Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathan]

The Daily Mail on November 5th reported a frightening announcement in England: A doctors' group today called for a debate on the mercy killing of disabled babies. The medical profession should examine the "active euthanasia" of desperately ill newborns, said the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology.

It wants an inquiry into whether the "deliberate intervention to cause the death of an infant" should be legalised. The proposal met with a furious response from some quarters last night.

Labour MP Jim Dobbin compared it to the eugenics policies of the Nazis and said: "This sends the message that only the perfect are acceptable and the disabled can be discarded."
Daily Mail

Dobbin is correct. This policy has similarities with the eugenics policies of Nazi Germany. It sounds almost like a horrorific science fiction plot. Scientists and doctors decide which disabled infants would qualify for infanticide. Since modern societies value the lives of animals and the preservation of ecosystems, then shouldn't we also safeguard the lives of children? If we decide to end the lives of disabled children, then who is next? Will we begin to sterilize the mentally retarded or practice active euthanasia on the elderly?

This development could lead society down the slipperly slope of eugenics and mercy killings. Notice their logic. The college said of euthanasia in babies: "If assisted dying legislation is to be anticipated or enacted at the other end of life, now would be a pertinent time to discuss this." Where does the loss of life stop for them? If euthanasia can be rationalized with the elderly and infants, then who is next?

Who plays God in this scenario? Who gets to decide which human lives to value over other human lives? Is this the beginning of a Brave New World? If human cloning is successful, then what will the status of those clones become. Will they be as disposable as the babies?

[slitedeviance]

This is damn scary. I'm copletely in favour of voluntary euthanasia, but I could never countenance this becoming legal. How would it operate? With or without parental permission? Would the babies be property of the state until their usefullness is established?

There's too many questions, and not enough security could be provided on this. Makes you wonder though, at what point did doctors stop giving a sh!t about helping save lives, and become social engineers?

[Clarino]

Nathan wrote: Labour MP Jim Dobbin compared it to the eugenics policies of the Nazis and said: "This sends the message that only the perfect are acceptable and the disabled can be discarded."
Daily Mail


Typical overreaction. This sort of rhetoric gets us nowhere.

I'm not supporting the idea, but am I the only person here who thinks comments like Mr. Dobbin's are completely counter-productive?

[slitedeviance]

Clarino wrote: I'm not supporting the idea, but am I the only person here who thinks comments like Mr. Dobbin's are completely counter-productive?

It does seem that as soon as you mention the Nazis you loose half the audience... but it's still a dangerous idea and I'd forgive his rhetoric as well intentioned, whilst wanting to take the debate past the whole "You're the bigger Nazi" level of debate!

[Clarino]

It's not just that, he said "This sends the message that only the perfect are acceptable and the disabled can be discarded."

Whereas the report said "The medical profession should examine the "active euthanasia" of desperately ill newborns, said the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology. "


Not just anyone with any disability, but those who will, in all likelihood not survive infancy in any case. Mr. Dobbin's hyperbole is getting in the way of real debate. I suspect that that was his intention.