Euthanasia, or 'how to keep healthcare cheap'

[demi-conservative]

But not just old people!!!!

I've heard someone claim that in practice in most Western hospitals, if a child is born with severe abnormalities, in such a way that requires life support, the doctors will usually give the parents the option of discontinuing the life-support and letting the child die. I don't know for sure how true that is though.

P.S. just googled it and found this article in a high-impact journal:
A Life Worth Giving? The Threshold for Permissible Withdrawal of Life Support From Disabled Newborn Infants:

Withdrawal of life support is a frequent occurrence in newborn intensive care. In many units the majority of deaths follow decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment (Roy et al. 2004; Singh et al. 2004; Verhagen et al. 2009a; Wilkinson et al. 2006). There are two different contexts for decisions. Sometimes life support is withdrawn from infants who are dying, or who have such overwhelming illness that survival is unlikely. These decisions are largely uncontroversial. At other times life support is withdrawn from infants who might survive if all treatment were provided, for example, newborns with severe birth asphyxia (Case 1), premature infants with large brain hemorrhages, or infants with serious congenital abnormalities (e.g., severe spina bifida, trisomy 18 or 13). In such cases, treatment withdrawal is based upon predicted quality of life and is far more contentious (Verhagen et al. 2009a; Wilkinson 2009).

...One frequently encountered answer, at least as found in official guidelines, is that life support may be withdrawn only where the newborn's future is sufficiently dire that the burdens of treatment and of illness outweigh the benefits (American Academy of Pediatrics 1994; British Medical Association. 2007, 3; General Medical Council 2006; Tibballs 2007).

edit for bold

[Sea of red]

This is just ridiclous.

Starlight was having a discussion (a week ago mind you) concerning after-birth abortion that Seer invited - not himself. This is just another troll baiting thread to make Starlight the center of an all out flame fest that goes on fifty pages, where absolutely nothing productive is accomplished.

If you want talk to him about what he said, do it in that thread.

[demi-conservative]

This is just ridiclous.

Starlight was having a discussion (a week ago mind you) concerning after-birth abortion that Seer invited - not himself. This is just another troll baiting thread to make Starlight the center of an all out flame fest that goes on fifty pages, where absolutely nothing productive is accomplished.

If you want talk to him about what he said, do it in that thread.

No, this is not actually post to hit Starlight (I have lots of others for that!!). If truth be told, I might actually have a little gratitude that post of his linked to that paper.

Next time he (or others libs) go 'look at Europe and cheap healthcare!!!', question should be: 'well how many killed to lower costs???'

[demi-conservative]

To be very very clear:

I don't think Starlight supports abortion, euthanasia, also other killings for reason to save costs!!!

But I would have very much surprise if lots of bureaucrats, also medical staff don't have that reason.

[Darth Executor]

This is just ridiclous.

Starlight was having a discussion (a week ago mind you) concerning after-birth abortion that Seer invited - not himself. This is just another troll baiting thread to make Starlight the center of an all out flame fest that goes on fifty pages, where absolutely nothing productive is accomplished.

If you want talk to him about what he said, do it in that thread.

you sure seem to have grown hysterical and unhinged lately

trying to live up to your name?

[Sea of red]

you sure seem to have grown hysterical and unhinged lately

trying to live up to your name?

This is coming from someone that has some of the most bizarre violent fantasies I've read on the internet, and has the word "executor" in their username, but still calls themselves a Christian.

I'll take the projection with a grain of salt.

[Sea of red]

No, this is not actually post to hit Starlight (I have lots of others for that!!). If truth be told, I might actually have a little gratitude that post of his linked to that paper.

Next time he (or others libs) go 'look at Europe and cheap healthcare!!!', question should be: 'well how many killed to lower costs???'

Dude, you're troll baiting, it's pretty clear.

[Yttrium]

Although I think the OP is being frivolous, he does bring up a thought-provoking topic.

There are people who would insist on keeping a newborn baby alive, even if the baby is doomed to live only a few years while constantly undergoing unimaginable suffering, and also subjecting the family to monumental medical bills that they can never repay. On the other hand, there are people who would let a baby with Down's Syndrome die, even though someone with Down's Syndrome can lead a happy and non-suffering life.

The extreme situations of horrifyingly severe health problems do happen now and then. I have sympathy for families who chose to let their babies die in such circumstances. However, I don't consider letting any newborn baby die to be "okay". Sometimes, all your choices are bad ones, and you still have to choose. But if we as a society permit families to let babies die in such cases, then we need to keep a very close eye things, because there will always be people who abuse things, and will attempt to let newborn babies die for far less dire reasons.

[demi-conservative]

Dude, you're troll baiting, it's pretty clear.

I just point out reality that euthanasia (both voluntary, also involuntary!!) lead to less costs, less people needing beds of hospital/expensive machines/etc etc.

If you can't deal with heat get out of kitchen!!!

[Yttrium]

I just point out reality that euthanasia (both voluntary, also involuntary!!) lead to less costs, less people needing beds of hospital/expensive machines/etc etc.

Yes, you're troll baiting, and the bolded part of your quote doesn't mean what you imply that it means.

[demi-conservative]

Yes, you're troll baiting

I know you don't like inconvenient truths, but seriously grow up!!!

Euthanasia -> lower health costs. Deal with it.

and the bolded part of your quote doesn't mean what you imply that it means.

Who knows what triggered mind of yours thinks I imply.

[demi-conservative]

Back to actual discussion!!

I bolded "One frequently encountered answer, at least as found in official guidelines, is that life support may be withdrawn only where the newborn's future is sufficiently dire that the burdens of treatment and of illness outweigh the benefits"

But what is this 'burdens'? Lessee reference of quote of Starlight:

One reason why we may be permitted to withdraw life support in the hypothetical Harmless Case is because of the burden of care. Individuals with severe impairment often need substantial support throughout their lives. Their care usually falls upon immediate family, often involving physical, financial and emotional burdens. There are well-documented potential costs for families in psychological and physical illness as well as marital discord and breakup. The care of individuals with severe impairments also imposes significant costs on society. Their education and health needs are substantially greater than for children and adults without such impairments.

After another paragraph, authors then say:

When would the interests of others justify allowing an infant to die? One way of answering this question is by determining when society is prepared to take over the care of a child. If the future burden of care is sufficiently great that parents are not able or willing to look after the child, the alternative to allowing the infant to die would be for her or him to be adopted or put into foster care. In the hypothetical Harmless Case, the infant will certainly have a life worth living. But supporting the infant involves considerable cost, while providing only a small benefit to the child.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3082774/

[Yttrium]

I know you don't like inconvenient truths, but seriously grow up!!!

Euthanasia -> lower health costs. Deal with it.

Okay, fine. If you insist that you're being serious, then I'll take you at your word. You are a bad, bad person for wanting to lower costs through euthanasia. You should be ashamed of yourself. You may even be a threat to society. You are a villainous fiend. Your recommendations for euthanasia are evil and should you should receive full remonstration and castigation from everyone around you.

[demi-conservative]

Okay, fine. If you insist that you're being serious, then I'll take you at your word. You are a bad, bad person for wanting to lower costs through euthanasia.

You big moron. I never said I wanted it to happen.

Like sea of red, you should get out of kitchen!!!

[Sea of red]

You big moron. I never said I wanted it to happen.

Like sea of red, you should get out of the kitchen!!!

Second time you've done that.

You're welcome.