Way back in December I picked up on a topic from Hugh Hewitt about the Groningen Protocol. Basically, what I read and posted about was that in the Netherlands, they had developed a protocol for euthanizing terminally ill newborn children.
Recently, P-BS-Watcher posted a comment of follow up on it. Their take? What the heck happened to it? The Groningen Protocol is a truely horrific development but it seems to have completely fallen off the radar... from Watcher:
What happened to the argument about the Groningen Protocol? Did I miss the resolution? Or did it just fade away like the missing explosives in Iraq after the election?
P-BS-Watcher also points out that there were some inaccuracies in the way the protocol was portrayed:
"The Groningen Protocol has five criteria: the suffering must be so severe that the newborn has no prospects of a future; there is no possibility of a cure or alleviation with medication or surgery; the parents must always give their consent; a second opinion must be provided by an independent doctor who has not been involved with the child’s treatment; and the deliberate ending of life must be meticulously carried out with the emphasis on aftercare. " [emphasis added]
Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Ever taken your child to the emergency room? Once you hand them over to the medicos you are only an interested spectator (if they even let you stay in the room). Those sound like nice words to soothe the guilty consciences of parents and doctors. I think Hugh and the others (me included) had it right when we call it horrific. All that said, I agree with P-BS-Watcher that some follow up is LONG OVERDUE.
Sad to say, but some babies are born, literally, without brains. Keeping these living corpses alive is a very expensive proposition. Should this body be kept alive and for what purpose? What sick child doesn't get care so that the brainless living -corpse can live? I'd leave the decision up to God,but he ain't talkin'.
Posted by: headless lucy | 08 March 2005 at 09:24 AM