web analytics


By ATWadmin On November 6th, 2006

Did you read that a doctors’ group has called for a debate on the "mercy killing" of disabled babies?

The medical profession should examine the "active euthanasia" of desperately ill newborns, said the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology. It wants an inquiry into whether the "deliberate intervention to cause the death of an infant" should be legalised.

Quite shocking that the Royal College should wish to value the life of a disabled baby less than that of an able bodied infant. I agree with Labour MP Jim Dobbin who has compared this to the eugenics policies of the Nazis:

 "This sends the message that only the perfect are acceptable and the disabled can be discarded."


He’s eight. The Royal College has also suggested that decisions on when young babies should be killed or allowed to die should depend not only on the gravity of their condition. Its submission to an inquiry on the ethics of treatment for severely ill and disabled newborns raises the question of whether such children should be killed if they are not wanted by their parents.

This is revolting stuff and proof that science can be a real and present danger when it has no moral anchor.

3 Responses to ““ACTIVE EUTHANASIA””

  1. I am totally opposed to euthanasia/"assisted suicide", whether voluntary or otherwise. In my view it is murder, plain and simple.

  2. Mine too, Tom. It is murder. But because it’s "The Royal College2 – why it’s respectable. Not.

  3. This is yet another of those highly emotive subjects, where it is difficult to separate emotions from morality, and practicality.

    When large numbers of people have still yet to accept the ‘rightness’ of abortion on demand, the medical profession feel the need to stretch the envelope even further. That the guidelines for abortion have been stretched or ignored, is common knowledge, it had only to be a matter of time before the ethics of infant euthanasia became openly discussed.

    I have long suspected that many in the medical profession have become hardened to the many harrowing sights that they see on a daily basis, that much became evident at the time of the Alder Hay incident. Familiarity does tend to breed contempt.

    In the case of the NHS it manifests itself as a general disrespect for people, the accent being placed on ‘cases’, and ‘patients’, rather than individuals, all very understandable when the pressures under which many in the profession have to work, is taken into consideration.

    At the other end of the lifespan, the subjects of geriatric euthanasia, and assisted suicide, are regularly mooted, most often as the subject for some tv drama, which would seem to be a favourite way to air the subject prior to any serious public discussion.

    How long before the upper age limit is reduced to include the ‘once perfect, but slightly damaged’, among us? Fifty years olds might well fall into this category.

    Any discussion is bound to be linked to the matter of eugenics and it’s association with the Nazis, all very emotive stuff, but eugenics have long been an accepted, and respectable branch of medical thinking.

    Couple all, or any, of the above with today’s fashion for relative morality, and we are in for some very thought provoking discussion, if not today, then perhaps tomorrow. (Thank you, Jack!)