and pain.
I believe that precautions should be taken to insure the death of the child is in the child's best interest and not an easy way out for parents who do not want the responsibility of a medically dependant child. I remember reading another article on this subject concerning the practices of infant euthanasia in Holland. In order for a mercy killing to occur a team of doctor's in addition to the parents and a doctor (not associated with the parents or situation) must agree this is the best course of action.
The decision is ultimately dependant upon the parents and their beliefs. People who don't believe in modern medicine, and prefer to rely on home remedies or prayer, would probably agree death is a better alternative. Some parents would consider this practice a form of murder and would disagree with its effectiveness or necessity. I think it is important to treat each situation as unique and make the best decision to alleviate the minds of grieving parents, satisfy doctors that they are not being cruel to a patient, and is ultimately in the best interest of the child. That being said, I hope I am never forced to make a decision as painful as this.
No comments:
Post a Comment