Vocal Voices

Yes! We have been informed "to accept that Euthanasia will be par for the course within ten years". It will be legalised..
This decision has come to fruition in Belgium, now it includes killing children who are "considered " unlikely to recover
From their illness, and the handicapped.
I think this act is criminal, I am pleased that my wonderful late brother was not born in this era.
We know that euthanasia is practiced in our hospitals, and that there are those who would wish to be put put down
In the event of pain and in curable illness.
But for those to brazenly make the decision to end lives to me is criminal.

I mentioned that this was on the cards in Belgium some months ago, and today it was passed.
The World will watch and wait with bated breath.

Frank we are voices in the wilderness , no need for concentration camps whatever is the world coming too?

Kate wrote:But for those to brazenly make the decision to end lives to me is criminal.

Doesn't it depend on the extent of disability a child has ?

If a child is brain damaged to the point of being for ever in a vegetative state, and also in pain, I personally would have no qualms about ending its terrible life before it's properly begun.

Life is all very well until it becomes unbearable.

I have mentioned previously the attainments of my mentally and physically handicapped brother, and will never forget an Aunt cruelly stating he should have been "put down at birth". As children and as a family we were very protective of him, he was loved by all who knew him and as I mentioned he received an award from The Queen for 43 years devoted service washing pots and pans at his place of work. I am sure those who are responsible for this latest push for Euthanasia would have ended his life as a new born, and I believe this happened when he was in hospital and he was told by a doctor that they could help him walk better, proceeding to operate on his spine against our wishes. He Died never really recovering. Consciousness.
Will this also apply to children with Down's syndrome, genetical disorders? To easy as we are seeing in hospitals , for those in charge to list those and the elderly whom they think no longer have a right to life. We are on a slippery slope.

Moonie wrote:If a child is brain damaged to the point of being for ever in a vegetative state, and also in pain, I personally would have no qualms about ending its terrible life before it's properly begun.

I could, to some extent, go along with that. My brother was born physically and mentally handicapped and was given six months, max, to live in 1949 - he lived to his early thirties.

However, on an hypothetical scale from permanent vegetative state (PVS) to some unknown level where some "experts" deem euthanasia a benefit, my brother would have been near the PVS end. I know for a fact that had my mother and father been given a choice to terminate they would have turned it down regardless of the wishes of the medical experts. I bet others would have terminated at the drop of a hat from anywhere on the scale.

What worries me it that the other end of the scale is one of drifting sands. I fear the decisions will be made by people to protect their lifestyles rather than have the child. We have turned into water and the easy option has become the default one.

Having said that, it might only be a temporary measure and only applied to those involved in some form of terrible accident. We are well down the road of testing the DNA of foetuses so that they can be discarded as soon as possible should they not be "perfect".

Having said that, it might only be a temporary measure and only applied to those involved in some form of terrible accident. We are well down the road of testing the DNA of foetuses so that they can be discarded as soon as possible should they not be "perfect".

I doubt whether it might be only a temporary measure, euthanasia has been practiced secretly for years.
I could never imagine myself wishing a child of mine dead and allowing the authorities to make this end of life decision.
Life is Life.

moondancer wrote:Life is all very well until it becomes unbearable.

I agree; but with a caveat about who gets to take the final decision.

cromwell wrote:

moondancer wrote:Life is all very well until it becomes unbearable.

I agree; but with a caveat about who gets to take the final decision.

Aye, but there's the rub.

It is an absolute certainty that the individual will not always be consulted about the decision - they might not have that decision making capacity. I would go further and say that, over time, their opinion will not matter anyway such is the power those making the live/die decision(s) will have appropriated for themselves.

Then there is the flip side to this counterfeit coin: the nutty fascist pro-life lobby.

Ariel Sharon died eight years ago following a massive stroke, yet he didn't officially die until a few weeks ago. Why? He "survived" because we now have the technology to keep him in stasis almost indefinitely. Sadly there are those who will, and do, fight tooth and nail to prevent the drip from being reduced or the switch being thrown in order to preserve life. Just as the euthanasia proponents claim, they know what is best.

There has to be a middle way between these extremes, but that might too difficult a path for us to want take. KISS.

There was a doctor who had been in practice from Bedford, for 50 years on Five Live around (I think) 2 a.m this morning. He sounded senile
He agreed with euthanasia, then he didn't agree with it, he mumbled when asked whether he had ended people's lives, his answer was incoherent .
God help us from the likes of him. Lucky he is healthy in body if not mind
If he was taken to hospital he would probably be put down because of his age and taking up a bed!!!