The Groningen Protocol

If you only get your news from TV or the papers, you probably haven't heard of this.  For about a week now it has been working it's way through the Blogworld, fueled most prominently by Hugh Hewitt.  Hugh started on Tuesday with The Groningen Protocol, which linked to Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters on it, MarkDRoberts on it, our favorite Seal Milblogger Matthew Heidt at Froggy Ruminations on it, and many others.  Soon after some other prominent bloggers picked up on it, Scott "The Big Trunk" Johnson at Powerline and Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot, and even the "Grand Poobah" of blogging Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame (who linked Hugh, but Hugh did not link.  I wonder what's up with that?).

What, you ask, is the Groningen Protocol?

From the AP: A hospital in the Netherlands(Groningen Academic Hospital) - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The Groningen Protocol, as the hospital's guidelines have come to be known, would create a legal framework for permitting doctors to actively end the life of newborns deemed to be in similar pain from incurable disease or extreme deformities.

The guideline says euthanasia is acceptable when the child's medical team and independent doctors agree the pain cannot be eased and there is no prospect for improvement, and when parents think it's best.

I've heard lots of people joke about "retroactive abortions" (especially when their kids hit the teen years), but this is serious.  This is POLICY.  This is Socialized Medicine.  This is a morally relavist secular society.  This is Orwellian with a strong dose of Soilent Green (the sci-fi movie, not the heavy metal band).  This is WRONG!

What if the parents don't "think it's best"?  Do the doctors have the final say?  The Government?  Your HMO?  Matthew Heidt (Froggy Ruminations) puts it in perspective:

Let me lay out a scenario that incorporates this scary confluence of government healthcare, and third party euthanasia committees. An unfortunate child is born in Holland with a serious heart defect that may or may not be correctable, but is certainly fatal if left unresolved. The Death Squad (my affectionate term) meets to consider the case of this deformed child with the goal to determine its candidacy for treatment or extinction.

Initially, the Death Squad must consider the seriousness of the deformity, the prognosis if treated, and ostensibly they are going to make some kind of judgement as to the child's quality of life as well. Liberals love to do that. So having addressed those preliminary issues, they now take into account the fact that they are living in a nation with total government monopoly on healthcare, and that they are themselves government employees. They are certainly well aware of the limitations on the delivery of healthcare in Holland and the effect of rationing on the general public, in fact they are acutely aware of this.

Taking these facts into account the Death Squad now decides whether this quite unfortunate child ought to be allowed to expend precious and finite medical resources. The Death Squad cannot be sure that some other less unfortunate child might come along at any time with a better prognosis, and that child's care could be adversely affected if both children are in the same hospital together. Since this most unfortunate child hasn't much of a shot at a quality life, and since, well, the budget is tighter than usual this year, we had better just euthanize this child. It's nothing personal mind you, it's just the way things worked out. Very unfortunate.

Also unfortunate is the liklihood that as medical gatekeepers (and heaven's gatekeepers for that matter) the Death Squad is under some amount of pressure to take the "economic" issues into account with respect to their decision. Which is the sensible thing to do afterall, deficits and whatnot. Never forgetting but not quite remembering that theirs is a very secular nation, and that they are in a very secular position as doctors, these decisions aren't quite as agonizing as they might be, which is helpful ... for them.

Many bloggers are comparing this to the actions of the Nazi doctors in the death camps and rightfully so. 

I admit that I am somewhat conflicted, in that I don't want to see helpless infants suffer needlessly (or anyone for that matter - with the exception of some Islamist Terrorists, but that's fodder for a different post) .  I take exception that a group of people have written down a "protocol" to follow.  Each case should be evaluated on it's own merit and issues.  Protocols and guidelines have a nasty way of becoming "standard operating procedure" that no one dares deviate from.  I believe that there is a way (not exactly sure what it is) to protect doctors AND put an end to needless suffering of those who cannot speak for themselves, The Groningen Protocol, however, IS NOT IT.

UPDATE:  What I'd like to know is why the news has all this crap about the BTK strangler and the Laci Peterson case (heart breaking yes, but way, way over covered) and loads of other BS that I care nothing about and yet this hasn't even been whispered about?  I guess all the producers and editors must be suffering from P.E.S.T. or still digging for dirt on the TANG story down in Texas...

UPDATE II:  I got an email from Hugh (which, by the way, I thought was very cool) in which Hugh says that he and Glenn Reynolds are NOT fueding, but that Glenn's post on Groningen was pretty short and that he had been trying to link to the "longer stuff".  Whew!  I was a little concerned that there was some kind of underground Blog War going on that I was blundering into...

UPDATE III:  Mrs. Hamilton's Pamphlets said she read about this on Drudge.  Sure enough, there it was on Tuesday's headlines:  Netherlands Hospital Euthanizes Babies.  Not much gets past Mrs. Hamilton's Pamphlets, especially stuff about kids (and knitting, but that's a road I don't want to go down...)

Comments

[Josef]

I've heard about this from several places - I CANNOT believe the lack of outrage that this extends to 12-year-olds and the lack of parental consent! Where's the (expletive) UN when you need them!?!

It's one thing for a parent to do this to an unborn... and barely condonable then.

It's another for a damn unelected, unaccountable bureaucratic doctor to play G-O-D!!!

References to Gregoireism might be a good idea...