ONE
of Britain’s royal medical colleges is calling on the health profession
to consider permitting the euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn
babies.
The proposal by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology
is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of
medical advances. The college is arguing that “active euthanasia”
should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents
the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest
babies.
“A
very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it says. “If
life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were
available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even
preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident
about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”
Geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal — as
did the mother of a severely disabled child — but a prominent
children’s doctor described it as “social engineering”.
The college called for “active euthanasia” of newborns to be
considered as part of an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the
policy of prolonging life in newborn babies. The inquiry is being
carried out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
The college’s submission to the inquiry states: “We would like
the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation,
withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active
euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options
available to the sickest of newborns.”
Initially, the inquiry did not address euthanasia of newborns
as this is illegal in Britain. The college has succeeded in having it
considered. Although it says it is not formally calling for active
euthanasia to be introduced, it wants the mercy killing of newborn
babies to be debated by society.
The report does not spell out which conditions might justify
euthanasia, but in the Netherlands mercy killing is permitted for a
range of incurable conditions, including severe spina bifida and the
painful skin condition called epidermolysis bullosa.
Dr Pieter Sauer, co-author of the Groningen Protocol, the
Dutch national guidelines on euthanasia of newborns, claims British
paediatricians perform mercy killings, and says the practice should be
open.
Sauer, head of the department of paediatrics at the University
Medical Centre Groningen, said: “In England they have exactly the same
type of patients as we have here. English neonatologists gave me the
indication that this is happening.”
Although euthanasia for severely handicapped newborn babies
would prove contentious, some British doctors and ethicists are now in
favour. Joy Delhanty, professor of human genetics at University College
London, said: “I would support these views. I think it is morally wrong
to strive to keep alive babies that are then going to suffer many
months or years of very ill health.”
Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical
Ethics, who has admitted hastening the death of two severely
handicapped newborn babies when he was a junior doctor in the 1970s,
said: “I wouldn’t argue against this.” He spoke of the “pain, distress
and discomfort” of severely handicapped babies.
The college’s submission was also welcomed by John Harris, a
member of the government’s Human Genetics Commission and professor of
bioethics at Manchester University. “We can terminate for serious
foetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people
think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it okay
to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?”
he said.
Edna Kennedy of Newcastle upon Tyne, whose son suffered
epidermolysis bullosa, said: “In extremely controlled circumstances,
where the baby is really suffering, it should be an option for the
mother.”
However, John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University
College London hospital, said: “Intentional killing is not part of
medical care.” He added: “The majority of doctors and health
professionals believe that once you introduce the possibility of
intentional killing into medical practice you change the fundamental
nature of medicine. It immediately becomes a subjective decision as to
whose life is worthwhile.”
If a doctor can decide whether a life is worth living, “it
changes medicine into a form of social engineering where the aim is to
maximise the benefit for society and minimise those who are perceived
as worthless”.
Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People said:
“If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions it would tell
adults with those conditions that they were worth less than other
members of society.” | 
/https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.canalblog.com%2F45%2F29%2F139098%2F6050718_o.jpg)
/https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.canalblog.com%2F28%2F15%2F139098%2F5778024_o.jpg)
/https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.canalblog.com%2F62%2F05%2F139098%2F5536365_o.jpg)
/https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.canalblog.com%2F69%2F91%2F139098%2F6492843_o.jpg)
/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.over-blog.com%2Ft%2Fcedistic%2Fcamera.png)
/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.over-blog.com%2Ft%2Fcedistic%2Fcamera.png)
/https%3A%2F%2Fstorage.canalblog.com%2F88%2F58%2F139098%2F17946455_o.jpg)
/https%3A%2F%2Fprofilepics.canalblog.com%2Fprofilepics%2F1%2F1%2F117239.jpg)