And so the left sighs

If the baby is confirmed terminally ill, what's the problem with them deciding on euthanasia? I don't see this as much difference as a person being a in coma and the family deciding not to continue life support.
 
theacoustician said:
If the baby is confirmed terminally ill, what's the problem with them deciding on euthanasia? I don't see this as much difference as a person being a in coma and the family deciding not to continue life support.


i agree. i don't see a difference.
 
Oh boy, this could get interesting. I'm not going to get too far into this discussion, but there is one thing I have to point out.

"Child euthanasia is illegal everywhere. Experts acknowledge, however, that doctors in the United States and elsewhere routinely euthanatize children, but that the practice is hidden.

"Measures that might marginally extend a child's life by minutes or hours or days or weeks are stopped. This happens routinely, namely, every day," Lance Stell, a staff ethicist at Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C., said this week."

It seems that they are equating a decision to give comfort care with euthanasia, and I don't see them as being the same.
 
The parents should have the right to decide if their child lives or dies if it is in a state that will cause nothing but agnoy for the child or sometype of horrible unrecoverable state. They should not get that option until everything has been tried for the child and a hospital board of doctors verifies that it's an acceptable option.
 
This is the part of the article that I like. :heart: Oregon!!

"In the United States, Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but the law is under constant legal challenge."
 
it's the Netherlands. I fail to see what that has to do with the US and by convoluted extension John Kerry
 
jaxxor said:
it's the Netherlands. I fail to see what that has to do with the US and by convoluted extension John Kerry




drunken attempt at a pancake wagon mockery thread