• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should doctors be able to legally kill born-alive infants?

Should doctors be able to legally kill born-alive infants?


  • Total voters
    79
So a baby born with overwhelming severe conditions....the doctor indicates there can be no quality or quantity of life...he suggests comfort care. A second opinion of specialist says the same thing.

The family allows for comfort care.

You think that is infantacide? You think they are actively killing their baby?

Why? It sounds amazingly cruel.

It is not necessary for anybody to die with life support, tubes, drains, and multiple painful procedures.

Friend, I understand your view. I worry that when allowing a person to die(including especially the new born as in this thread) is a slippery slope. Do you not see that the prolonging of life is all we have ever done as a society that is worthy of praise? It is certain we can with the push of a couple of buttons, remove life from this rock called Earth forever. What is greater, better, more emblematic of our species than the gift of life? If an infant with care lives a week or month longer, what in the world can be wrong with that? Life is transient.
We all have a clicking time clock. Like you, I just want to live as long as possible, then check out. I don't want to be denied help, because I am not old enough to sue for that right. It is my opinion, that the whole argument here boils down to money and the concern for the parents. No matter how it goes, those who are already living benefit, but the infant just doesn't.
If I had never seen a miracle and the wonderful results of parents who trudged on, I might feel differently. Do you not know of those occasions where parents went beyond normal duty and were rewarded with viable children from a weak prognosis? It takes guts and concern for life, but it happens.
Regards,
CP
 
Friend, I understand your view. I worry that when allowing a person to die(including especially the new born as in this thread) is a slippery slope. Do you not see that the prolonging of life is all we have ever done as a society that is worthy of praise? It is certain we can with the push of a couple of buttons, remove life from this rock called Earth forever. What is greater, better, more emblematic of our species than the gift of life? If an infant with care lives a week or month longer, what in the world can be wrong with that? Life is transient.
We all have a clicking time clock. Like you, I just want to live as long as possible, then check out. I don't want to be denied help, because I am not old enough to sue for that right. It is my opinion, that the whole argument here boils down to money and the concern for the parents. No matter how it goes, those who are already living benefit, but the infant just doesn't.
If I had never seen a miracle and the wonderful results of parents who trudged on, I might feel differently. Do you not know of those occasions where parents went beyond normal duty and were rewarded with viable children from a weak prognosis? It takes guts and concern for life, but it happens.
Regards,
CP

I think neonatologists and other medical professionals knowledgeable of catastrophic health conditions in a newborn (many of which could be diagnosed prenatally)
are in a better position to decide what available treatment will potentially give a newborn quantity and/or quality of life.

This is not euthanasia. There is no final shot. It is comfort which can mean alot of different things for alot of different babies and their families.

Do you think parents that choose comfort care for their catastrophically ill newborn are killing their baby?
 
Euthanasia is an act intended to bring about the immediate death of a patient. Think of your pet at the vet. That shot they give is not meant to make the pet comfy....it is meant to end their life as the primary action. You are not dosing the animal for comfort, your are dosing them for immediate death.

Comfort care is simply paying attention to the comfort needs of the patient. A baby born and placed on comfort care may die in minutes or may even be able to go home.

The focus is shifted to comfort.

By the way, comfort care does not mean "no care" it just means a shifted focus.

My mom was in hospice. She had emphysema and had been on O2 for years. She had 2 separate cancers, one the metastasized Despite being on hospice, she was offered radiation therapy for one of her tumors. So radiation may seem aggressive, put it was meant to alleviate some of her more severe symptoms. It was accepted hospice treatment.



Here is a program

Neonatal Palliative Care Service ::
UNM Department of Pediatrics | The University of New Mexico


Hope this helps.It is compassion, not infanticide.

C'mon year! I gave this definition before. You aren't trying to fine tune Merriam-Webster to fit your notion, are you?
Definition of euthanasia
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy
...and you understand that qualified professionals from years past would be sticking leeches on you to suck out angry blood.
You, me, and everyone on this board has had the gift of life. I won't be a party to refusing that gift to anyone because a Doctor has said so. There are all sorts of Physicians, some great, some C students. Ever had a bad diagnosis? If not, you will some day. You've certainly heard of second opinions?
Regards,
CP
 
Euthanasia is commonly accepted as doing something to design to kill the patient.

We do not euthanize human patients in hospitals in the US.

Comfort care accepts the fact that the patient my have limited quantity or quality of life. Comfort care is not intended to "kill" the patient. It is intended to alleviate a wide array of discofort.

Neonatal Palliative Care Service ::
UNM Department of Pediatrics | The University of New Mexico


Did you read this? There are various programs around the country.
 
As a Nurse of 35 years, please elevate us. The difference between Euthanasia and allowing a slow death is what? Oh, and from Merriam-Webster =
Definition of euthanasia
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

Regards,
CP

Euthanasia actively applies a method of stopping the heart.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as 'a slow death' but when Drs and families choose not to use heroic measures to save a severely compromised preemie or newborn, it is offered palliative (comfort) care so that it does not suffer until it dies naturally.
 
Friend, I understand your view. I worry that when allowing a person to die(including especially the new born as in this thread) is a slippery slope.

This has been the law for preemies and newborns and even older children for many years. It's up to the parents to decide with their Dr to try extreme measures OR provide palliative care.

I see no slippery slope leading to parents choosing to randomly kill their kids in hospitals.

Do you not see that the prolonging of life is all we have ever done as a society that is worthy of praise?

Emphatically I do not see that at all. As a society, we have achieved much worthy of praise.

And prolonging of life against someone's will, or if they are terminally suffering or will have no quality of life is immoral and cruel IMO.
 
Whether the infant is born naturally or from a botched abortion, should doctors be able to legally kill a born-alive infant?

Never
Only in rare circumstances (explain)
Always - any circumstance, if the mother agrees.

They are not allowed to and nobody is proposing that they be allowed to.
 
Doctors should only be allowed to kill born alive infants if the doctors are active duty military.

We allow our active duty military to kill born alive infants without punishment.

It is called "acceptable collateral damage".
 
Friend, I understand your view. I worry that when allowing a person to die(including especially the new born as in this thread) is a slippery slope. Do you not see that the prolonging of life is all we have ever done as a society that is worthy of praise? It is certain we can with the push of a couple of buttons, remove life from this rock called Earth forever. What is greater, better, more emblematic of our species than the gift of life? If an infant with care lives a week or month longer, what in the world can be wrong with that? Life is transient.
We all have a clicking time clock. Like you, I just want to live as long as possible, then check out. I don't want to be denied help, because I am not old enough to sue for that right. It is my opinion, that the whole argument here boils down to money and the concern for the parents. No matter how it goes, those who are already living benefit, but the infant just doesn't.
If I had never seen a miracle and the wonderful results of parents who trudged on, I might feel differently. Do you not know of those occasions where parents went beyond normal duty and were rewarded with viable children from a weak prognosis? It takes guts and concern for life, but it happens.
Regards,
CP

I am not a fan of the slippery slope argument. It says that we cannot find a line that should not be crosssed.

The problem being every line creates a “but what about?” argument.

I think it’s important to remember that no matter where the line is drawn, someone will always feel that the line should be drawn somewhere else.
 
I am not a fan of the slippery slope argument. It says that we cannot find a line that should not be crosssed.

The problem being every line creates a “but what about?” argument.

I think it’s important to remember that no matter where the line is drawn, someone will always feel that the line should be drawn somewhere else.

I understand your point. It is very hard to be absolute about almost anything. The difference is death is final and can't be undone.
Regards,
CP
 
Because Trump is misleading everyone (big surprise) on late term abortions and it has caused all sorts of hysteria, and odds are by design to have a conversation based on that emotion. Recent New York Law was not about "allow(ing) a woman going into labor to have an abortion," nor was this entire thing about trying to expand Roe v Wade.

Questions about doctors "killing" an infant is born naturally or from a botched abortion is just another round of inflammatory debate. You offer no context but are clearly leading to a conclusion.

I would suggest that killing infants is an argument conceived "off the rails". Further, the nature of a debate with such important consequence is destined to be inflamed. There will never be a time when the idea of late term, or post-birth killing of the most innocent won't be opposed.
Trot out all the doctors, Professors, or social engineers, you choose; anyone who has seen a birth or held a baby will oppose it anyway they can.
Regards,
CP
 
There is no such thing as "post-birth killing". That's "murder" and the abortion laws do not sanction that.
 
Agreed, that it is murder. Have you told Governor Northam?
Regards,
CP

I believe he knows. He never endorsed infantacide:

Here is Governor Northam's statement

The governor, a pediatric neurologist, stressed that late-term abortions were done with the consent of the women and their doctors.

“And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable,” Northam said.

“So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he went on. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Northam was describing end-of-life care in a painful circumstance, as his office said in a clarifying statement, not murder.

No, Virginia’s Governor Did Not Endorse Killing Babies | HuffPost
No, Virginia’s Governor Did Not Endorse Killing Babies | HuffPost

"end-of-life care," which is also called "palliative care" and "comfort care."

This is currently already a legal option for parents faced with tragic situations like a terminally ill preemie or newborn, or one for which faces long term suffering and or no quality of life.

Would you see these laws rescinded?
 
The context is obvious (well, I thought it was). This question came about from the Born Alive bill that didn't pass the Senate the other day. It would've required doctors to give the same care to babies born alive in a botched abortion that they would give to babies born naturally. It's a conversation we're having in this country today. It's not "all sorts of hysteria" since we obviously do have people who believe that, in some circumstances, the doctor CAN kill a born-alive infant (see poll results).

So what say you? Should doctors be legally able to kill born-alive infants?

So, if the baby was born and had overwhelming catastrophic medical condtions....and the doctor suggested comfort care(no heroic measures) just basic needs met (warm,clean, fed if possible, comfortable)for the hours, days, or weeks until nature takes it's course - would you be ok with this?

Do you consider comfort care to be killing. murder, or execution?

Do you consider comfort care to be a "post birth abortion"?
 
I believe he knows. He never endorsed infantacide:

Here is Governor Northam's statement



"end-of-life care," which is also called "palliative care" and "comfort care."

This is currently already a legal option for parents faced with tragic situations like a terminally ill preemie or newborn, or one for which faces long term suffering and or no quality of life.

Would you see these laws rescinded?

Merriam Webster says=

WORDS AT PLAY
FAVORITES
Follow:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram

infanticide noun
in·​fan·​ti·​cide | \ in-ˈfan-tə-ˌsīd


\
Definition of infanticide
1
: the killing of an infant
2
[ Late Latin infanticida, from Latin infant-, infans + -i- + -cida -cide ] : one who kills an infant

What is your special definition?
Regards,
CP
 
Merriam Webster says=

WORDS AT PLAY
FAVORITES
Follow:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram

infanticide noun
in·​fan·​ti·​cide | \ in-ˈfan-tə-ˌsīd


\
Definition of infanticide
1
: the killing of an infant
2
[ Late Latin infanticida, from Latin infant-, infans + -i- + -cida -cide ] : one who kills an infant

What is your special definition?
Regards,
CP


?? And palliative/comfort/end of life care is not killing the infant.

Are you able to make that distinction? Do you understand that this is what the gov was describing? "End of life care" were his own words.

Now, you avoided my question, why? Please try again:

This palliative/comfort/end of life careis currently already a legal option for parents faced with tragic situations like a terminally ill preemie or newborn, or one for which faces long term suffering and or no quality of life.

Would you see these laws rescinded? If no, how does this differ from the current case?
 
?? And palliative/comfort/end of life care is not killing the infant.

Are you able to make that distinction? Do you understand that this is what the gov was describing? "End of life care" were his own words.

Now, you avoided my question, why? Please try again:

This palliative/comfort/end of life careis currently already a legal option for parents faced with tragic situations like a terminally ill preemie or newborn, or one for which faces long term suffering and or no quality of life.

Would you see these laws rescinded? If no, how does this differ from the current case?

You are splitting hairs with your opinion, ?? And palliative/comfort/end of life care is not killing the infant.
The end is the end. Palliative/comfort end of life is different than the gas chamber for those selected as unworthy of life(see Adolph Hitler in 1935-1945) how? Maybe it would have helped the Nazi's to have you make a presentation at the Hague.
Regards,
CP
 
You are splitting hairs with your opinion, ?? And palliative/comfort/end of life care is not killing the infant.
The end is the end. Palliative/comfort end of life is different than the gas chamber for those selected as unworthy of life(see Adolph Hitler in 1935-1945) how? Maybe it would have helped the Nazi's to have you make a presentation at the Hague.
Regards,
CP

So then you believe that laws intended for compassionate release in cases of terminal suffering and unending lack of quality of life are wrong?

If so, just answer directly:

This palliative/comfort/end of life care is currently already a legal option for parents faced with tragic situations like a terminally ill preemie or newborn, or one for which faces long term suffering and or no quality of life.

Would you see these laws rescinded? yes or no?


If no, how does this differ from the current case?
 
So then you believe that laws intended for compassionate release in cases of terminal suffering and unending lack of quality of life are wrong?

If so, just answer directly:

This palliative/comfort/end of life care is currently already a legal option for parents faced with tragic situations like a terminally ill preemie or newborn, or one for which faces long term suffering and or no quality of life.

Would you see these laws rescinded? yes or no?


If no, how does this differ from the current case?

Briefly, yes. Would you find the old Eskimo practice of putting Females on the ice acceptable? Would you approve of gassing homosexuals or Gypsies? If not, other than your own personal preference for who is to live and die, why??
Regards,
CP
 
Briefly, yes. Would you find the old Eskimo practice of putting Females on the ice acceptable? Would you approve of gassing homosexuals or Gypsies? If not, other than your own personal preference for who is to live and die, why??
Regards,
CP

OK. Then we clearly disagree. I am a supporter of compassionate release.

You are not. I find that barbaric, since we treat our pets better, but that is your position and I appreciate your honesty.

(btw, your examples have nothing to do with issue. You were describing a healthy child/healthy people.)
 
OK. Then we clearly disagree. I am a supporter of compassionate release.
Oh, yes, we disagree. What you call compassionate release is only a Pig with lipstick. Murder, whether contributory or by neglect is still contributory murder.
and I appreciate your honesty. We both live in opposite worlds, I think I'm right, as do you. We just don't understand how each of us thinks the way we do.
You are not. I find that barbaric, since we treat our pets better, but that is your position and I appreciate your honesty.
I don't find the pets comparison to human life to be an honest comparison. I respect your view, but will oppose it whenever I can.

(btw, your examples have nothing to do with issue. You were describing a healthy child/healthy people.)
The Nazi's had their idea of worthy life, you have yours. To me, both are abhorrent.

No hard feelings, but we do disagree.
Regards,
CP
 
You are splitting hairs with your opinion, ?? And palliative/comfort/end of life care is not killing the infant.
The end is the end. Palliative/comfort end of life is different than the gas chamber for those selected as unworthy of life...
Regards,
CP

Not splitting hairs.

There is no gas chamber.
Yes, the end is the end.


If the preemie/newborn is born with a life threatening/imcompatable with life condition you still think that preemie who has no chance of living more than a few minutes or hours should be rushed away and have tubes and needles stuck into its tiny body instead of given humane palliative care ?

Many mothers/parents/health care givers feel palliative care instead ot extra ordinary care is the more humane treatment in circumstance where the preemie/ infant has a life threatening condition.

When palliative/ comfort care is given; the preemie infant is wrapped in a blanket , kept warm , free from pain , and often held by the mother/parent or a care giver, fed , and kept conforable and loved until it expires on its own of its untreatable medial issues.


From webmd:

When a fetus or newborn is diagnosed with a life-threatening condition, no matter how early or late in the pregnancy, it is a loss that parents grieve.

Parents imagine their child's future from the moment they find out they're expecting. By a first prenatal doctor visit, parents may have countless plans for their baby. Now different plans must be made. For this reason, palliative care may be recommended before, during, and after delivery.

Palliative care is recommended for newborns who:

Are born at extremely low birth weight (i.e. a pound or less)
Are born before 23 weeks of gestation
Are born with a lethal abnormality or malformation
Will experience more burden than benefit from further treatments for their condition


Palliative care can begin as soon as a diagnosis is made, even if it's during pregnancy. If a baby or fetus has a life-threatening condition, doctors usually will offer parents a set of options. Palliative care providers help parents make and cope with these decisions.


Neonatal Palliative Care: Focus on Life
 
Last edited:
OK. Then we clearly disagree. I am a supporter of compassionate release.
Oh, yes, we disagree. What you call compassionate release is only a Pig with lipstick. Murder, whether contributory or by neglect is still contributory murder.
and I appreciate your honesty. We both live in opposite worlds, I think I'm right, as do you. We just don't understand how each of us thinks the way we do.
You are not. I find that barbaric, since we treat our pets better, but that is your position and I appreciate your honesty.
I don't find the pets comparison to human life to be an honest comparison. I respect your view, but will oppose it whenever I can.

(btw, your examples have nothing to do with issue. You were describing a healthy child/healthy people.)
The Nazi's had their idea of worthy life, you have yours. To me, both are abhorrent.

No hard feelings, but we do disagree.
Regards,
CP

Yes...other animals are different from humans...and so I would try to treat humans better, not worse. This is why I support compassionate release (and assisted suicide).

I will always value quality of life over quantity.

We share the same physiological processes as most other animals, so I dont value a heartbeat or breathing...there's nothing 'special' or 'specially human' about that...I value the person and consider their quality of life.
 
Not splitting hairs.

There is no gas chamber.
Yes, the end is the end.


If the preemie/newborn is born with a life threatening/imcompatable with life condition you still think that preemie who has no chance of living more than a few minutes or hours should be rushed away and have tubes and needles stuck into its tiny body instead of given humane palliative care ?

Many mothers/parents/health care givers feel palliative care instead ot extra ordinary care is the more humane treatment in circumstance where the preemie/ infant has a life threatening condition.

When palliative/ comfort care is given; the preemie infant is wrapped in a blanket , kept warm , free from pain , and often held by the mother/parent or a care giver, fed , and kept conforable and loved until it expires on its own of its untreatable medial issues.


From webmd:




Neonatal Palliative Care: Focus on Life

The funny thing is that prenatal palliative care prevents abortions. It acknowledges the diagnosed catastrophic illness and allows the family to enjoy what precious little time their babies will have,
 
Back
Top Bottom