‘Journal of Medical Ethics’ Stands by publication of ‘After-Birth Abortions’ Article


applepansy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Disgusting. And anyone who can justify the decision to print this garbage in an 'Ethics' Journal should re-evaluate their personal ethics.

Ethics - also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.

The concept is clearly unethical. reminds me of the scripture.

Isaiah 5:20-21 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

It is much like our judicial system calling the Constitution a living document so that they can re-interpret outdated material to mean anything they so desire.

My wife graduated from J Ruben Clark Law School at BYU. When she took the legal ethics she figured out how to answer the questions correctly. Simply ask yourself what would Jesus Christ do in the same situation and then pick the opposite answer.

The Earth is ripening...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll just throw this general question out there-

Some conditions are not necessarily compatible with life- i'm going to use the example of holoproseencephaly. At the end of this sentence is a link to a photo of what this condition can present like, but I caution people that it may be unsettling, so if that's you, don't click this link.

These kids can be kept alive for quite some time with medical intervention, but there is nothing that can be done- they really don't have a brain, no surgery can correct the malformations, and they will eventually die around age 1-2 (or younger) due to complications of their condition. So- here's the question-

Do you provide all medical treatment necessary (and at whatever cost) to the child to keep them alive?

Do you withhold lifesaving treatment and opt for palliative care?

Do you withhold all treatment?

Do you administer medication to hasten death?

Is option #4 really all that different than option #2? Is option #3 cruel? Is it fair to expect society/insurance to pay for #1?

Many questions and no clear ethical lines unfortunately for cases like this.

Your coments make a travesty of the actual issue.

The authors of the article are justifying killing infants. Not any of your 4 options. Stick to the topic. These are the kind of mental exercises that let the devil slowly drag us down to hell. D&C 10:25-26

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal opinion in the case you are using as an example is #2. The reasonI feel that way is because first we don't know if a spirit has chosen to inhabit the body. We don't know what the child feels. We can assume they don't think the same way we do because there isn't a brain but that doesn't mean their spirit doesn't think.

How do you feel about organ donors then in states that are "out-out" rather than "opt-in"? The criteria of "brain death" is what's used to trigger donation, and having failed to develop a brain is much more certain than an EEG, reflex testing, etc.... and not to put too fine of a point on it, but the organs are ideally harvested while the patient still has a pulse, is breathing, etc... so if that's your definition of being alive, then they are quite literally harvested while alive.

This isn't to say I disagree with your position- actually, I agree- in med school we had to write our own oath, and mine included language against taking a life, and although i'm positive I was talking about abortions, I'm less certain if I was considering physician assisted suicide... this isn't relevant to this discussion, but since I can hear some of you saying "why?" here's a quick answer...

If someone is dying and they want to "end it" simply because they are in too much pain, etc, they will do it. If they don't "do it" "correctly" they might actually live through it and end up in a much worse position... overdosing on Tylenol comes to mind- it's actually a pretty horrific way to die*. So is immoral to provide them with a bottle of medicine that they still choose to take at some later date that will assure death and in a non-unpleasant way? I'm undecided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your coments make a travesty of the actual issue.

The authors of the article are justifying killing infants. Not any of your 4 options. Stick to the topic. These are the kind of mental exercises that let the devil slowly drag us down to hell. D&C 10:25-26

in·fant/ˈinfənt/

Noun:

A very young child or baby.

Denoting something in an early stage of its development: "an infant science".

Nope, I too was describing an infant. Not all infants are pink lovable adorable looking little kiddos. By sticking to the later and ignoring the former, you're prejudicing the argument.

edit to add:

Since you couldn't decode what I was writing, i'll write the options again more planely-

Do you use lots of other people's money to keep the kid alive for an extra month or two?

Drug the kid until it dies on its own?

Starve/Dehydrate the kid until it dies?

Kill it now with drugs?

Seems to me that these options very much cross over into the article.

Edited by marshac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in·fant/ˈinfənt/

Noun:

A very young child or baby.

Denoting something in an early stage of its development: "an infant science".

Nope, I too was describing an infant. Not all infants are pink lovable adorable looking little kiddos. By sticking to the later and ignoring the former, you're prejudicing the argument.

edit to add:

Since you couldn't decode what I was writing, i'll write the options again more planely-

Do you use lots of other people's money to keep the kid alive for an extra month or two?

Drug the kid until it dies on its own?

Starve/Dehydrate the kid until it dies?

Kill it now with drugs?

Seems to me that these options very much cross over into the article.

I took medical ethics in medical school too.

Your original 4 options have nothing to do with the article in question. The article is obviously about killing infants. Not pallative care. Not admistering drugs to hasten death.

Those of us who are in the medical profession should stand up and decry this as wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does make me furious is the content of the article. That's what should be attacked, not the Journal.

On the bright side, it's forcing more discussion on the topic of abortion, and if/when it's ever moral to do it. Fortunately the horrific procedure of elective "late term" abortion is now illegal. Sickening. We just got some new ultrasounds of our n00b today, and even at 25 weeks... yeah, there's a whole kiddo in there sucking on his hand and yawning (it MUST be boring in there).

Some recent news came out that a lot of elective abortions are done strictly for the purposes of gender selection... and it's usually in preference of male fetuses. You can imagine the women's groups saying "that's wrong!" while at the same time rallying behind "it's a woman's right to choose!"..... oh really? It's her "right to choose" so long as she doesn't "choose" to have a male kid? The smell of hypocrisy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is obviously about killing infants....Not admistering drugs to hasten death.

I fail to see the distinction- what's the difference between administering a drug to kill, or using a pair of scissors? The outcome is the same and in nearly the same timespan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see the distinction- what's the difference between administering a drug to kill, or using a pair of scissors? The outcome is the same and in nearly the same timespan.

The issue is the KILLING. The infanticide.

I know pornography when I see it. Do you?

Would you feel comfortable administering a lethal injection to a sickly infant. I would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you feel comfortable administering a lethal injection to a sickly infant. I would not.

Of course not, just as I wouldn't perform an elective abortion either- killing is indeed killing, and it's wrong. My point with my original post was that there isn't necessarily a black and white on what is killing is. Yes, pushing a drug in order to end a life clearly is, but then again withholding nourishment that you could otherwise provide results in the same end with effectively the same goal in mind. Even with palliative care, the end goal is STILL death, just with minimal suffering. So where does one draw the line on what is right and what is wrong in cases like this?

I did try and read the original article, but it has actually been taken down... the link in the OP is unfortunately to a sensationalist piece with a photo of a perfectly normal healthy baby- until I can read the actual underlying journal article myself, i'm not going to believe that they were indeed advocating killing kidos such as those depicted in the photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palliative is drugging them up? Keeping them alive is using other peoples money? You may be a doctor or in the health care profession but that is a rotten attitude.

I am so glad we didnt deal with someone with that sort of attitude when we had to decide what to do with our own baby. I know darn well no one knows what they would do at a time like that. You may think you do but you dont till you face it for real.

There is also a huge difference in deciding what to do in the case of a baby who's body is 'incompatable with life' and just killing a baby you dont want for whatever reason. One is a heart wrenching experience. The other is nothing more than psychopathic. Anyone with that behavior is in serious need of consideration of the death penalty. They have no light in their soul at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not, just as I wouldn't perform an elective abortion either- killing is indeed killing, and it's wrong. My point with my original post was that there isn't necessarily a black and white on what is killing is. Yes, pushing a drug in order to end a life clearly is, but then again withholding nourishment that you could otherwise provide results in the same end with effectively the same goal in mind. Even with palliative care, the end goal is STILL death, just with minimal suffering. So where does one draw the line on what is right and what is wrong in cases like this?

Thank you. See it wasn't that hard. You know it is wrong. Black and white is easy. You and I both know that the authors of this article are trying to put forth the idea that black is white. That it is OK to kill infants if they are (sickly, unwanted, etc... who knows). And I wouldn't be suprised if this article sets a precident and becomes quoted in future medical ethic articles and abortion proponent arguements.

Your comments about adding a grey area just confuse the issue. Those 4 options that you described happen many many times daily in our country. If you want to have a discusion about medical grey areas and ethics about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a overweight poorly controlled diabetic who wants to have a re-do re-do cardiac bypass surgery lets do it. But this article is about infanticide.

It is wrong. Equally sinful as abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. See it wasn't that hard. You know it is wrong. Black and white is easy. You and I both know that the authors of this article are trying to put forth the idea that black is white. That it is OK to kill infants if they are (sickly, unwanted, etc... who knows). And I wouldn't be suprised if this article sets a precident and becomes quoted in future medical ethic articles and abortion proponent arguements.

Your comments about adding a grey area just confuse the issue. Those 4 options that you described happen many many times daily in our country. If you want to have a discusion about medical grey areas and ethics about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a overweight poorly controlled diabetic who wants to have a re-do re-do cardiac bypass surgery lets do it. But this article is about infanticide.

It is wrong. Equally sinful as abortion.

Black and white is deceptively easy until you find out that the world is full of gray. It's like when President G.W. Bush said "If you aren't for us, you're against us"... it really is a false dichotomy that's so characteristic of binary black and white thinking. Also, no I don't know what the authors were trying to put forth at all- as I said- it wasn't available to read. All that was linked to was a piece with an obvious slant on the issue- I want to see what the authors themselves were advocating, not what someone else says they were... it would be like convicting someone based on the accusation alone, and never allowing for a defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palliative is drugging them up? Keeping them alive is using other peoples money? You may be a doctor or in the health care profession but that is a rotten attitude.

I am so glad we didnt deal with someone with that sort of attitude when we had to decide what to do with our own baby. I know darn well no one knows what they would do at a time like that. You may think you do but you dont till you face it for real.

There is also a huge difference in deciding what to do in the case of a baby who's body is 'incompatable with life' and just killing a baby you dont want for whatever reason. One is a heart wrenching experience. The other is nothing more than psychopathic. Anyone with that behavior is in serious need of consideration of the death penalty. They have no light in their soul at all.

The problem when you simplify terms as I did, is that much meaning and nuance is lost. In frustration I was attempting to simply the meaning of "palliative" and strip it down to the cold action while jettisoning the compassionate qualities that the term generally cares with it- it's not representative of my views on it, and i'm sorry you now view me in such a cold light- I actually cry with people fairly regularly.... which is odd since I never really cried growing up or even as a young adult.

Again- I wish I could read the actual article before rendering judgement on the authors or what their proposed ethical framework is. Until I can do so, I will still provide them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they weren't advocating the killing of unwanted kiddos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem when you simplify terms as I did, is that much meaning and nuance is lost. In frustration I was attempting to simply the meaning of "palliative" and strip it down to the cold action while jettisoning the compassionate qualities that the term generally cares with it- it's not representative of my views on it, and i'm sorry you now view me in such a cold light- I actually cry with people fairly regularly.... which is odd since I never really cried growing up or even as a young adult.

Again- I wish I could read the actual article before rendering judgement on the authors or what their proposed ethical framework is. Until I can do so, I will still provide them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they weren't advocating the killing of unwanted kiddos.

I am glad to hear that. :) Of course my reaction is because we did go through that process. Would you believe our babies doctor was Dr. Sunshine? lol. for a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some direct quotes from the article that I found.

Journal of Medical Ethics Paper: 'After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?' | NewsBusters.org

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

... An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth.

... to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

... The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

... Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.

... The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.

I have had 9 newborns. They were all people. The nerve.

Reminds me of the Nazi dehumanizing Jews.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooooh... so... Down Syndrome babies have no right to life. I get it now. Thanks for enlightening me. I knew there was a reason I spoke against Universal Healthcare.

Oh wait! As it stands today - abortion is deemed moral for any reason that the mother deems valid. The mother and father both lost their jobs on the day the healthy baby was born! So yeah, they can't support the baby anymore! Let's go after-birth-abort the baby then too because it is causing undue stress to the jobless parents... a reason that is completely acceptable pre-natal!

I'm going to go and puke now. Thank you.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously hope that this is hyperbole on their part in order to illustrate how abortions are sick. I only say this because they use terms such as "acceptable life" which then demands a discussion on how that term is defined, or who is even qualified to determine what that is.

In any extent, if they are legitimately arguing this, then they are essentially arguing to redefine what a person is to a fairly narrow definition- someone who is cognizant and capable of leading an 'acceptable' life. So obviously the very old, very young, schizophrenics, drug users (to name a few) are potentially at risk of being denied personhood or the 'right' to live...

I was really hoping they weren't saying these things, especially using Down's syndrome as an example- I know several Down's kids and they are the sweetest kids ever... I still cling to hope that it's all hyperbole since they raise the point- if it's OK to abort these kids minutes before birth, why not minutes after birth? It all revolves around the argument of "it's OK..." so logically if it's no longer "OK" minutes before birth, then their whole argument falls apart. Hoping...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously hope that this is hyperbole on their part in order to illustrate how abortions are sick. I only say this because they use terms such as "acceptable life" which then demands a discussion on how that term is defined, or who is even qualified to determine what that is.

In any extent, if they are legitimately arguing this, then they are essentially arguing to redefine what a person is to a fairly narrow definition- someone who is cognizant and capable of leading an 'acceptable' life. So obviously the very old, very young, schizophrenics, drug users (to name a few) are potentially at risk of being denied personhood or the 'right' to live...

I was really hoping they weren't saying these things, especially using Down's syndrome as an example- I know several Down's kids and they are the sweetest kids ever... I still cling to hope that it's all hyperbole since they raise the point- if it's OK to abort these kids minutes before birth, why not minutes after birth? It all revolves around the argument of "it's OK..." so logically if it's no longer "OK" minutes before birth, then their whole argument falls apart. Hoping...

Knowing the rampant god-complex in the medical intellectuals, I don't think this is hyperbole at all. I think they truly believe that life that are in their view guaranteed non-contributors to society are expendable "for the good of society". Drug users have a potential for rehab and become contributors. Healthy very young grow up. The very old already contributed. Schizoids can go.

Our preception of cuteness is irrelevant because cuteness doesn't translate to contribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing the rampant god-complex in the medical intellectuals, I don't think this is hyperbole at all. I think they truly believe that life that are in their view guaranteed non-contributors to society are expendable "for the good of society".

I fear you're right of course.

Our preception of cuteness is irrelevant because cuteness doesn't translate to contribution.

My wife would disagree, especially if you're talking about shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cute is a contribution. In fact it is more than a contribution. It is a survival mechanism. Babies are cute therefore we adore them and want to keep them alive. We do what we can, as parents, to present them as adorable to everyone else in the population thereby helping to gain the approval and desire of others to contribute to the babies well being. It is instinctive, a basic part of our makeup.

The fact that there are people who, apparently, do not have the instinct, or ignore it for their own agendas, is a disturbing aspect of this whole deal. Wasnt there something in prophecy about mothers becoming unnatural in their relationship to their children? This would certainly qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share