The Independent Online reports:
Doctors are urging health regulators to consider allowing the "active euthanasia" of severely disabled newborn babies.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has put forward the option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of medical ethics.
Do they not see the descent into bona fide Nazism here?
"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making," the college writes in a submission to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
If the family wasn't disabled to begin with, adding a disabled child will not disintegrate it. Why make the baby the scapegoat for the parents inability to cope?
Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People said: "Euthanasia for disabled newborns tells society that being born disabled is a bad thing. If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions, it would tell adults with those conditions that they are worth less than other members of society."
No slippery slope whatsoever.
First, abortion in cases of rape and incest.
Then abortion only for "disabled" babies.
Then abortion for women with mental problems.
Then abortion for women who're poor.
Then abortion for women who want to further their careers.
Then abortion on demand.
Then allowing newborns to die.
And on and on until we're discussing ACTIVE euthanasia.
Does anyone not see the issue here? It's as plain as day!
Human life is disposable.
We have this myth in our society that we can separate human life from personhood. Clearly this is not the case. When human life is regarded as a "thing" not a "self", the slippery slope begins.
Those doctors who made those suggestsions should resign.
