28 February 2008
Better Off Dead
Posted by Terrie Soberg under: Judaeo-Christian Values Under Attack .
Here is one part of an email I received from Family Leader. Unbelievable!
“Better Off Dead”
Just when you thought you couldn’t be more shocked by our culture’s developments-read this. A prestigious bioethics journal, The Hastings Report, has just printed a shocking article entitled “Ending the Life of a Newborn” written by a pair of bioethicists–Hilde Lindemann and Marian Verkerk who suggest that not only should babies be euthanized who have no chance of survival, but also that babies should be killed who may live to adulthood but who would “be better off dead than forced to endure the only kind of life it can ever have.”
They say that the conditions that would allow babies to be killed in these circumstances include: “progressive paralysis, complete lifelong dependency, and permanent inability to communicate in any way.”
“The whole point of the protocol is to help physicians end the lives of newborns who are so severely afflicted that neither their dying nor their living should be prolonged.”
20 Comments so far...
Chuck C Says:
28 February 2008 at 11:56 am.
I have an idea — let’s take what bioethicists–Hilde Lindemann and Marian Verkerk suggest and take it a few steps further. In addition to children who should be terminated, there are inferior individuals who, for the good of society, should not be allowed to reproduce. We should adopt an enlightened form of EUGENICS. The Nazis took it a bit too far, but, being an enlightened state, we would control it better.
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
We should focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.
POSITIVE eugenics is aimed to encourage reproduction among the genetically advantaged. Possible approaches include financial and political standing.
NEGATIVE eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.
In Canada, the eugenics movement took place early in the 20th century, particularly in Alberta, and was quite popular. The Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta was enacted in 1928, focusing the movement on the sterilization of mentally deficient individuals, as determined by the Alberta Eugenics Board. The campaign to enforce this action was backed by groups such as the United Farm Women’s Group, including key member Emily Murphy.
Individuals were assessed using IQ tests like the Stanford-Binet. This posed a problem to new immigrants arriving in Canada, as many had not mastered the English language, and often their scores denoted them as having impaired intellectual functioning. A positive result was that many of those sterilized under the Sexual Sterilization Act were immigrants who did not speak English, and were rated as low IQ. Sadly, the Canadian Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed in 1972.
LET’S HONOR LIFE INSTEAD!
another angle might be this. Let’s let the babies live. There may come a time in each of these challenging situations that extraordinary measures are not employed to extend life, but not to end life.
About the time we were expecting our first child, I remember my feelings as people asked if I preferred a son or a daughter. I would generally answer that it did not matter. Invariably, they would respond with, “yes, just as long as it is healthy, right?”
I remember feeling guilty about that prerequisite. My true hope was that we would be worthy of whatever child our Heavenly Father would send us. A family I was very close to had a Down Syndrome daughter, Shelly, who brought so much love to that family it was amazing. Granted, there was much heartache associated with raising her, but there were blessings too. If God sent me a child like that, I did not want the emotional burden of having only wanted a ‘normal’ child. Of course I wanted a healthy child, but I hoped we would be worthy of whatever special child would bless our lives.
This life is so short, in the grand scheme of things. Notwithstanding the beliefs of these bioethicists, let us help every special child experience the best this life can offer - with dignity and love.
E.E. Says:
28 February 2008 at 12:04 pm.
Wow Chuck, what a beautiful way to express the feelings of a lot of us. I think children like Shelly bring a piece of heaven with them. They light up the lives of people around them and they test the rest of us to see if we have the true love of Christ in our hearts. If we do, we recognize their goodness as a gift to help the rest of us a little more earthbound, to get through this life.
Jesse Says:
28 February 2008 at 12:12 pm.
The Free Republic had an article awhile back that talked about this subject. I found this looking for Hitler along with this subject. I’d heard that they started down the road that ended in justifying concentration camps by beginning with killing babies and others and physical and mental handicaps. They believed in quality of life, not sanctity of life.
“Even before the rise of Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich, the way for the gruesome Nazi holocaust of human extermination and cruel butchery was being prepared in the 1930 German Weimar Republic through the medical establishment and philosophical elite’s adoption of the “quality of life” concept in place of the “sanctity of life.” The Nuremberg trials, exposing the horrible Nazi war crimes, revealed that Germany’s trend toward atrocity began with their progressive embrace of the Hegelian doctrine of “rational utility,” where an individual’s worth is in relation to their contribution to the state, rather than determined in light of traditional moral, ethical and religious values.
This gradual transformation of national public opinion, promulgated through media and education, was described in an article written by the British commentator Malcolm Muggeridge, entitled “The Humane Holocaust,” and in an article written by former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, M.D., entitled “The Slide to Auschwitz,” both published in The Human Life Review, 1977 and 1980 respectively.”
T. Fan Says:
28 February 2008 at 12:43 pm.
This is an incredibly slippery slope, a very steep one that when we start sliding down is hard to stop. It really scares me.
Chuck C Says:
28 February 2008 at 12:58 pm.
By the way. My niece who just started college was so premature, she had virtually no expectation to live, let alone be healthy. She looked like a tiny bird when she was born. Chelsea is totally fine and, what a doll! I’m glad these bioethicists weren’t in charge of her care!
CindyL. Says:
28 February 2008 at 1:00 pm.
What a slap in the face that they are calling these monsters bioethicists. The opposite of ethics is involved in this kind of thing.
Chuck C Says:
28 February 2008 at 1:08 pm.
What!?! You expect bioethicists should have ethics? That’s like asking the UEA to include morality in it’s approved curriculum. Then where would we be?
CindyL. Says:
28 February 2008 at 1:14 pm.
Good point. I think we both know the answer. We would be in God’s loving care. Without it we are in for the trouble. Isn’t it incredible how right on the founding fathers were? They warned us what would happen if we went in this direction. The signs are all over the place that it is. I have heard about elderly Germans who have been moving back to Germany because they are saying that the things they see happening here are the things that were happening before WWII. They say it is gradual and most people just sleep through it until it is too late.
Cavetrollhead Says:
28 February 2008 at 1:55 pm.
Was ever happened to the right to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness? This is what happens when people walk by the light that they kindle, instead of by the light of faith in God.
Cameron Says:
28 February 2008 at 2:04 pm.
That’s right, I forgot that was in there. Life is a basic right. Wow.
Jan W. Says:
28 February 2008 at 2:07 pm.
I guess this is where things come to when so many have accepted the killing of unborn children for so long. It numbs people and the next step is easier.
Cavetrollhead Says:
28 February 2008 at 2:42 pm.
Right Jan
Carrie Says:
28 February 2008 at 3:27 pm.
I agree with you too Jan. I think somewhere in the bible it says something about the hearts of people growing cold in the last days. Stuff like this shows its happening.
Nalvy Says:
28 February 2008 at 7:13 pm.
This is such a complete and sick outrage!
I have a cousin who was born premature and he is the most wonderful and healthy kid!!! I can not imagine anyone wanting to give up the possibility of such a blessing in their life!
and another thing..my brother is autistic so there goes another family member down the drain! The last thing this world needs is more discrimination and intolerance to those who may think and live differently!
The injustice done to these poor poor unfortunate souls will count against those who do the act and those who do nothing to stop it from occuring!
Cavetrollhead Says:
28 February 2008 at 8:08 pm.
You know this may sound like a stretch, but I think that a lot of people don’t value the well being of animals either. Utah is trying to pass a law that would make animal torture (thus far it applies dog or cat only) a felony. I completely support this.
My point relating to this blog is that social and ethic scholars seem in this case seem to be judging a persons worth by his capacities.
They say that people who are cruel to animals become cruel to people. I don’t think there is a difference really. Cruelty is cruelty.
OK I am not sure how this ties into this blog but I think somehow it does. Maybe I am just off my rocker. If someone can connect the dots for me, let me know. I know this comment makes little sense but I am going to post it anyway in case someone can rationalize for me what I am feeling. Then again maybe it makes not sense whatsoever.
Joy Bischoff Says:
28 February 2008 at 8:29 pm.
Cave, I think Carrie said it best. The verse about the hearts of the people growing cold in the last days. If a heart is cold to a person it is cold to an animal. Personally, I think we will be held responsible for our treatment of animals. Good connection.
Chuck C Says:
28 February 2008 at 9:38 pm.
Cave, I think you are right on. Brigham Young had a few things to say on this subject.
BRIGHAM YOUNG ON KIND TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
“If you fail in your duty,” God tells Adam, “the beasts over which you ruled shall rise up against you, for you have not kept my commandment;” and all creatures are quick to recognize the hand of the oppressor and impostor…
“The Lord will not judge a single animal for its treatment of man, but He will adjudge the souls of men towards their beasts in this world, for men have a special place.” A familiar early Jewish and Christian teaching was that the animals will appear at the bar of God’s judgment to accuse those humans who have wronged them…
The traditions that Adam dwelt with beasts in the preexistence, and that the animals will accuse man at the judgment, call attention to the ancient teaching, restored in this dispensation, that animals have spirits. “The spirits of all beasts have their proper paradise in the great plan of things, and at the judgment all the spirits of beasts will accuse man.”…
It is only because the Latter-day Saints are ignorant of these things, according to President Young, that God has not already cursed them for their brutal and callous treatment of God’s other creatures.
Chuck C Says:
28 February 2008 at 9:43 pm.
By the way, the source for the EUGENICS information is wikipedia.
Cavetrollhead Says:
28 February 2008 at 9:51 pm.
WOW!! Good stuff guys! I knew there were quotes about the LDS Church’s teachings but didn’t know where to find them. I just already have the conviction so I never bothered looking them up. But I should have.
I guess it is kind of the same as infanticide because we have people playing God and dealing out death and having contempt for the worth or well being of others. I love that part of my religion that places worth on the well being of ‘beasts.’
Remember in Lord of the Rings when Gandolph chastens Frodo for saying it was a pity Bilbo didn’t kill Golem when he had the chance? I thought that was good writing.
Anyway the Senate bill is SB 297 and REp Jim Bird responded to my email to him that he would support it.
Please click this link to the humane society to help you to contact your local reps.
http://animalcruelty.utahhumane.org/ContactYourLegislator/tabid/556/Default.aspx
Joy Bischoff Says:
29 February 2008 at 12:13 am.
Cave, I love that part of Lord of the Rings too. My favorite literature by the way. Interesting discussion here today. What a smart group.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.