HOME
Liberty Can Not Survive
George Bush Sr. The New World Order Parrot
Party Police, Party Courts and Concentration Camps
P3s, Nazis and Polite Canadian Fascism
The Ghost in the Machine - The Forced Chemical Evolution of Man
Rouge States and the 9/11 Truth Terrorists
Canadians Should Pay NOT to be Poisoned: NDP
V for Vendetta - R for Reality
Canadian Bird Flu Pandemic Looming ?
Shill of the Week: Stephan Harper
Chicken Little Terrorist of the Week: Creating Fake Terrorists
Shill of the Week: Paul Martin
The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave
The Ethics of Selective Death
Brent Jessop - Knowledge Driven Revolution.com
February 20, 2007
Yesterday in Florida it was announced that a tiny newborn baby, Amillia, who was only in the womb for 21 weeks and six days was not only going to live but live without any long-term health problems. The previous record for a baby to survive was 23 weeks.
But, this would not have been a happy ending if some UK based “bioethicists” had their way.
Extremely premature babies born at 22 weeks or less should not routinely receive intensive treatments, new British medical guidelines suggest.
The independent Nuffield Council on Bioethics issued the guidelines Wednesday [Nov. 15, 2006] and set the 22 week cut-off, saying babies between 22 and 23 weeks should not normally be resuscitated unless parents ask for it and doctors agree.
Such extremely premature births are rare and only about one per cent survive to leave hospital. The babies often develop severe disabilities, since those born before 25 weeks are very susceptible to breathing problems and cerebral hemorrhage because they are physiologically so immature.
"Natural instincts are to try to save all babies, even if the baby’s chances of survival are low," said Prof. Margaret Brazier, who chaired the committee that produced the guidelines.
"However, we don’t think it is always right to put a baby through the stress and pain of invasive treatment if the baby is unlikely to get any better and death is inevitable." – Source CBC News
Unfortunately this is not just a bad apple in the otherwise wonderful world of medical ethics. Another good example of the mindset of this strange group of people came earlier this month. When doctors forced a blood transfusion on a couple of newborn children against the will of their Jehovah’s Witness parents Dr. Juliet Guichon, a medical ethicist from the University of Calgary said this:
"(It) could be seen as liberating because it takes the parents out of an impossible social situation,"
Liberating? Having a medical procedure you don't want forced on your child is liberating?
Everyone should be concerned when doctors openly talk about killing newborns (for their own good of course) and forcing medical procedures on people. Maybe I don’t understand, I don’t have a degree in selective death… I mean eugenics… uh… I mean medical ethics. Besides they must be right, they are the experts after all.
Update: Florida baby born months premature allowed to go home from hospital
About KDR | | Home | | Weekly Features Archive
What Is Wrong With Canada ?
Recent 9-11 News Suppressed by the Media
Aspartame: The Sweetest Killer
The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave
Knowledge Driven Look at Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties
Counter
Copyright © 2005-7 KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com