Anglican Bishop: Euthanase Disabled Babies

[She]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20745558-23289,00.html

:cry:

THE Church of England has joined one of Britain's royal medical colleges in calling for legal euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.
Church leaders want doctors to be given the right to withhold treatment from such disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances.

Their call, overriding the presumption that life should be preserved at any cost, follows that of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology last week.

The church's position was laid out in a submission to an independent inquiry, which is due to publish its report this week, into the ethical concerns surrounding the treatment of severely premature babies.

The Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, was said to have written that "it may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death".

:cry:

[No Swansong]

Withholding or withdrawing treatment is not euthanasia. There is a philosophical difference between causing death and allowing death. Now I am not arguing that allowing death is necessarily ethical, only that it is not the same thing as causing it.

[Incubator]

We should probably wait until the report is released before responding to it.

[JoshuaCh1v9]

I agree.

There is a danger of knee jerk reaction to this.

far better to wait for the report and respond accordingly.

[Fairbairn]

The report was published yesterday.

It said that we should not resuscitate babies born before 21 weeks because non have ever survived long enough to leave hospital. 22 weekers there is a 1% survival rate (long enough to leave hospital) but usually with serious long-term problems, therefore these babies should not be given active treatment to keep them alive. At 23 weeks, there is a 17% survival rate, and any decisions should be in partnership with parents.

[kiwimac]

Seems fairly moderate to me.

[She]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2451191,00.html

Going further than any mainstream Church leader has done before, the bishop said that there may be circumstances when it is morally acceptable to perform a “possibly lethal act”.

Dr Butler has submitted a paper to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a think-tank that advises on moral dilemmas created by scientific advances. The council — of clinicians, lawyers, philosophers, scientists and theologians — will publish guidance on Thursday about how to deal with very premature and very sick babies.

Medical advances now enable some babies to survive at 22 weeks gestation even when they are so premature that they could have been legally aborted at 24 weeks.

The bishop made his submission as public affairs’ vice-chairman for the Church’s Mission and Public Affairs Council. He said: “For a Christian, death is not the end, and is not to be avoided at all costs.”

The evangelical wing of the Church gave warning that the views were a slippery slope towards euthanasia, and the Roman Catholic Church issued a statement defending the right to life.

[kiwimac]

The witholding of extreme measures to save a life does not equal euthanasia.

[No Swansong]

As one who does not support abortion (well rarely) I cannot disagree with this proposition.

[DeoJuvante]

Yeah, this is hardly extreme. In fact it was the only option between the dawn of humanity and the last few decades.

[ContraMundum]

One of my kids was one of the most premature babaies ever born in the hospital he was born in. To think that these fools would disregard his right to life in favour of some arbitrary time-limit just makes me wonder about what spirit would be running their lives.

[ContraMundum]

Another thought that occurs when discussing this is the tremendous lack of catechesis evident here.

Christianity 101: Every prohibitive commandment has an obligation with it to be pro-active to reverse it. eg. The commandment "thou shalt not murder" means that not only are we forbidden to murder but that in fact we should be pro-active in fighting to protect, preserve and heal life.

Luther put it this way:
"You shall not kill.
What does this mean for us?
We are to fear and love God so that we do not hurt our neighbor in any way, but help him with all his physical needs."

So, to sit by and watch or let someone die when the means to keep them alive is within our abilities is to in fact break the commandment and be guilty of murder. Don't forget that babies are somebodies.

This is basic Christianity, folks, and the interpretation of the commandments in that light has not only ancient precedent but ancient consensus. Let's not skirt around this with semantics- fighting to help maintain a life when we have the ability to do so is to be faithful to God's commandments. To be neutral is unfaithful, and thus, sinful.

[Wigglesworth]

Well done, Contra.

:crossrc:

Perhaps those who oppose the death penalty would approve of withholding food from inmates, since they are destined to die within sixty years or so anyway.

[Fairbairn]

One of my kids was one of the most premature babaies ever born in the hospital he was born in. To think that these fools would disregard his right to life in favour of some arbitrary time-limit just makes me wonder about what spirit would be running their lives.
The time limit is not arbitrary, though.

[ContraMundum]

The time limit is not arbitrary, though.
It appears to be arbitrary to me. Perhaps I see it in a different way to others.

[Fairbairn]

It's based on hard evidence. This only affects babies born at 22 weeks gestation or less.

[Aymn27]

It's based on hard evidence. This only affects babies born at 22 weeks gestation or less.
1% is enough "probability" to try it...I just can't see standing by and watching something die - I don't even do that to little birds who have fallen out the nest - cost is irrelevant....it all seems barbaric to me..

[Fairbairn]

1% is enough "probability" to try it...I just can't see standing by and watching something die - I don't even do that to little birds who have fallen out the nest - cost is irrelevant....it all seems barbaric to me..
Policy makers have to look at a much bigger picture, though. There are finite resources, and the best use has to be made of these resources. It does come down to cost vs survival rates (and quality of life).

[Fairbairn]

Here is an article commenting on the Church's position, with a link to original news article.

http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=545

[No Swansong]

1% is enough "probability" to try it...I just can't see standing by and watching something die - I don't even do that to little birds who have fallen out the nest - cost is irrelevant....it all seems barbaric to me..
I see no reason to not make the number 21 weeks. After all Aymn is correct 1% means that survival is possible. We do have a responsibility to give those least able to care for themselves care.

The point is that there is a point when survival is impossible. It is at that point the line should be drawn.

[Fairbairn]

I see no reason to not make the number 21 weeks. After all Aymn is correct 1% means that survival is possible. We do have a responsibility to give those least able to care for themselves care.

The point is that there is a point when survival is impossible. It is at that point the line should be drawn.
And perhaps the money that is diverted to saving a handful of babies (with a very dubious quality of life for them and their families), thousands of women don't get adequate treatment for breast cancer, etc.

[No Swansong]

And perhaps the money that is diverted to saving a handful of babies (with a very dubious quality of life for them and their families), thousands of women don't get adequate treatment for breast cancer, etc.
I understand the concern Fairburn, but I am not ready to make judgements about the value of another person's life. Or to decide which life (the premie, or the woman with breast cancer) has more value. Others may be comfortable making such value judgements. I am not.

[Fairbairn]

It's probably good that none of us are policy makers on these issues, then!

Hard decisions do have to be made. No society can afford all the medical care it wants.

[Aymn27]

Policy makers have to look at a much bigger picture, though. There are finite resources, and the best use has to be made of these resources. It does come down to cost vs survival rates (and quality of life).
we can (here in the US - not familiar with your govt) pay for war, welfare, pork barrel projects, etc etc....if the likelihood of the baby living is so low - I highly doubt it will live for long enough where the costs are enormous. I'm sorry - doctors take oaths to save lives - not lives that are easy to save or "just right" but all life - even with the smallest "chance" it is their duty and it is ours to support life no matter what...

[Aymn27]

I understand the concern Fairburn, but I am not ready to make judgements about the value of another person's life. Or to decide which life (the premie, or the woman with breast cancer) has more value. Others may be comfortable making such value judgements. I am not.
Indeed, because if it comes down to judgement based on worth - females are much more expensive to maintain medically and do not "produce" as much economically - so maybe we should try to let more females die when there are medical complications and save more males - if we're after a bottom line assessment...

[higgs2]

Tell me about "The Australian".

[She]

Indeed, because if it comes down to judgement based on worth - females are much more expensive to maintain medically and do not "produce" as much economically - so maybe we should try to let more females die when there are medical complications and save more males - if we're after a bottom line assessment...

Thanks for the warning. I would not put it past a male NHS doctor to think this way. I must remember to get a female gynaecologist to do my operation...... I wonder whether that would be safer?

I've noticed something interesting in this thread. The people who are more pro-life were all raised as Catholics.......

[Aymn27]

Thanks for the warning. I would not put it past a male NHS doctor to think this way. I must remember to get a female gynaecologist to do my operation...... I wonder whether that would be safer?

I've noticed something interesting in this thread. The people who are more pro-life were all raised as Catholics.......
She - I just offered it up as an example...who draws the line, where, what "cost", for what reason?????????

and you are most likely correct - we ex-papists still have some hang ups!

[ebia]

She - I just offered it up as an example...who draws the line, where, what "cost", for what reason?????????

and you are most likely correct - we ex-papists still have some hang ups!
Someone has to draw a line somewhere. The people who decide where the money goes will only ever give the NHS a finite amount of that. Someone in the government or NHS somewhere has to make hard choices about how that money is spent. Whatever you chose to do means something else cannot be done.

I'm also not convinced that spending a large amount of effort to give someone a very small amount chance of a very poor quality life is actually merciful.

[Fairbairn]

we can (here in the US - not familiar with your govt) pay for war, welfare, pork barrel projects, etc etc....if the likelihood of the baby living is so low - I highly doubt it will live for long enough where the costs are enormous. I'm sorry - doctors take oaths to save lives - not lives that are easy to save or "just right" but all life - even with the smallest "chance" it is their duty and it is ours to support life no matter what...

In the USA, around half the population are denied full medical care. In some way or another, society decides that it can't afford to care for these people.

It's naive to think there are no limits on how much health care we can afford. A line has to be drawn somewhere. It's fairly easy to see where the money goes here in the UK - the bottom line is that if you put more money into the health service, less goes to education and social services. Now here, about 8% of GDP goes to health care (both NHS and private), and it's around 14% in the US (or was, the last time I looked a few years ago). There isn't a lot of public sentiment to pay more than that. The resources are very finite.

There is no concept of men being more valuable that women in UK society. I am rather dismayed that this seems to be the case in the US.

Treatment here is research based - there has to be evidence of clinical effectiveness of the treatment (unless it's a research project), and the cost of treatment vs survival rates or quality of life is a key deciding factor of whether something is publicly funded or not.

[Aymn27]

Someone has to draw a line somewhere. The people who decide where the money goes will only ever give the NHS a finite amount of that. Someone in the government or NHS somewhere has to make hard choices about how that money is spent. Whatever you chose to do means something else cannot be done.

I'm also not convinced that spending a large amount of effort to give someone a very small amount chance of a very poor quality life is actually merciful.
Again, I have no idea how your system works - so I can't comment on it..

The term "quality of life" really bothers me here - are you saying that one person's worth outweighs another by some arbitrary "quality" - like I'm worth more and more should be spent saving my life than someone in a wheelchair or who is downs syndrome? I thought we had defeated Nazism???!!

[Aymn27]

In the USA, around half the population are denied full medical care. In some way or another, society decides that it can't afford to care for these people.Honestly (and I know you got that from somewhere it's not your invention or anything) that statement is such a load of bunk it is laughable. I suppose illegals who are here ILLEGALLY and do not pay a dime into the system get counted as those without healthcare - EVEN THOUGH they are BANKRUPTING the system in several states....

It's naive to think there are no limits on how much health care we can afford. A line has to be drawn somewhere. It's fairly easy to see where the money goes here in the UK - the bottom line is that if you put more money into the health service, less goes to education and social services. Now here, about 8% of GDP goes to health care (both NHS and private), and it's around 14% in the US (or was, the last time I looked a few years ago). There isn't a lot of public sentiment to pay more than that. The resources are very finite.You are really arguing with the wrong person on this because I don't believe the govt is responsible for ANYONE's health care - that's right - not one person. Individuals can take care of their own health care needs or purchase insurance for it. The market system has a way of controlling costs, prices, etc without the govt ever getting involved. Those people that I know on govt healthcare abuse it without any regard - and almost all of them are perfectly able to get out of their home and get a job to pay for their own. I am against socialized ANYTHING - even education.


There is no concept of men being more valuable that women in UK society. I am rather dismayed that this seems to be the case in the US.
Actually, there is..check out insurance premiums for employers and group plans or try to add a female of child bearing age to an individual healthcare plan - the market provides the numbers and women are much more expensive to take care of medically than men are...

My point about that though is assigning "worth" to anyone is arbitrary and ridiculous. With finite funding we start to cut off the "less likely to have a high quality of life" and we can start to kill off old people, young babies, people with mental handicaps, etc etc - so why not just choose men over women - if in the long run, women are more expensive..?

[SumTinWong]

I work with disabled children and adults. It isn't about the money it is about life. Most of the people i work with are not viable assets to the economy or to soceity, but they are viable in the eys of God and those of us who love them.

I am pro life full bore. Leave them in God's hands, if it comes down to fianances then we suck and we deserve die along with them.

JMHO.

[She]

I work with disabled children and adults. It isn't about the money it is about life. Most of the people i work with are not viable assets to the economy or to soceity, but they are viable in the eys of God and those of us who love them.

I am pro life full bore. Leave them in God's hands, if it comes down to fianances then we suck and we deserve die along with them.

JMHO.

Were you raised Catholic too?

Doesn't it bother anyone that an Anglican Bishop has written a report supporting "allowing" premature babies to die? This was an official document on behalf of the Church of England and was directed at a medical commission who will, most probably, influence a change in the law, in England, concerning this. Why doesn't that bother any of you?

[gtsecc]

No one in the US is denied medical care. Anyone at any time may walk into any emergency room, and they will not be denied care.

[No Swansong]

Thanks for the warning. I would not put it past a male NHS doctor to think this way. I must remember to get a female gynaecologist to do my operation...... I wonder whether that would be safer?

I've noticed something interesting in this thread. The people who are more pro-life were all raised as Catholics.......
If that is true I don't fit the norm. I certainly was not raised Catholic

[Aymn27]

Were you raised Catholic too?

Doesn't it bother anyone that an Anglican Bishop has written a report supporting "allowing" premature babies to die? This was an official document on behalf of the Church of England and was directed at a medical commission who will, most probably, influence a change in the law, in England, concerning this. Why doesn't that bother any of you?
She,
I am bothered by this, but I am just as bothered by statements from other religions which address the need for global warming initiatives, how to deal with AIDS, etc - I don't think we can agree with every thing that comes forth from every church. I know you were raised Catholic - have you ever considered how many people were murdered at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. It really boils down being right with Christ - no matter what your "denomination" says -

[Aymn27]

I work with disabled children and adults. It isn't about the money it is about life. Most of the people i work with are not viable assets to the economy or to soceity, but they are viable in the eys of God and those of us who love them.

I am pro life full bore. Leave them in God's hands, if it comes down to fianances then we suck and we deserve die along with them.

JMHO.
You hit the nail on the head! I'd rep you but my little repping power wouldn't make an effect on you! I couldn't agree more!

[No Swansong]

Yeah well I'm gonna rep him anyway.

[ebia]

Again, I have no idea how your system works - so I can't comment on it..

The term "quality of life" really bothers me here - are you saying that one person's worth outweighs another by some arbitrary "quality" - like I'm worth more and more should be spent saving my life than someone in a wheelchair or who is downs syndrome? I thought we had defeated Nazism???!!
No, I'm not saying that.

Nazi references in less than 4 pages - can't we have a civil debate on anything here?

[She]

If that is true I don't fit the norm. I certainly was not raised Catholic

Sorry. I thought you were.

She,
I am bothered by this, but I am just as bothered by statements from other religions which address the need for global warming initiatives, how to deal with AIDS, etc - I don't think we can agree with every thing that comes forth from every church. I know you were raised Catholic - have you ever considered how many people were murdered at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. It really boils down being right with Christ - no matter what your "denomination" says -

Yes, I know. But I'm worried about how my children will turn out. I'm glad to learn that some people here, who were not raised as Roman Catholics, still have strong pro-life views.

No, I'm not saying that.
Nazi references in less than 4 pages - can't we have a civil debate on anything here?

No, because, to most people eugenics = Nazi. Wars were fought, multitudes of men died, to stop the Nazi's and there eugenic policies. Forgive us, therefore, for wondering why they bothered.

[No Swansong]

No, I'm not saying that.

Nazi references in less than 4 pages - can't we have a civil debate on anything here?
Actually I can't remember the last Nazi referrence made here. As for this one I understand how She sees that it is apt.

[Aymn27]

No, I'm not saying that.

Nazi references in less than 4 pages - can't we have a civil debate on anything here?
I really did not intend to be uncivil or to call you a Nazi - that was really not my intent and I apologize if that is how you took it. However, I do see the idea that there is a "superior" type of person to be equal to the Nazi idea of a "master" race.

[ebia]

Accepted.

I don't subscribe to any idea that there is a 'superior' type of person, and I wasn't suggesting anything resembling eugenics or that they are of less value.

I was suggesting that it may not always be merciful to save someone's life if, say, all they are ever going to know is a short life of intense pain.

[ContraMundum]

Tell me about "The Australian".
It's the national newspaper of Australia. It's not a rag at all- respected, mainstream, national circulation. It's owned either by Murdoch or Fairfax- can't remember.

[ContraMundum]

Thanks for the warning. I would not put it past a male NHS doctor to think this way. I must remember to get a female gynaecologist to do my operation...... I wonder whether that would be safer?

Somehow, I don't think there is any gender issue here. The thread is about babies.

I've noticed something interesting in this thread. The people who are more pro-life were all raised as Catholics.......
I'm not an ex-Catholic. :) I was raised in another religion altogether.

[ebia]

It's the national newspaper of Australia. It's not a rag at all- respected, mainstream, national circulation. It's owned either by Murdoch or Fairfax- can't remember.
Murdoch.

In English terms it's not quite broadsheet standard (only the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (Melbourne) are comparible to English broadsheets but the Australian isn't bad (and it's the only mainstream national paper in Australia).

[ContraMundum]

There's one thing I think might be worth discussing- God's action in the life of a human. Does God create life in the womb? If God is out there actively giving and creating life, then He is obviously pro-life. Shouldn't we be too and be active co-operatives in His endeavor to bring life? Isn't that why His first commandment is "go forth and multiply?

How about this as well? Doesn't God work through the life of the physcially and mentally impaired? I believe he does, and thus we can never place any kind of value or judgment on the life of someone who has disabilities.

Lastly- I personally know a kid born at 19-20wks gestation who is alive and well. He has a few motor problems, that's all.

[erin74]

Policy makers have to look at a much bigger picture, though. There are finite resources, and the best use has to be made of these resources. It does come down to cost vs survival rates (and quality of life).
Isn't this the same argument used against women who choose NOT to abort their child when told by medical staff that it will have abnormalities.

We know people who this happened to. Enormous amount of pressure was exerted to get them to abort. They chose not to. The baby was born with no abnormalities.

But the point I am making is that this argument is used against them - that they are somehow selfish to allow the pregnancy to continue because it will be a strain on resources.

Also - at some stages it was unlikely that a baby born at 28 weeks would survive. Now it happens regularly. If this law was introduced earlier there would be a lot of children who would not have been given the chance to live.

[erin74]

Someone has to draw a line somewhere. The people who decide where the money goes will only ever give the NHS a finite amount of that. Someone in the government or NHS somewhere has to make hard choices about how that money is spent. Whatever you chose to do means something else cannot be done.

I'm also not convinced that spending a large amount of effort to give someone a very small amount chance of a very poor quality life is actually merciful.
Your post got me thinking - isn't this almost opposite to the embryonic stem cell research debate.

In that one we are destroying life, and putting women at risk for the sake of a small possibility that someone might have an improvement in their quality of life.

In this case we are allowing a life to be destroyed rather than trying to save it. Instead we want to redirect the funds elsewhere.

It seems to me that our legislators are show no concern for those who don't have a voice, but will sacrifice them for those who do. Let's just pray they never work out a way to utilise body parts of premature babies to 'fix' other people.

[ebia]

Your post got me thinking - isn't this almost opposite to the embryonic stem cell research debate.

In that one we are destroying life, and putting women at risk for the sake of a small possibility that someone might have an improvement in their quality of life.
I don't think this is entirely fair. Using unwanted embryos involves no destroying of life that wasn't going to be destroyed anyway, no risk to women that wasn't already present, and (if it goes ahead) is pretty much certain to bring improvements to the quality of life for some people eventually. (Not that I'm necessarly in favour of it.)


In this case we are allowing a life to be destroyed rather than trying to save it. Instead we want to redirect the funds elsewhere.

It seems to me that our legislators are show no concern for those who don't have a voice, but will sacrifice them for those who do.
Again this is, IMO, unfair - it's not the same money. How much of the funding for stem-cell research is government money that even could be redirected to healthcare? And lets not forget most of the benefits of stem-cell reseach will be for those who do not currently have a voice.

One will always have to make the choice somewhere that "this is too expensive when weighed against the probablility of favourable outcome". The only debate can be about where one does that, and also whether a life should always be saved no matter how much suffering patient will have to endure if they are saved. We recognise when someone finally dies after a long period of very serious suffering that "it was a mercy really". Can it never be justified to allow that mercy to happen sooner?

[erin74]

I don't think this is entirely fair. Using unwanted embryos involves no destroying of life that wasn't going to be destroyed anyway, no risk to women that wasn't already present, and (if it goes ahead) is pretty much certain to bring improvements to the quality of life for some people eventually. (Not that I'm necessarly in favour of it.)

Actually a lot of that is just the media hype.
In order to do stem cell research a human clone must be created from the person it is intended to aid. This is then destroyed in order to harvest the stem cells for the person.
The IVF surplus ones have barely been touched in the last 4 years as they are not actually that useful for researchers.
In other countries the only thing they have managed to create with this technology is tumours. Adult stem cell research is far more successful - 30,000 clinical cases already. Many different types of treatments.
I've done a fair stack of reading on this. I would be happy to forward you information or refer you to some interesting sites.

I haven't even mentioned the effects on women this technology will have - they need 1,000 eggs to even make one successful cloned embryo - this is not without risks for women.


Again this is, IMO, unfair - it's not the same money. How much of the funding for stem-cell research is government money that even could be redirected to healthcare? And lets not forget most of the benefits of stem-cell reseach will be for those who do not currently have a voice.
But it is still a case of the ends justifying the means, which is my concern.

Sorry - don't mean to go OT -and am certainly not trying to have a shot at you - it was just that your comment made me think.


One will always have to make the choice somewhere that "this is too expensive when weighed against the probablility of favourable outcome".
But the adult stem cell research will suffer because of the embryonic stem cell research, and yet it is far more successful, and far more likely to be successful (even down to the recent discovery of pluripotent cells in pigs)



The only debate can be about where one does that, and also whether a life should always be saved no matter how much suffering patient will have to endure if they are saved. We recognise when someone finally dies after a long period of very serious suffering that "it was a mercy really". Can it never be justified to allow that mercy to happen sooner?

Who grants the mercy?

I guess one of my concerns is the distinction between not treating someone who is unwell, and withholding life giving substances such as food. I have heard of a child with a disability being not fed and living for well over a week. To me this is not 'allowing to die', but aiding in death. If they were dying as a consequence of not treating an illness that would be different (still not sure I agree though, just making a distinction).

Sorry - I am thinking outloud!

[ebia]

Sorry - don't mean to go OT -and am certainly not trying to have a shot at you - it was just that your comment made me think.
That's ok - I didn't read it as having a go at me, just as continuing the conversation.


But the adult stem cell research will suffer because of the embryonic stem cell research, and yet it is far more successful, and far more likely to be successful (even down to the recent discovery of pluripotent cells in pigs)
Perhaps so.

Who grants the mercy?
Unfortunately in some instances we are faced with the choice - do nothing and let nature take its course (which might be the merciful option) - or act, save the life, but not allow the mercy to happen.

I guess one of my concerns is the distinction between not treating someone who is unwell, and withholding life giving substances such as food. I have heard of a child with a disability being not fed and living for well over a week. To me this is not 'allowing to die', but aiding in death. If they were dying as a consequence of not treating an illness that would be different (still not sure I agree though, just making a distinction).
That's a fair distinction. I do think we owe it those lives we could 'save' to discuss the grey areas openly rather than say "we will never turn down the opportunity to try and save a life, no matter what the consequences".

Sorry - I am thinking outloud!
Me too.

[SumTinWong]

Were you raised Catholic too?
No Pentecostal.

Doesn't it bother anyone that an Anglican Bishop has written a report supporting "allowing" premature babies to die?
Yes.

This was an official document on behalf of the Church of England and was directed at a medical commission who will, most probably, influence a change in the law, in England, concerning this. Why doesn't that bother any of you?
It does, and I said so.

[ContraMundum]

As yet, no one has put forward a theological argument as to why this Bishop could be right.

That's interesting, isn't it? We used to judge our clergy according to their doctrine. Perhaps sociology is more important than theology in the current atmosphere?

[Fairbairn]

As yet, no one has put forward a theological argument as to why this Bishop could be right.

That's interesting, isn't it? We used to judge our clergy according to their doctrine. Perhaps sociology is more important than theology in the current atmosphere?
What does it say in the Bible?

[kiwimac]

The Bible really never addresses this issue for the very good reason that children born at this stage of development then simply died.

The Bishop is not recommending that these children be killed, he is asking if it is the best focus for the health-care dollar.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the question of funding DOES arise and MUST be answered and the only way to do that is to raise these kinds of questions.

[ebia]

As yet, no one has put forward a theological argument as to why this Bishop could be right.
Perhaps because the primary question isn't a theological one but a practical one - how do we best use a finite set of resources in a situation that could absorb unlimited resoruces.

The only remotely theological question would seem to be something like "at what point does mercy overide the presumption that all life should be saved". No-one here seems keen to graple with that one.

That's interesting, isn't it? We used to judge our clergy according to their doctrine. Perhaps sociology is more important than theology in the current atmosphere?
Perhaps how they apply their faith to the hard questions and grey areas of the real world is at least as important as theories construced in ivory towers. (I don't see where +Southwark has said anything theologically contraversial anyway - he's pretty orthodox if memory serves correctly.)

[ContraMundum]

What does it say in the Bible?

Well, if I could respond to all the above posts by firstly redirecting you to my earlier post regarding the commandment that forbids murder, there's the first part of your answer.

Here, is what the Bible teaches, in point form.

1) God creates life and continues to create life.
2) God commands humans to go forth and multiply. He thus commands us to co-operate with His creative work.
3) God forbids the taking of a human life without cause.
4) God demands that humans protect and nurture life in response to point 3.


The Bible really never addresses this issue for the very good reason that children born at this stage of development then simply died.

This is beside the point. Just because they didn't have the technology to preserve life doesn't mean they were blissfully unaware of their obligation to fulfill the mitzva of preserving and protecting life at all costs.

The Bishop is not recommending that these children be killed, he is asking if it is the best focus for the health-care dollar.

Which would not be his business. He's not an economist or a politician. A wise man knows when to remain silent despite his good intentions or personal opinions.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the question of funding DOES arise and MUST be answered and the only way to do that is to raise these kinds of questions.

The problem is that the following of God's commands must always be above any financial concerns. The Christian must always be faithful to what God says and be prepared to pay the price regardless of the cost. That's the price of being a disciple.

Perhaps because the primary question isn't a theological one but a practical one - how do we best use a finite set of resources in a situation that could absorb unlimited resoruces.

I think there is a valid theological response to that question- we respond according to what God has taught us and let Him bless us for it. The funding will turn up. It has in the past, no problems.

[gtsecc]

What does it say in the Bible?
That is not how Christians do theology.
The book doesn't “self exegit” itself, you have to have a Church to do that.

[Aymn27]

Well, if I could respond to all the above posts by firstly redirecting you to my earlier post regarding the commandment that forbids murder, there's the first part of your answer.

Here, is what the Bible teaches, in point form.

1) God creates life and continues to create life.
2) God commands humans to go forth and multiply. He thus commands us to co-operate with His creative work.
3) God forbids the taking of a human life without cause.
4) God demands that humans protect and nurture life in response to point 3.



This is beside the point. Just because they didn't have the technology to preserve life doesn't mean they were blissfully unaware of their obligation to fulfill the mitzva of preserving and protecting life at all costs.



Which would not be his business. He's not an economist or a politician. A wise man knows when to remain silent despite his good intentions or personal opinions.



The problem is that the following of God's commands must always be above any financial concerns. The Christian must always be faithful to what God says and be prepared to pay the price regardless of the cost. That's the price of being a disciple.



I think there is a valid theological response to that question- we respond according to what God has taught us and let Him bless us for it. The funding will turn up. It has in the past, no problems.
can I borrow your brain? mine doesn't work as well as yours:P

[ebia]

Which would not be his business. He's not an economist or a politician. A wise man knows when to remain silent despite his good intentions or personal opinions.
I couldn't disagree more - Christians not just should but must get involved in trying to deal with the hard questions and grey areas, even in situations where all one can do is look for the least bad option.


I think there is a valid theological response to that question- we respond according to what God has taught us and let Him bless us for it.
I don't think Christ has taught us to sit on a high-horse and say "you must try and save everybody" to a world that cannot try and save everybody.

[/quote]The funding will turn up. It has in the past, no problems.[/quote]
This is simply untrue - the NHS always has and always will have to make choices about when not to treat. A church that sits there and demands infinite resources for healthcare and won't engage with a real world where healthcare only has finite resources and cannot attempt to save everyone is avoiding it's responsibility.

[gtsecc]

I think you missed CM's point; the context for making decisions is Christendom, not politics or economics.
If you are looking for answers in the wrong context, you have already lost the battle.

In Chrisendom, monastics ran the hospitals and Orphanges.

The solution is rebuilding our monastic communities.

I went to a school with Anglican monastics - an astonishing number of my childhood classmates, even the non believers and Jews, have converted, and are now Anglican.

[ebia]

I think you missed CM's point; the context for making decisions is Christendom, not politics or economics.
If you are looking for answers in the wrong context, you have already lost the battle.
An answer that ignores the reality of the situation you are addressing isn't an answer at all.

In Chrisendom, monastics ran the hospitals and Orphanges.
Even they had to make hard choices about how the money was spent. Our school is still run by the Sisters of Mercy, but it still has to make hard choices about how to spend it's money.

[gtsecc]

[/color]
An answer that ignores the reality of the situation you are addressing isn't an answer at all.


Q: Which disciples looked at the reality of the situation?

A: Judas

[ebia]

Q: Which disciples looked at the reality of the situation?

A: Judas
Seems to me Christ set aside the religious answer to engage with the reality of the situation time and time again in the gospel stories. What's Christmas if not Christ coming down to engage with the reality of the situation?

[karen freeinchristman]

Seems to me Christ set aside the religious answer to engage with the reality of the situation time and time again in the gospel stories. What's Christmas if not Christ coming down to engage with the reality of the situation?
Inspired reply, ebia! :thumbsup:

[kiwimac]

The command to not murder does not fit this situation because murder is described as an 'illegal taking of life.' Abortion is not illegal thus it is not murder.

[Aymn27]

Seems to me Christ set aside the religious answer to engage with the reality of the situation time and time again in the gospel stories. What's Christmas if not Christ coming down to engage with the reality of the situation?
Actually, he set aside the LAW - the ones that negated the Word of God. Remember, it wasn't just religious legalism but law - Jesus, always restored life. He didn't let the ill/sick die, but healed them - even raising his friend from the dead. Those who chose "death" chose it on their own - leaving his life-giving word in favor of their own limitations and peragotives...

[ContraMundum]

I couldn't disagree more - Christians not just should but must get involved in trying to deal with the hard questions and grey areas, even in situations where all one can do is look for the least bad option.

I don't think this kind of reductionism is what Christianity is about. We are to speak only where God has spoken, and very, very rarely is this fuzzy or that somehow situations could arise where there isn't a clear theological answer. Nine times out of ten the scriptures give us clear, concise answers that we have no option but to work out how to apply. The problem as I see is that Christians are just too lazy to work hard at finding answers from sacred sources, and once they find them, they are equally as lazy to apply them. "It's all too hard- let the government do it".

What the bishop has done is basically make a moral judgement based not upon Divine revelation, but upon a broken secular system. He has made a grave and stupid error in my opinion.

This isn't about not speaking into areas that may appear grey, but rather about shining light upon grey areas. Its about solving hard questions with harder answers.

I don't think Christ has taught us to sit on a high-horse and say "you must try and save everybody" to a world that cannot try and save everybody.

I don't think so either, but He does command us to teach according to His revealed truth, and nothing more.

This is simply untrue - the NHS always has and always will have to make choices about when not to treat. A church that sits there and demands infinite resources for healthcare and won't engage with a real world where healthcare only has finite resources and cannot attempt to save everyone is avoiding it's responsibility.

That is a rather strange spin on my post. What you are saying is that the church must teach according to a reality that the secular system with its values has created.

I say that is merely treating a symptom, not the disease.

The reality is that funding always turns up for causes people believe in. We should be asking whether or not we believe in this cause enough to sacrifice ourselves and our money for it, and judging by the responses in this thread, it is obvious that many do not.

The church does not have to decide where government health money goes. The church must merely say what God says, and let the secular world deal with it, which our positive support.

After all, are we here to attest to the benevolence of the governments of this world, or of the benevolence of Christ and His people???

[ContraMundum]

The command to not murder does not fit this situation because murder is described as an 'illegal taking of life.' Abortion is not illegal thus it is not murder.
Illegal according to who? The world and its values or God and His?

Obviously, when the commandment prohibiting murder was given, the context was according to God's will, not the world's or Pharoah's.

Just because a secular government deems something not to be murder doesn't make it so. God makes the rules about such things, not governments.

[ContraMundum]

Seems to me Christ set aside the religious answer to engage with the reality of the situation time and time again in the gospel stories. What's Christmas if not Christ coming down to engage with the reality of the situation?
I don't think this is true either.

Jesus didn't leave visible reality as master over His word or His ministry. Rather, He changed reality according to His Divine will and the revealed truth of the scriptures. That's what a miracle is.

We should imitate Him. If His word teaches that abandoning the dying to their fate is wrong, then we should do what is right. He did. Remember also the parable of the Good Samaritan is about someone rescuing another from near death.

There is absolutely no scriptural basis to leave anyone for dead just because they don't look like they will survive. Rather, we have plenty of scriptural admonition to help those in need. This applies to premature births.

[Fairbairn]

What I find bewildering is that there is some kind of moral high ground on this thread that determines that a 21 week old foetus should be treated, even if it means prolonging a life of suffering, ahead of hundreds of others.

Well, I'm glad that the bishops have arrived at a sensible point of view.

[ContraMundum]

What I find bewildering is that there is some kind of moral high ground on this thread that determines that a 21 week old foetus should be treated, even if it means prolonging a life of suffering, ahead of hundreds of others.

Well, I'm glad that the bishops have arrived at a sensible point of view.
What makes you think that the Christian answer could be anything but fighting for the lives of all equally?

What the bishop has done here is make one life less valuable than another. Over money.

That's quite pathetic in my opinion, as the solution is not to solve the mess the secular system made, but rather to over-ride the system in favour of a truly pro-life Christian alternative.

Sadly, the dichotomy you have been compelled to accept is not acceptable.

Think about it- if this is just about money, then all you have to do is raise more money or divert it from immoral causes to moral ones like this. Not a problem if people are prepared to do something.

I suspect however, that with a defeatist, compromising, unsteady position the church won't compel much interest in saving the lives of the helpless.

[Fairbairn]

So, how much public money should go towards SCBUs?

What happens when all the SCBU beds are full, and another baby is born early? Do we turf an older ones out to let the new one in?

[ContraMundum]

So, how much public money should go towards SCBUs?

What happens when all the SCBU beds are full, and another baby is born early? Do we turf an older ones out to let the new one in?
This is a question of logistics, that's all. I'm not sure what this has to do with the theological responsibilities of the Church on what to teach and what not to teach.

You see, you're looking only at the immensity of the problem, and I would suggest that this problem is in fact probably not a big one.

Here's a question for you- do you think that if the church spoke in favour of helping all who need care equally the British health system would suddenly collapse? I don't. What would happen is that perhaps public awareness would raise, and just maybe more money would go towards the cause. However, if the church decides to say something clearly against God's revealed will, as it has, then all she is doing is contributing to the problem of laziness and apathy.

How big is our God and how strong is our faith?

Would you be prepared to pay a few pounds sterling per annum to improve the chances of those in need of help or not? I would have no problem with that, even if I had to go outside the government system to acheive that.

I really can't understand how you think helping premmie babies live is not an obligation. Just because the money might not be there doesn't mean it ceases to be a moral obligation.

[Naomi4Christ]

So what would you do if all the beds were full?

[ContraMundum]

So what would you do if all the beds were full?
Get more beds.

[Naomi4Christ]

The baby needs treatment now. It can't wait for beds to be ordered, manufactured and delivered. Or for nurses to be trained.

[ContraMundum]

The baby needs treatment now. It can't wait for beds to be ordered, manufactured and delivered. Or for nurses to be trained.
What's your point Naomi?

It seems that if all you want to do is burden me with the problems of the British health system then you're missing the point of this discussion. I don't claim to have the logistical answers to the hypothetical problem you pose. In fact, part of the thrust of my posts above is that people like me (and therefore the bishops) should keep our mouths shut when it comes to solving logistical problems with the British health system and just speak within our mandate- the moral position that is the right one to take.

However, I will take you up on this and give you a straight answer- if you are short of beds, get them. If you are short of funds, find them. Don't push aside the moral obligation to help those in need just because your system can't get it right and has created a mess.

Funny that other countries don't have this problem. You guys make it sound like the British economy is about as wealthy as the economy of the Darfur region. Somehow, I think this is all about shifting the blame.

So, I have to reverse the question to the Brits here: what would YOU do...or rather...what are you going to do? Will you just let them die because it's cheaper than saving them or will you work harder to find a Christian solution?

[Naomi4Christ]

What's your point Naomi?

It seems that if all you want to do is burden me with the problems of the British health system then you're missing the point of this discussion. I don't claim to have the logistical answers to the hypothetical problem you pose. In fact, part of the thrust of my posts above is that people like me (and therefore the bishops) should keep our mouths shut when it comes to solving logistical problems with the British health system and just speak within our mandate- the moral position that is the right one to take.

However, I will take you up on this and give you a straight answer- if you are short of beds, get them. If you are short of funds, find them. Don't push aside the moral obligation to help those in need just because your system can't get it right and has created a mess.

Funny that other countries don't have this problem. You guys make it sound like the British economy is about as wealthy as the economy of the Darfur region. Somehow, I think this is all about shifting the blame,


My point is that this is the reality, on the ground, in the UK. It is far from being a hypothetical problem - it is a decision that is made daily here.

Even if you doubled, tripled, quadrupled the number of beds and nurses, demand would eventually rise to the point where you have run out of beds and another baby is born. At this point, you have to make decisions that no one wants to make.

In the UK, we have an established church, which means that bishops do have a roll to play in determining public policy. They provide necessary checks and balances.

There are lots of moral obligations competing for the same pot of money - health services, education, and social services, being the key ones. We can increase taxation within certain limits (we are probably near the top of those limits in this particularly parliamentary cycle).

I don't think we are the only country that has this problem. It's a universal one - the concept that demand for medical resources will always outstrip supply. As for babies born too early, the Netherlands will only actively treat babies born at 25 weeks or later. I'm sure there are other examples if you hunted around.

[ContraMundum]

My point is that this is the reality, on the ground, in the UK. It is far from being a hypothetical problem - it is a decision that is made daily here.

Even if you doubled, tripled, quadrupled the number of beds and nurses, demand would eventually rise to the point where you have run out of beds and another baby is born. At this point, you have to make decisions that no one wants to make.

In the UK, we have an established church, which means that bishops do have a roll to play in determining public policy. They provide necessary checks and balances.

There are lots of moral obligations competing for the same pot of money - health services, education, and social services, being the key ones. We can increase taxation within certain limits (we are probably near the top of those limits in this particularly parliamentary cycle).

I don't think we are the only country that has this problem. It's a universal one - the concept that demand for medical resources will always outstrip supply. As for babies born too early, the Netherlands will only actively treat babies born at 25 weeks or later. I'm sure there are other examples if you hunted around.
Sorry Naomi, I'm not convinced that it is impossible to provide good medical care for any population in any wealthy nation. Also, I'm not convinced that demand for medical care will increase with spending.

I am of the opinion that private funding works just fine to fill in the gaps that public funding cannot provided there is enough interest in the cause- which is where your established church fits in. If it speaks the truth, that is, that God is truly interested in the health of premature babies, then it is creating interest by witnessing to the truth. This interest leads to more fiscal input, public and private, championed by believers. If, however, it wimps out and makes careless statements that water down its moral position and the moral obligation of believers, then of course it has failed in its duty and is only contributing to the status quo, which you point out is clearly unacceptable.

On a personal note, I am no stranger to this. As I mentioned, one of my own is a very early premmie. I've been through the whole experience, in a system that works. Everything went just fine, due to a good system.

[Naomi4Christ]

Sorry Naomi, I'm not convinced that it is impossible to provide good medical care for any population in any wealthy nation. Also, I'm not convinced that demand for medical care will increase with spending.

I am of the opinion that private funding works just fine to fill in the gaps that public funding cannot provided there is enough interest in the cause- which is where your established church fits in. If it speaks the truth, that is, that God is truly interested in the health of premature babies, then it is creating interest by witnessing to the truth. This interest leads to more fiscal input, public and private, championed by believers. If, however, it wimps out and makes careless statements that water down its moral position and the moral obligation of believers, then of course it has failed in its duty and is only contributing to the status quo, which you point out is clearly unacceptable.

On a personal note, I am no stranger to this. As I mentioned, one of my own is a very early premmie. I've been through the whole experience, in a system that works. Everything went just fine, due to a good system.

Private funding does not stretch to emergency or intensive care in this country.

I guess we are a pragmatic people who does not believe in treating futile and hopeless cases, as borne out by clinical and epidemiological research.

I really recommend that you skim the recommendation section of the Nuffield report (the first 30 or so pages). It is really very reasonable.

http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/CCD_web_version_8_November.pdf

This report has not only reviewed clinical evidence, but also the views of parents who have been through the system. The decision to treat a baby is not based on money but on clinical outcome and the amount of suffering that the baby has to endure as a result of potential treatment.

There has never been any call to actively euthenase sick babies. It is a case of not actively treating. If there is no treatment, the baby is still fed/hydrated (unless feeding causes addition suffering), given palliative care, and allowed to die with dignity.

What is wrong with letting God be God, and stop trying to play him?

[karen freeinchristman]

There is an article in today's Sunday Times all about this subject. Click here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2459723,00.html).

[catlover]

The problem is, what sort of "extreme circumstances" are these? Is a child with down syndrome or a cleft pallet considered extreme?

[higgs2]

This thread makes me want to go hug my children and get down on my knees and thank God that I have not had to deal with any of these issues personally. :(

[higgs2]

The problem is, what sort of "extreme circumstances" are these? Is a child with down syndrome or a cleft pallet considered extreme?

Of course not.

[ContraMundum]

This thread makes me want to go hug my children and get down on my knees and thank God that I have not had to deal with any of these issues personally. :(
Again,I think my point is slipping past.

There's nothing wrong with "playing God" when you're doing what He commands. Remember, we are His hands, feet etc. I really don't believe that leaving anyone to die is an allowable activity (or inactivity), and this especially when you have the capabillity to possibly save them.

This is the point. There's a moral issue here and an opportunity to do righteous good for someone in need. Forget the perception of British pragmatism, especially if it becomes an excuse for sin.

Looks to me like British Christians need to decide what they really believe and what they are prepared to do about it- and either revamp their system to a higher standard or just let people die because "it's too hard".

[ContraMundum]

This thread makes me want to go hug my children and get down on my knees and thank God that I have not had to deal with any of these issues personally. :(
Well, I have, and believe me, I'm glad I didn't have to put up with a weak and inept system like the one in question.

[ContraMundum]

There is an article in today's Sunday Times all about this subject. Click here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2459723,00.html).
Thanks for the article Karen, but after reading it, I think that Dr Brazier is woefully misguided and probably even stupid.

[higgs2]

Again,I think my point is slipping past.

There's nothing wrong with "playing God" when you're doing what He commands. Remember, we are His hands, feet etc. I really don't believe that leaving anyone to die is an allowable activity (or inactivity), and this especially when you have the capabillity to possibly save them.

This is the point. There's a moral issue here and an opportunity to do righteous good for someone in need. Forget the perception of British pragmatism, especially if it becomes an excuse for sin.

Looks to me like British Christians need to decide what they really believe and what they are prepared to do about it- and either revamp their system to a higher standard or just let people die because "it's too hard".

Actually, I don't think your point slipped past me at all. I didn't actually address your point, or anyone else's. I expressed the emotions I experienced while reading about this whole concept. Maybe not appropriate on a debate thread, but here in my congregational forum among people beside whom I post regularly, it seemed okay to do.

I am glad that your situation turned out okay, I imagine it must have been terribly difficult, and it makes sense that you have strong opinions about the topic.

[Naomi4Christ]

The problem is, what sort of "extreme circumstances" are these? Is a child with down syndrome or a cleft pallet considered extreme?
No.

[ebia]

Looks to me like British Christians need to decide what they really believe and what they are prepared to do about it- and either revamp their system to a higher standard or just let people die because "it's too hard".
This thread is getting nasty again - I'm going to bow out.

[Fairbairn]

This thread is getting nasty again - I'm going to bow out.
Good idea.

[SumTinWong]

This is a hot button issue. More and more of us know someone who has a kid with a disability or we know someone with a disability so it is hard to say, well, they are not viable and pose a problem to the economy, let's whack them now and save us a few pounds. Problem is we have no right to do this.

I have tried to stay out of this conversation because perhaps i am too close to it working with hundreds of these people every week, but I just gotta tell you to kill these people would have been awful. I see people from car wrecks that have lost most of their functions and just eek out an existence but they know me, and we are friends.

I see people with diseases that caught them while they were in their early teens and they are not expected to live beyond their early twenties, but they are my friends.

I see people every day that have big heads, small heads, high function, low function, in wheelchairs, with walkers, and all of them have accepted who they are and are trying to make their life better. As long as they do not give up on themselves how can we give up on them?

How many moms do i see every week say i never thought my baby would have cp, or Prater WIlly Syndrome, or Autism? But these moms and dads wouldn't trade these kids for "normal" kids for the most part because they have been so blessed by them.

I am bowing out of this thread as well. I am ashamed at some attitudes here . . .

[No Swansong]

Thanks for sharing Bud.
You have a unique perspective.

[artrx]

Originally Posted by catlover http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=29061036#post29061036)
The problem is, what sort of "extreme circumstances" are these? Is a child with down syndrome or a cleft pallet considered extreme?

No.

Of course not.


This is a hot button issue. More and more of us know someone who has a kid with a disability or we know someone with a disability so it is hard to say, well, they are not viable and pose a problem to the economy, let's whack them now and save us a few pounds. Problem is we have no right to do this.

I have tried to stay out of this conversation because perhaps i am too close to it working with hundreds of these people every week, but I just gotta tell you to kill these people would have been awful. I see people from car wrecks that have lost most of their functions and just eek out an existence but they know me, and we are friends.

I see people with diseases that caught them while they were in their early teens and they are not expected to live beyond their early twenties, but they are my friends.

I see people every day that have big heads, small heads, high function, low function, in wheelchairs, with walkers, and all of them have accepted who they are and are trying to make their life better. As long as they do not give up on themselves how can we give up on them?

How many moms do i see every week say i never thought my baby would have cp, or Prater WIlly Syndrome, or Autism? But these moms and dads wouldn't trade these kids for "normal" kids for the most part because they have been so blessed by them.

I am bowing out of this thread as well. I am ashamed at some attitudes here . . .


I don't understand anyone as saying or having attitudes as the one you seem to be infering. Wasn't the question about severely premature babies? I personally believe the choice should be left up to the parents, either way, but they should have all the facts to make an informed decision and pray without ceasing. IMHO not treating, and letting life take it's course is not euthanasia.

[ContraMundum]

This thread is getting nasty again - I'm going to bow out.
I wasn't trying to be nasty- sorry it read that way. I was just saying that this is really a faith issue. I'd like to challenge British Christians on this topic because it is important.

[ContraMundum]

Thanks for posting that Bud.

I don't know why you wish to bow out though. This thread isn't nearly as nasty as the ones dealing with tradition, gender roles and orientation etc.

[SumTinWong]

Because i think I am too close to the situation. Not only do I serve people with handicaps, I have one, and well, I get a tad over the top sometimes when people talk about us as though because we may need extra attention we are not worthy.

In my case it was just a club foot and some other birth defects that have not affected my functionality, but I was still looked ta as different and was not able to join the Army (even though I passed the physical and ran cross country very well in school) because of my foot and kids, well kids were pretty cruel.

So I really do not think I can be objective about this, and I gotta be nice because Jesus would want me to.

[Aymn27]

Thanks for posting that Bud.

I don't know why you wish to bow out though. This thread isn't nearly as nasty as the ones dealing with tradition, gender roles and orientation etc.
haha!!! I thought this thread was rather civil given the topic....

[She]

How many moms do i see every week say i never thought my baby would have cp, or Prater WIlly Syndrome, or Autism? But these moms and dads wouldn't trade these kids for "normal" kids for the most part because they have been so blessed by them.

Yes, we have been blessed by our autistic child.
Despite her communication problems, she is a happy child with a beautiful smile and a lovely personality. I would not trade her for another "normal child".


I don't understand anyone as saying or having attitudes as the one you seem to be infering. Wasn't the question about severely premature babies? I personally believe the choice should be left up to the parents, either way, but they should have all the facts to make an informed decision and pray without ceasing. IMHO not treating, and letting life take it's course is not euthanasia.

Many Christian people (Evangelical Anglicans, to name some) feel that, by the Bishop making that statement, he is saying that disabled people are not worth the effort. Some see it as the "thin end of the wedge".


So I really do not think I can be objective about this, and I gotta be nice because Jesus would want me to.

The disabled children need someone like you to speak up for them, especially in the Church community. If my daughter is not welcome in the Church, that means the rest of my children and ourselves, do not get to go to Church. I do not think that Jesus would approve of that.

[gtsecc]

Yes, we have been blessed by our autistic child.
Despite her communication problems, she is a happy child with a beautiful smile and a lovely personality. I would not trade her for another "normal child".



Many Christian people (Evangelical Anglicans, to name some) feel that, by the Bishop making that statement, he is saying that disabled people are not worth the effort. Some see it as the "thin end of the wedge".



The disabled children need someone like you to speak up for them, especially in the Church community. If my daughter is not welcome in the Church, that means the rest of my children and ourselves, do not get to go to Church. I do not think that Jesus would approve of that.
Actually, I believe you find self described evangelicals, defending the Bishop, not the "Catholics."

[SumTinWong]

Yes, we have been blessed by our autistic child.
Despite her communication problems, she is a happy child with a beautiful smile and a lovely personality. I would not trade her for another "normal child".
Then your daughter is a blessing and is blessed to have you as parents for sure :)

The disabled children need someone like you to speak up for them, especially in the Church community. If my daughter is not welcome in the Church, that means the rest of my children and ourselves, do not get to go to Church. I do not think that Jesus would approve of that.
Yeah but I think in this venue where things can be a bit more heated, I tend to over react to arguments rather than taking a calmer approach. If anyone remembers my outburst a few months ago they can attest that when a cause is dear to me, I get riled. I am trying to do the right thing by getting out now while the getting is good ;)

[No Swansong]

Then your daughter is a blessing and is blessed to have you as parents for sure :)


Yeah but I think in this venue where things can be a bit more heated, I tend to over react to arguments rather than taking a calmer approach. If anyone remembers my outburst a few months ago they can attest that when a cause is dear to me, I get riled. I am trying to do the right thing by getting out now while the getting is good ;)
Not sure what you are talking about Bud. When was that? Who did you have a disagreement with? I just don't remember. But I am sure both sides were gentle and not the least bit reactionary.

LOL

[No Swansong]

Don't lose your fire Bud. Better to be too hot than luke warm wouldn't you say?

[SumTinWong]

Not sure what you are talking about Bud. When was that? Who did you have a disagreement with? I just don't remember. But I am sure both sides were gentle and not the least bit reactionary.

LOL
I am glad you do not remember ;) Anyway I agree zeal is good, and it is beter to be hot than lukewarm, but some people like me need to articulate things in a way that helps not hurts the cause. I fell like I could hurt the cause if I was to continue, which is why I stay out of some talks.

I appreciate all the reps that I have gotten by the way for my posts in this thread. It means alot that whatever I have said may have given you reason to say you liked them. One never knows if one is on the right track until others tell them at times.

Peace.

If I may say though, lastly on this issue Random thoughts I have had while thinking about this issue and some postings here:

I am aware that there are people who are looking at the bottom line and consider what many with disabilities to have a lesser quality of life than they do. I also understand that these are well meaning wishes of folks who do not want to see babies in pain as well as families suffer, not too mention the tax payer footing the bill.

But if you will, the people who Jesus reached the most in teh Bible, were these types of people. He ate with them, healed them, and rejoices with them now in Glory I am sure. Whatever physical or mental anguish we have now we are assured that if covered by the blood of Christ, our suffering will not be for nothing.

I love my friends who are disabled because they prove to me every day that it is possible to get up and it is possible to suffer and be happy. I do not know many of them who wouldn't trade the pain for healing of some kind, but the majority suck it up and do not want anything from us but the rights we already have.

The issue at hand is about babies who for the most part will not make it. My hope is for that one or two that do, that their lives be blessed as much as the lives that are reading this. Killing them is the easy way out. We feel like we want to end the suffering, but the suffering does not end there, because now families have to face the what ifs, and one day may have to face the God who makes all life.

I do not envy a single soul who has to face this choice if it was me . . . I think we need to pray as hard as we can for not only the families that do face these choices, but the people that make the hard choice to stick it out. I pray hard for those who do not.

How I wish you could visit our facility and see the faces. Not all of them are pretty but they are ALL made in the image of God.

I leave you with this:

There is a power to helplessness
A virtue to powerlessness
A reason for civilization that not all men are given to know.

We, at last have found it.

The worth of the worthless is that they have made us worthy.

The help of the helpless is that they have made us at times a little lower than the angels.

And the use of the useless is they have forced us to find within ourselves the good we were not sure was there.

~Anonymous


Peace