Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Decline of Society

Hospitals in the Netherlands are now killing babies. Killing the children. Not as much humor today as I will be mourning the deaths of humans who never had a chance to defend themselves. If this doesn't send chills down your spine, then I don't know how you look yourself in the mirror every morning.

God help us.

Posted at 11:54 am by DeoDuce

the Pirate
November 30, 2004   12:37 PM PST
Thats f*cked up.

Nice job Holland.
the Pirate
November 30, 2004   03:55 PM PST
I don't think its an issue of euthanasia when you look at it. Its the idea of a 'independent council' deciding who is suitable to live and who isn't.
November 30, 2004   04:07 PM PST
ah yes. Good synopsis. I'm siding with you on this one.

No friggin in the riggin!
The Pirate
November 30, 2004   05:27 PM PST
My issue is with who makes the choice, my issue is with a government council set up to make those decisons for those deemed unable to make decisions for themseleves.

In 1924/25 Hitler wrote: "if there is no more power to fight for the own health, the right to live comes to an end." (Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf, p.282). The benefit of eliminating approximately 70,000 handicapped persons was mentioned by Hitler on the NSDAP party conference in 1929.

In decree from 18 August 1939 the Nazis enacted the obligatory registration of all births of physically and mentally handicapped children. These children up to three years had to be reported to the public health offices. The selected children were sent to several mental homes where they were killed by lethal drugs or withdrawal of food. Up to 8,000 children lost their lives in course of this "children euthanasia". On the basis of Hitler's order from October 1939 the program was extended on adults.

Less than 60 Years after the horrors of the holocaust were revealed to the world, we are already back at the 1924 debate that raged in Germany over euthanaisa and who determines what people should live or die.
The Pirate
November 30, 2004   05:46 PM PST
Not to mention the conflict of interest in socalized medicine whjere the government would control the health care, the health care budget and the concil to determine if people should live or die. How much of a strech would it be for the council to deem a whole bunch of elderly people supported by the goverment should be euthanasied?
The Pirate
November 30, 2004   09:15 PM PST
Go to this [http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/world/9890729.htm] article on it from Oct 11th it is a much better article than the one DD has and it goes into some of the debate across Europe. Notice the text which reads:
"Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12....A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors."

They can listen to the parents wishes, but the medical team can go against them.

As far as a government involvment, the decision is made by the 'medical team' but in Holland its a government controlled healthcare system, so it seems they would excercise control over who is onthe board.
December 1, 2004   02:55 AM PST
Yep, the pirate's right in his first reply. Nice job. Our government sucks but when it comes to euthanesia and abortion we're not that bad..

And actually. It's not the government who will decide who are 'allowed' to live and who're not. In the end it's the decision of parents and doctors. So, from that point of view it's more or less the same as euthanesia. Euthanesia isn't always allowed here as well. If I'd go to the hospital with the request 'please kill me. I'm suffering from an incurable disease called life they'd kick me out'. There are rules which say when people should or shouldn't be ABLE to request death.

Same here. The rules that are being made will tell who have the right to be brought to sleep permanently. They won't tell who have to be brought to sleep permanently...

Ofcourse, you still oppose that. But it has nothing to do with Nazi practices...It's just the usual euthanesia discussion.
the Pirate
December 1, 2004   08:14 AM PST
One point of debate I find interesting is if there is a difference between doctors killing patients and a doctor saying 'now don't take more than 8 pills because you will pass out and die'

Willem- I'm not saying its 1940's Death Camp Germany, but it is a carbon copy of the 1920's-early 1930's debate that occured in Germany.
Also in a government run health care system, who do the doctors work for? And who will pick the doctors that make the decision in a government run health care? And is it not unreasonable to say that politicians would appoint doctors who are supportive of their goals or doctors will support the goals of those who appoint them?
December 2, 2004   12:35 PM PST
I don't completely get your first point. I can rephrase it to: Is there a difference between doctors ending patients lives and doctors telling how to commit suicide (which would in this case also be partially necessary). But since I think that the answer to that question quite clearly is 'yes' I'm not sure if I got you correct..

The doctors here are picked by the hospitals. The orders don't directly come from the government. And the hospitals mainly care about quality. The politicians don't appoint the doctors directly. They just make the rules and give financial support. So the last point does not apply.
the Pirate
December 2, 2004   02:23 PM PST
The first point is active vs. passive/suggestive.

It does apply in that say the budget might be a little tight one year and some kid could have a treatable disease howver the disease limits his abiility to work. Since its expensive and its highly likely the kid won't be a source of tax revunes down the road, so why was money on treating him.

Plus it is relevant to relate it to 20's-30's Germany in that they were discussing if the should or shouldn't enact similar protocols to kill retarded kids.
December 2, 2004   02:45 PM PST
We can introduce all the details and ninny-picking that we want in this argument. Bottom Line: allowing euthanasia to occur without first checking ourselves and the balance of power associated with it is giving a 20s/30s Germany-esque situation the more potential to happen again.
December 4, 2004   08:51 AM PST
Well, I don't know enough about the discussion about that in germany in the early 30's. But I doubt if it is important enough.

And I don't agree with putting people who still have a (very small) chance, to sleep. But if they don't have a chance and they're only suffering...

Leave a Comment:


Homepage (optional)


Previous Entry Home Next Entry



CrispAds Blog Advertising CrispAds Blog Advertising


Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

rss feed