Canadian Paediatric Approves
Dehydration of Disabled Infants
The
killing of infants With Birth Defects
April 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- The Canadian Paediatric Society - bioethics committee,
released a statement on April 1 concerning the withholding and withdrawing of
artificial nutrition and hydration.
The statement is similar to the statement from the
The Canadian statement allows euthanasia by dehydration (slow
euthanasia) of infants with cognitive or other disabilities based on a “quality
of life” assessment and with consent.
I refer to this as euthanasia by dehydration because there is a
clear difference between withholding or withdrawing fluids and food from a
person who is actually dying and nearing death and a person who is not
otherwise dying.
When a person is actually dying and nearing death, the death
occurs from the medical condition. But when fluids and food are intentionally
withheld or withdrawn from someone who has cognitive or other serious
disabilities or conditions but is not otherwise dying, the cause of death is
intentional dehydration.
Many leading bioethicists would like you to believe that there
is no difference between killing and letting die, but in fact there is a big
difference. When we allow the killing of a person, we are allowing an
intentional action or omission to directly cause death. Letting someone die
means that we are actually allowing natural death to occur.
Some bioethicists will refer to the “artificial” nature of providing
fluids and food as the issue. This argument is false. We always receive fluids
and food by some means, whether it be by a spoon,
straw, bottle or mother’s milk, etc.
In a media release, the Canadian Paediatric
Society stated:
ANH
[artificial nutrition and hydration] refers to nutrition or hydration that is
delivered by artificial means, such as via a feeding tube or intravenously.
Legal and ethics experts say there is no difference between withholding or withdrawing ANH versus other therapies that sustain or
prolong life. The CPS makes clear that any decision should be based solely on
the benefit to the child, while considering the child’s overall plan of care.
“Food and drink evoke deep emotional and psychological
responses, and are associated with nurturing,” said Dr. Tsai. “But artificial
nutrition and hydration is not about providing food and fluids through normal
means of eating and drinking. It should be viewed the same as any other medical
intervention, such as ventilatory support.”
Sadly, there was another time in history when euthanasia by dehydration of
newborns was accepted. Those deaths became the T4 euthanasia program that
progressed to euthanasia by injection and then euthanasia by gassing.
No, not everyone is willing to turn a blind eye to
intentionally dehydrating infants to death. These infants are vulnerable people
because they have been born with disabilities. Many medical professionals view
their lives as “life unworthy of life” and their parents are afraid and have
been told that these children will live lives that are “wretched to the
extreme.”