May I have a word? Euthanasia

Dallas Blog | Tom Pauken:

“A British 'ethics' council is recommending that premature babies 'born after only 22 weeks in the womb or earlier' and those babies born with certain disabilities be allowed to die. According to the Daily Telegraph, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics 'will set out guidelines for doctors and parents' for dealing with premature babies. ... Sounds like a slippery slope to me.”

The headline of this article from the Dallas Blog, "Euthanasia comes to Great Britain", carries with it the implication that Americans should be wary of what those Europeans are up to. In a quick response, Carter Thompson dispelled that notion, citing a Fox News story from March 25, 2005, headlined "Bush Criticized for End-of-Life Laws." Sure enough, President George W Bush, as governor of Texas, signed legislation that allows doctors to cease treatment on terminally ill and suffering infants. Right here in Texas. Approved by that compassionate conservative, George W Bush. No hue and cry raised. No ensuing mass rush to kill babies. No trouble for anyone to maintain footing on this so-called slippery slope.

Then, there's the question of what constitutes euthanasia. I've always understood the word to mean an overt act to end a life. Removing life support is an overt act to cease artificially extending a life, but it is not euthanasia. Mr Pauken's definition may be different. His definition sure makes for a scarier headline.

It also spurs the fanatics to make extreme comparisons and predictions. Jeff Turner talks about Nazis and asks if Carter Thompson (and I) will be applying for the job of taking Muslim, Jewish and Catholic children away from their parents and killing them to get rid of the Church/State problem. Talk about slippery slopes! A quick tumble to the very bottom for Mr Turner.

So, let's back up and examine just what this fuss in Great Britain is all about. It's summarized well in the submission made by the Bishop Butler of Southwark to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics on the treatment of extremely disabled or premature newborns and fetuses.

The bishop said, "The foetus and neonate are unique individuals under God. We cannot therefore accept as a justification for killing them the argument that their lives are not worth living. This is not incompatible with accepting that it may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing that it will possibly, probably or even certainly result in death."

The Church of England has defended Bishop Butler's submission. So has The Christian Medical Fellowship, saying, "The media hype surrounding the church's stance on this issue simply results from some broad sheet journalists failing to understand the clear distinction between euthanasia, which is the deliberate ending of someone's life, and the withdrawal of ineffective and burdensome treatment from a dying baby."

"Media hype." "Broadsheet journalist." It sounds like they've been reading Dallas Blog and Tom Pauken in Great Britain.