UK: Doctors urge ‘active euthanasia’ for disabled babies

Posted by: ST on November 6, 2006 at 9:35 am

And we’re not talking about the ones still in the womb. If this is what constitutes “progressive” values, count me out:

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.

It says “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall benefit of families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial suffering.

Deliberate action to end infants’ lives may also reduce the number of late abortions, since it would allow women the chance to decide whether their disabled child should live.

“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.

“We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test, and active euthanasia, as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns.”


Dr Pieter Sauer, co-author of the Groningen Protocol, the guidelines governing infant euthanasia in the Netherlands, said British medics already carry out mercy killings and should be allowed to do so in the open. “English neonatologists gave me the indication that this is happening.”

Got that? They’re already doing something that is illegal and immoral, and dammit, they should be allowed to do it in the open without fear of facing the consequences in a court of law.

But the paper quoted John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College Hospital, as saying: “Intentional killing is not part of medical care… once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It becomes a subjective decision of whose life is worthwhile.”

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.”

Sounds like there are a few (too few) voices of sanity on this issue in the UK. I’ll be very eager to read about the results of the “ethics review” for this proposed “option.” I’m usually reluctant to throw the Hitler card on the table, but I can’t resist doing so here because what the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology are suggesting sounds all too familar.

Hat tip to Gina Cobb, who has posted a powerful must-read piece on the issue of ‘active euthanasia’ – please take the time to read it at some point today.



RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • Don Singleton trackbacked with Active Euthanasia
  • 8 Responses to “UK: Doctors urge ‘active euthanasia’ for disabled babies


    1. Bindare4u says:

      This is coming from a country that believes it is morally superior to the USA because they are against the death penalty for vicious criminals but will consider murdering helpless babies because the babies are not perfect. It is only a matter of time before post-pregnancy abortions (executions) become legal and common.

    2. libertarianobserver says:

      I’m very sad that I’ve lived long enough to see this. The only thing left to do is to pray. A lot.

    3. I. M. Neiman says:

      It was inevitable! Once you can kill a baby in the womb (abortion), condone assisted suicide and sanction euthansia then there is nothing to stop society from taking the next step and eventually, social euthansia of all undesireables. If you can commit one evil and society calls it good, then the next and worse evil is just a tiny step!

    4. Gina Cobb says:

      Thank you for your strong voice on this issue! I want to mention that the post on this subject at my website was written by Dr. Melissa Clouthier, who was guest blogging at my website this weekend. She brings her own personal experience to bear, along with her intelligence, common sense and compassion.

      It is bizarre and sad to me that anybody is even thinking about how to take the lives of children after they have already been born. One of their justifications is that this may reduce late-term abortions — but by replacing them with active killing of babies who are even older, and whose nervous systems are even more developed. Somehow that doesn’t seem like an improvement.

    5. David S. says:

      Libertarianobservre says:

      “I’m very sad that I’ve lived long enough to see this. The only thing left to do is to pray. A lot.”

      This hurts my heart as well. I couldn’t agree with you more. As a young boy and teenager I grew up with a sister that was profoundly retarded from shortly after birth when she had a strong reaction to an immuinization.

      Everyone of of my family members were involved in caring for my sister and I learned valuable lessons from my very “disabled” sister. I learned the importance of family and the value of life. I learned that life, at times, is not fair. I learned that in spite of hardships, families pull together and make the most of what they are given. They do this with a foundation of love and acceptance. These were just some of the valuable lessons learned early that have often sustained me in later life.

      Thank you Cheryl Ann, and may God continue to bless your memory.

    6. Lorica says:

      Whatever it takes not to be inconvienced. It amazes me how these guys all say it is out of compassion. How is it compassionate to murder innocent children?? Just continues to show how evil the agenda is of some on the left. – Lorica

    7. Marshall Art says:

      I saw this last night but was too incensed to post a civil comment. This is the most contemptable thing I’ve ever heard. You know, that defense of the innocent excuse used by those who’ve killed abortion doctors will make perfect sense now. Some aren’t prepared to say that abortion is murder. Even Dennis Prager won’t. There’s no doubt here. This would be murder. No. This IS murder.