FRENCH DEBATE KILLING DISABLED PEOPLE

dianetavegia · Apr 10, 2005

FRENCH DEBATE KILLING DISABLED PEOPLE

NEWSMAX.COM - Monday, Dec. 17, 2001

Pro-abortion forces scoff at pro-life Americans who warn of the devaluation of human life, but what's happening in France is enough to frighten anyone.

Willemijn Forest, who lives in Marseilles, told the Christian Science Monitor how the first thing doctors asked after she bore a son with Down syndrome was whether she wanted to keep him.

"After the delivery, they took him away immediately, assuming I did
not want to see him anymore. I said, 'Of course I want to keep him.' I was so appalled by their attitude."

France's highest court recently ruled that children with Down syndrome have a legal "right" never to have been born and may sue doctors who allowed them to be born - i.e., who didn't kill them. "For parents such as Mrs. Forest, the ruling demonstrates a view - which she says is widespread in French society - that a disabled life is not worth living," says the Monitor.

EXECUTE THE INNOCENT AND DEFENSELESS

France and other European countries are anti-choice on U.S. executions of ruthless murderers, but strangely enough they have little problem with executing the innocent.

The French court ruled Nov. 28 that a doctor failed to warn a mother that prenatal scans of her baby, Lionel, had symptoms of Down
syndrome. Had she known she would have had him killed before birth, so now the doctor is 100 percent liable for the cost of raising the child.

Parents of mentally disabled children who gathered outside the courthouse to hear the verdict expressed outrage at the judges' ruling.

"Certain judges still believe that it is better to be dead than to be handicapped," said Dr. Xavier Mirabel, spokesman for Collective Against Handiphobia, a group that fights for rights for handicapped people in that allegedly Catholic country.

"Although most in France agree that the parents should receive financial aid for Lionel's specialized care, many are offended by the nature of the mother's grievance: That her son had been allowed to be born," says the Monitor's article, reprinted in today's Washington Times.

It always starts with the unborn, then the physically imperfect, then the newborn, then the elderly, then ...

Oh brave new world, that has such people in it.

"All That Is Necessary For The Triumph of Evil Is That Good Men To Do Nothing!"

-
Edmond Burke

Ed Edwards · Apr 10, 2005

Here is your missing source citation:

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2001/12/17/141109

Watchman · Apr 10, 2005

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmond Burke

I am not sure that this will be the problem from here on. Good people spoke out feverishly for Terri, protested, wrote letters and email, and it was all for naught.
Judges, graduates of liberal schools, and (as polls showed) a majority, felt that she should die.
Things are not going to get better as the Lord's return approaches, but will get steadily worse.

Ishouldbhappy · Apr 11, 2005

This is something that really breaks my heart. I feel that everyone should have the right to life no mater what. I was so upset by the death of Terry. I really cannot see killing someone because we no longer find him or her useful. This has been something that has been heavy on my heart. I pray that they will open their eyes to God.
Kristen

av1611jim · Apr 11, 2005

I am torn between the two.
On the one hand, I am distressed by the actions of folks in our "modern age". We are no more "modern" than the man in the moon. In fact we are just as babaric as our ancestors of the past. Sacrificing the helpless to "Moloch".
On the other hand;
I am excited to see these things coming to pass as that means Jesus is coming very soon.

EVEN SO, LORD JESUS, COME!!!

In HIS service;
Jim

Marcia · Apr 11, 2005

This is not just in France; it's here in the U.S.

I read several years ago, then saw one of those news specials on it, that here in the U.S., parents of Down Syndrome babies can opt not to let their babies have a simple stomach surgery for a defect many Downs Syndrome babies are born with. The parents are asked if they want this. Not having this corrective surgery means the baby cannot digest food and will die. A large number of parents choose not to have the surgery.

I wish I had time to look up sources on this, but I just don't.

BillyMac · Apr 11, 2005

The linked article above is dated 2001 and is 3 & a half years old. Is there any kind of an update to this practice or other reports available that such practices exist there or in the US??? I'm wondering how wide spread the problem is, or if this was an isolated case.

Marcia · Apr 11, 2005

Just do a Google search. This is what I really don't have time for, but I just did a quick one, putting in the box, "Downs Syndrome Euthanasia." You could also do "Downs Syndrome Bowel Obstruction" which is the problem that requires surgery, and you'd probably come up with some links.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi
Rachels promotes active euthanasia by discussing the agony of a patient dying of throat cancer and the anguish of watching a baby die with a bowel obstruction. In addition, he voices concern that if doctors were really concerned about the morality of all like/death situations, why is it that a baby with Down syndrome and a bowel obstruction (which he states is easily cured by a simple operation) is allowed a slow lingering death and a Down syndrome baby with no congenital defect allowed to live? "One must not "kill" it" (Raphels, l996, p. l73).
Click to expand...

http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/ae/php/phil/mclaughl/students/phil433/rachels1.htm
In support of his argument that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is not always clear, Rachels presents a case of a Down syndrome child requiring surgery for an intestinal obstruction. A decision is made to withhold surgery and the child is allowed to die by means of dehydration. Rachels' inclusion of the a surgeon's description of watching the child "wither" is an effective method of gaining sympathy from his readers (172). The narrative paints a graphic picture causing uneasiness for the reader and is effective in leading readers to question the morality of passive versus active euthanasia. The use of an infant as the patient under study, rather than a terminally ill elderly patient, successfully evokes reader sympathy.

Rachels' continues to use the Down syndrome case to make his point that the doctrine supported by the American Medical Association influences euthanasia decisions based on irrelevant reasons. He alleges that the intestinal blockage has little to do with the decision on whether or not to perform surgery; the medical decision is actually based on the fact that child has Down syndrome (173).
Click to expand...

Marcia · Apr 11, 2005

Sometimes babies with Down syndrome have some unrelated birth defect that needs medical attention. In certain cases, parents decide not to operate on the child, as a result of which the child will die. According to CV, this action is morally permissible.

But notice that what’s at issue is that the baby has Down syndrome, not that it has this birth defect. If the lives of these infants are worth living, then their lives should be preserved. ‘Allowing to die’ and ‘actively killing’ would be equally wrong.
http://www.people.umass.edu/uril/phil164/lecture9.htm
Click to expand...

There's more, but I have to go catch a bus to the service station to pick up my car now.

FRENCH DEBATE KILLING DISABLED PEOPLE

dianetavegia Guest

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Watchman New Member

Ishouldbhappy New Member

av1611jim New Member

Marcia Active Member

BillyMac New Member

Marcia Active Member

Marcia Active Member

Useful Searches

FRENCH DEBATE KILLING DISABLED PEOPLE

dianetavegia Guest

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Watchman New Member

Ishouldbhappy New Member

av1611jim New Member

Marcia Active Member

BillyMac New Member

Marcia Active Member

Marcia Active Member