| Editors note; Over the years some people actually believe that if the medical profession applies enough rules, the practice of euthanasia will not be subject to abuse. Dr. Holloway points out how wrong they are. |
". . . over the past 20 years, Dutch euthanasia practice has ultimately given doctors, not patients, the deciding vote on who should live or die." ". . . study on the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands in 1990: 1,040 people (an average of three per day) were actively killed by doctors without the patients' knowledge or consent. Since then, the killing of nonconsenting adults has been on the rise . . . it is now standard practice in the Netherlands to withhold treatment from premature or disabled children as well as euthanize seriously ill children under the age of 12. The British Medical Journal, the Lancet, reported in 1997 Dutch doctors are killing approximately 8 percent of all infants who die each year. A fifth of these killings were done without the consent of parents. All occurred without the consent of the children." Dr. Kelly Holloway
I have come to know a good number of children who doctors gave parents a grim outcome of their child's future. Many were told their child would not live more than a few weeks, or a couple of months. Yet some of the children grew up - went to college and got their degrees. Regardless of IQ, no one has the right to judge who should not be allowed to live. No one has the right to judge a person's quality of life. But it is happening with greater frequency, and the outcome is fatal. Dr. Holloway cites why and who are on the death lists. Who will intercede on their behalf?
| Cheryl Eckstein, CHN |
![]()
When
children become disposable
| |
by Dr Kelly Holloway |
Posted: October 30, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Charlotte Wyatt is a beautiful baby girl of 11 months
who is also terribly ill. Born premature at 26 weeks, she has serious heart and
lung problems. She has never left the hospital and is fed through a tube.
In the span of her very short life, she stopped breathing three times. Each
time she was resuscitated. But doctors at the treating hospital in England do
not want to revive her should her breathing fail a fourth time. They say keeping her alive is futile and causing suffering. Her parents
strongly disagree. They believe Charlotte, who is responsive to them, is not
suffering. Their hope is that maybe she would live long enough and become strong
enough to one day walk outside and see the sky and the trees.
Due to the parent's conflict with attending physicians and the hospital, the
dispute went before the British High Court where the judge sided with the
doctors and hospital. That means should Charlotte enter into crisis again, she
will not receive treatment but be left to die.
With this decision, England has chosen to follow in the path previous laid by
the Dutch Parliament decades ago when they legalized euthanasia. As originally
defined, euthanasia was limited in scope to mean taking the life of a terminally
ill patient at the patient's expressed request.
The main argument in favor of euthanasia, in the Netherlands and everywhere,
has always been the need for more patient autonomy. Advocates assert patient
rights, including the right to make their own end-of-life decisions. Yet, over
the past 20 years, Dutch euthanasia practice has ultimately given doctors, not
patients, the deciding vote on who should live or die.
According to the first official government study on the practice of
euthanasia in the Netherlands in 1990: 1,040 people (an average of three per
day) were actively killed by doctors without the patients' knowledge or consent.
Since then, the killing of nonconsenting adults has been on the rise and
expanded to include competent people with incurable illness or disabilities,
patients who are not physically ill but depressed and desire to commit suicide,
and incompetent people with such illness as Alzheimer's because "they would have
asked for it if they were competent."
In addition to the rise in killing adults without their consent or knowledge,
it is now standard practice in the Netherlands to withhold treatment from
premature or disabled children as well as euthanize seriously ill children under
the age of 12. The British Medical Journal, the Lancet, reported in 1997 Dutch
doctors are killing approximately 8 percent of all infants who die each year. A
fifth of these killings were done without the consent of parents. All occurred
without the consent of the children.
Doctors in the Netherlands are also renowned for withholding treatment from
psychiatric patients and the elderly. It is no secret that the elderly often
avoid hospitalization for fear they will be put to death. In response to this
trend, thousands of Dutch people carry papers or where bracelets that say "do
not euthanize me."
The most frequent reasons given for doctors ending the lives of patients
without their knowledge or consent are: low quality of life and no prospect for
improvement. This is the very reason now given for withholding treatment from
Charlotte Wyatt.
But all of this is taking place an ocean away, right? What can it possibly
mean to us here at home in the U.S.? Well let's see.
Based on these current trends and the historical influence European law has
on American culture, I expect to see decisions like that concerning Charlotte
Wyatt coming to a courtroom near home in the foreseeable future. That is unless
the sleeping giant in America (the millions of self-identified Christians who
have disengaged from the political and cultural warfare in our midst) wake up to
fight against this tidal surge of death now overtaking our nation.
![]()
| source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41187 |
| Thank you for visiting this page, you are visitor
|
|
Return to
|