[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: Catholic, Anglican bishops condemn ‘mercy killing’ of premature babies Catholic, Anglican bishops condemn ‘mercy killing’ of premature babies 11/16/2006 Catholic Online LONDON (Catholic Online) – The termination of lives of premature infants that have little no chance of survival is morally wrong and violates existing law against euthanasia, British Catholic and Anglican bishops agreed. In a Nov. 15 joint statement issued upon the publication of an independent think-tank report on ethical critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine, Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff, Wales, representing the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, and Bishop Tom Butler of Southwark, England, on behalf of the Church of England House of Bishops, drew a distinction between interventions in the lives of newborn babies that are “aimed at killing” and those withheld or withdrawn when “judged to be futile or unduly burdensome.” The report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, released on the same day, opposed so-called “mercy killing” of premature babies while, in a controversial finding, recommending that health-care staffs should not attempt to resuscitate babies born less than 23 weeks old. It added that only one percent of such children survive and if they did there was a high risk of disability. Further, the report, which sees to achieve uniform practice across the United Kingdom, noted that babies born at 25 weeks should receive intensive care unless there were other medical problems, as these infants had a good chance of survival and low risk of disability. “We warmly welcome the clear recommendation from the Nuffield Council today that ‘the active ending of life of newborn babies should not be allowed, no matter how serious their condition,’” the bishops said. “This reaffirms the validity of existing law prohibiting euthanasia, and upholds the vital and fundamental moral principle that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is always gravely wrong.” Yet, while praising the rejection of active taking of all fetal and newborn life, the prelates questioned the ethics associated with predetermined procedures of denying medical treatment. “We believe that every case should be judged on its merits,” Archbishop Smith and Bishop Butler said, agreeing with the British Medical Association. “We would have concerns about any blanket recommendation regarding the treatment of babies born before 22 weeks,” they said on behalf of Catholic and Anglican bishops. “Decisions regarding treatment should always be made on an individual basis having regard to all the circumstances of the case.” They quoted the joint Catholic-Anglican bishops’ 2004 testimony to the Select Committee of the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill in stressing that doctors do not have an obligation to prolong life by extraordinary means and that “treatment for a dying patient should be 'proportionate' to the therapeutic effect to be expected.” “Treatment may therefore be withheld or withdrawn, though such decisions should be guided by the principle that a pattern of care should never be adopted with the intention, purpose or aim of terminating the life or bringing about the death of a patient,” the statement said. “We will wish to study the detail of the Nuffield Council’s report,” the bishops said, “but welcome the extremely important recommendation opposing any action aimed at the active ending of life of newborn babies.” The report said the baby's best interest must always be put first and the parents always fully informed and involved in decisions. Consideration must be give to the pain and distress a baby would experience from invasive procedures when there was little chance of survival. The Nuffield Council has sent the report to the Department of Health and the royal colleges for consideration that its recommendations will become part of new codes of practice. Among those reacting to the report were two pro-life groups. "We see much that is good in the Nuffield report,” said Matthew O’Gorman, spokesperson for the British national pro-life group, LIFE. “The clear statement against active euthanasia of newborn children is to be welcomed, as is the emphasis on good palliative care for children who are dying and support for their families.” Yet, the group questioned whether allowing doctors to base medical decisions on "the best interests of the baby" would “leave the way open for … resources to play a greater role in future treatment.” “In addition,” O’Gorman said, “the idea that there should be a blanket prohibition on providing intensive care to children born at 22 weeks or below is a deeply worrying one,” adding that “would prefer every child to be considered individually.” The 22-week across-the-board recommendation also concerned Alison Davis, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. "The Nuffield Council seems to have decided that severe disability is a fate worse than death, and a good enough reason not to treat a premature baby,” Davis said. "It thus ignores the inherent right to life of all babies, disabled or not, as well as the right to treatment on an individual basis according to clinical need."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||