Legal infanticide in the Netherlands

[Auralia]

Most people who support the legalization of euthanasia do so on the grounds of personal autonomy -- that an individual's right to control one's own life extends to the right to extinguish it, should he so choose. As such, it is absolutely critical that the individual in question provide voluntary informed consent before being euthanized, and to the best of my knowledge every state that has legalized euthanasia to date has included such a requirement in the appropriate legislation or case law.

Yet in the Netherlands, physicians are openly euthanizing infants -- who obviously cannot consent to being killed -- under the Groningen Protocol, a set of procedures for doing so established in consultation with the local district attorney.

A brief description of the protocol from Wikipedia:

The Groningen Protocol is a text created in September 2004 by Eduard Verhagen, the medical director of the department of pediatrics at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG) in Groningen, the Netherlands. It contains directives with criteria under which physicians can perform "active ending of life on infants" (child euthanasia) without fear of legal prosecution.

[...]

For the Dutch public prosecutor, the termination of a child's life (under age 12) is acceptable if 4 requirements were properly fulfilled:

1. The presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering
2. The consent of the parents to termination of life
3. Medical consultation having taken place
4. Careful execution of the termination

The criteria listed absolutely do not justify infanticide.

With respect to point one: How can a physician know for certain whether an infant is experiencing "unbearable" suffering? Infants cannot vocalize the level of pain they are experiencing to any significant degree of precision. How can a physician know for certain whether the suffering is truly "hopeless"? Why can't analgesics or other palliative care methods be used? Most importantly, why does that even matter? Since when are we permitted to execute people simply because they are experiencing suffering?

With respect to point two: Parental "consent" is completely irrelevant in this context. That's like arguing that parents can "consent" to child abuse. Nobody has the right to authorize the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being. That goes double for parents, who have a special duty of care towards their children.

I find this absolutely horrific. Can anybody -- even those who generally support the legalization of euthanasia -- deny that this is gravely immoral?

Related links

The protocol as described by its authors: The Groningen Protocol — Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns

A critical view: Paediatric ethics: a repudiation of the Groningen protocol

[Freefall11111]

Infants cannot vocalize the level of pain they are experiencing to any significant degree of precision.

Do you seriously think that "suffering" just means pain, and that pain can only be measured through talking?

[Godular]

Somebody went hardcore knee-jerk response.

I'm fine with those requirements. Some deformities don't show up until after birth, and if they're serious enough that quality of life will be truly compromised, a painless end would indeed be a mercy.

[Pataong]

Damn, this is intense.

[WaRtArIa]

I am actually alright with those requirements. Note that deformities do occur after birth.

[Ifreann]

When people cannot make decisions for themselves, all we can do is give someone else the power to make decisions for them and put in place regulations to prevent the abuse of that power. If we accept that people should be allowed to choose to die, and to receive medical assistance in doing so, then it follows that parents should have the power to make that decision for their children, subject to regulation. It would be cruel in the extreme to leave someone to suffer hopelessly until they reach some arbitrary age.

[Neanderthaland]

Sad that such a thing should ever have to be considered, but there medical conditions that demand it of you.

You will likely be haunted by the consequences no matter what you as a parent and physician decide. I can't envy anyone having to make that decision, nor can I blame someone for what they think is mercy.

[United Marxist Nations]

Lord, have mercy...

[The Liberated Territories]

Well, children are property of their parents, so the parents I think have this right.

[Neanderthaland]

Lord, have mercy...

One would think he wouldn't give infants osteosarcoma if he did.

[Valcouria]

Absolutely disgusting. It is bad enough that abortions are tolerated by and large, but now it seems that, even after being born, children are not safe from the so-called 'right to choose'. This is akin to the death penalty, in my opinion, since it is essentially the state endorsing a decision to end a life (a completely innocent one at that) without its consent or input.

But then, what else is to be expected from the den of sin that Europe has essentially become?

[Neanderthaland]

Absolutely disgusting. It is bad enough that abortions are tolerated by and large, but now it seems that, even after being born, children are not safe from the so-called 'right to choose'. This is akin to the death penalty, in my opinion, since it is essentially the state endorsing a decision to end a life (a completely innocent one at that) without its consent or input.

But then, what else is to be expected from the den of sin that Europe has essentially become?

I think you missed the part where all these children have terminal, degenerative medical conditions. Which must cause "unbearable suffering."

Nice kneejerk outrage though.

[Novus America]

I am actually alright with those requirements. Note that deformities do occur after birth.

I hate to pull a Godwin, but
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Kretschmar
Killing people against their will for being disabled is not something I can support, regardless of the severity of the disability. I am perfectly fine with assisted suicide, but only if the person dying takes some final knowing step to complete it.

[Major-Tom]

I just can see a myriad of problems with this. An infant cannot outwardly express how much pain they're in, nor can their parents accurately tell doctors "well...my young boy is suffering from leukemia, and he won't ever recover, so kill him."

My own moral views aside(which see this as morally ambigious and wrong at best), there are a whole bunch of pragmatic and reasonable issues that arise. Can't say I'm at all content with this.

[The Iowa Cactuses]

Well, children are property of their parents, so the parents I think have this right.

Not sure if high or libertarian.

[Godular]

Absolutely disgusting. It is bad enough that abortions are tolerated by and large, but now it seems that, even after being born, children are not safe from the so-called 'right to choose'. This is akin to the death penalty, in my opinion, since it is essentially the state endorsing a decision to end a life (a completely innocent one at that) without its consent or input.

But then, what else is to be expected from the den of sin that Europe has essentially become?

Did you only read the thread title or something?

[WaRtArIa]

I am actually alright with those requirements. Note that deformities do occur after birth.

I hate to pull a Godwin, but
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Kretschmar
Killing people against their will for being disabled is not something I can support, regardless of the severity of the disability. I am perfectly fine with assisted suicide, but only if the person dying takes some final knowing step to complete it.

Note that most to all of these children impacted by infanticide have a condition that essentially will cause torture and suffering throughout their childhood and adult life. Although I am against murder as a whole, I feel that this is mercy. Even so, imagine the children 'spared' from euthanization that will commit suicide later. The result is the same.

[Auralia]

Infants cannot vocalize the level of pain they are experiencing to any significant degree of precision.

Do you seriously think that "suffering" just means pain, and that pain can only be measured through talking?

I used "pain" merely as a synonym for "suffering" -- sorry if that wasn't clear. Obviously pain can be measured in other ways, but they're not as accurate, and they certainly can't be used as justification to kill someone.

I'm fine with those requirements. Some deformities don't show up until after birth, and if they're serious enough that quality of life will be truly compromised, a painless end would indeed be a mercy.

And on what basis does your assessment of a person's quality of life authorize you to kill that person without their consent?

I am actually alright with those requirements. Note that deformities do occur after birth.

Would you be all right with applying these requirements to an older child or adult who is mentally ill or in a coma?

When people cannot make decisions for themselves, all we can do is give someone else the power to make decisions for them and put in place regulations to prevent the abuse of that power. If we accept that people should be allowed to choose to die, and to receive medical assistance in doing so, then it follows that parents should have the power to make that decision for their children, subject to regulation.

No, it does not. People are allowed to engage in self-harm, but we don't allow parents to harm their children under the assumption that they are allowed to "make that decision for their children". We call that child abuse and we criminalize it.

It would be cruel in the extreme to leave someone to suffer hopelessly until they reach some arbitrary age.

I don't see how it's cruel to allow someone the freedom to decide whether to live or die instead of making that decision for them.

Besides, if that's true, why even give parents the choice to allow their children to "suffer hopelessly"? Why not just kill all infants who meet that criteria?

[Salus Maior]

I am actually alright with those requirements. Note that deformities do occur after birth.

Why are deformities and disabilities suddenly a death sentence for a living child? Why is it so important that a child be 100% like everyone else? Can one really say that having a deformity or disability automatically means a life not worth living or valuing? What incredible arrogance, what a shallow view of the world and of living, sentient beings.

This is utterly reprehensible in the deepest regard.

[WaRtArIa]

I am actually alright with those requirements. Note that deformities do occur after birth.

Why are deformities suddenly a death sentence for a living child? Why is it so important that a child be 100% like everyone else? Can one really say that having a deformity or disability automatically means a life not worth living or valuing? What incredible arrogance, what a shallow view of the world and of living, sentient beings.

This is utterly reprehensible in the deepest regard.

I am referring to deformities such as those who deeply cause pain to the child throughout their entire life.

I believe that is mercy.

[Valcouria]

Absolutely disgusting. It is bad enough that abortions are tolerated by and large, but now it seems that, even after being born, children are not safe from the so-called 'right to choose'. This is akin to the death penalty, in my opinion, since it is essentially the state endorsing a decision to end a life (a completely innocent one at that) without its consent or input.

But then, what else is to be expected from the den of sin that Europe has essentially become?

I think you missed the part where all these children have terminal, degenerative medical conditions. Which must cause "unbearable suffering."

Nice kneejerk outrage though.

I am actually alright with those requirements. Note that deformities do occur after birth.

I hate to pull a Godwin, but
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Kretschmar
Killing people against their will for being disabled is not something I can support, regardless of the severity of the disability. I am perfectly fine with assisted suicide, but only if the person dying takes some final knowing step to complete it.

This. It's not our decision to decide what is 'terminal' or 'unbearable' suffering. Frankly that just goes to show how disrespectful we are concerning the miracle of life.

I would go on a tirade about any sort of euthanasia being an unforgivable sin, and all that entails, but I would prefer not to be harassed by anti-Christians and the mods.

[The Liberated Territories]

Well, children are property of their parents, so the parents I think have this right.

Not sure if high or libertarian.

Not high, but I think parents have a right to decide whether to abort a young child who is suffering terminal illness, if anything. It is humane and just not to draw out their suffering, and I think a certain privilege extends even past birth on the part of the mother, but only if it coincides with the well being with the child. (e.g. I don't endorse Roman style parenting rights)

[Auralia]

I hate to pull a Godwin, but
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Kretschmar
Killing people against their will for being disabled is not something I can support, regardless of the severity of the disability. I am perfectly fine with assisted suicide, but only if the person dying takes some final knowing step to complete it.

Note that most to all of these children impacted by infanticide have a condition that essentially will cause torture and suffering throughout their childhood and adult life. Although I am against murder as a whole, I feel that this is mercy. Even so, imagine the children 'spared' from euthanization that will commit suicide later. The result is the same.

And what of the children who would have chosen to live?

[WaRtArIa]

Note that most to all of these children impacted by infanticide have a condition that essentially will cause torture and suffering throughout their childhood and adult life. Although I am against murder as a whole, I feel that this is mercy. Even so, imagine the children 'spared' from euthanization that will commit suicide later. The result is the same.

And what of the children who would have chosen to live?

They didn't. Simple.

[Mefpan]

You know, "the presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering" seems to me like a good limitation on this. It implies that there will be no cure for whatever condition the child is suffering from in the forseeable future.

Letting people waste away on a gourney in agony just because of legal bullshit based on religious taboos originating from the bronze and iron ages is absolutely disgusting.