Allowing Euthanasia and Mercy Killing Is Wrong
Let's kill severely sick and disabled babies and actively practice Euthanasia, says Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology unshamefully and unethically.
UK Obstetricians propose to actively practice euthanasia and allow mercy killing of severely disabled newborn babies. This proposal, according to Independent, has been put forward by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology, as an option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of medical ethics.
While unbelievable, the College justifies the mercy killings of severely disabled babies in the following way: that "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall benefit of families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial suffering.
According the report, the College has submitted its proposal to Nuffield Council on Bioethics and argues in the submission that "A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making,"
Our publication strongly condemns such a proposal and calls on governments and societies to not allow such and evil proposal.
"Euthanasia is not a future problem. It is a present problem. It is happening now and becoming increasingly accepted. And we are asleep, not realizing that the road we are on will lead to the massive elimination of the elderly and "incompetent," and anyone else considered to be a burden to society," writes Fr. Frank A. Pavone National Director of Priests for Life.
In his article "Mercy Killing Is Murder" Rev. Ignatius -W. Cox, S. J, Ph.D. writes "The way in which the same moral question will thrust itself periodically on public attention is a curious phenomenon. It becomes a dangerous phenomenon, indicating a widespread moral malady, when with each periodic recurrence, more and more individuals of great potential influence take the wrong side, the ethically unscientific view, the immoral solution."
Our fear is that this question of severely disabled baby Euthanasia is being presented in nice "valuable" terms: benefit of families, financial and emotional suffering, impact on obstetric decision-making, a chance for women to decide...
Who are we do decide? Is this not crime to decide to kill the innocent babies? Since when did we start to play God? Do parents have the right to kill their babies? If no, how can governments or doctors decide so? It would be taking an advantage of an innocent severely disabled newborn child, who is ill, thrusts to those who bring him to life just about to kill and who can't speak or say a word, otherwise that child would have cried out... Let me live! I don't want to die. Don't kill me!
Is this article becoming too emotional? We want the reader see the reality of what may happen because we don't experience it.
Many doctors oppose to Euthanasia and mercy killing. Independent quotes John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College Hospital, as saying: "Intentional killing is not part of medical care... once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It becomes a subjective decision of whose life is worthwhile."
Strongly opposing to the proposal of Euthanasia and Mercy Killing of severely disabled and sick babies, we conclude by asking, if the societies take this road how far will they go, who is next: the severely ill adults, the weak elderly? What if one day there not enough food and resources to support the world population? What do we do in this age of relativism, liberalism and lack of principles: do we start actively practice Euthanasia toward those who are not productive or efficient?
This page is updated on May 11, 2013.