p what the hell does star trek have to do with this?
)
I'm with Bish on this one.
Obviously to even get to the point where you could consider euthanasia is as an option is traumatic enough- nobody wants to be responsible for ending their own child’s life, and it wouldn't be an easy decision by any means - but where there is a choice to end or prolong your own child’s suffering then surely, with a child in your arms stricken by
brain damage from bleeding and convulsions and diseases or [a] severe case of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness. I think it is inhumane NOT to consider euthanasia - albeit in the most EXTREME circumstances as a last resort.
How can you be guilty with the knowledge that you saved your child from unnecessary suffering?, I would feel
GUILTY if I had the legal option of euthanasia and chose to keep the child alive for the sake of my personal "values" and "morals" it is THAT choice would be a very selfish thing!
I think that the only REAL reason that you would be guilty would actually be because you contradicted your own personal, ingrained values and not that you ended a life. You would be guilty - and it would be a selfish guilt - one focused on your own moral conflicts and not the reality of the fact that you saved your child from further suffering.
Euthanasia is not a "death warrant" to be taken lightly, it's NOT ABORTION- it is a mercy killing in the most extreme circumstances - it is only a "death warrant" when you see it as such - and to me that is a very limited perspective.
(An ABORTION is the killing of a foetus, regardless of the foetus's health - the ethical implications of ABORTION is quite a different debate and really shouldn't be confused with this one which is considering the situation of a sick, suffering, terminally ill child with no other available option or hope to survive)
Where your own thwarted values blanket over your ability to see that the rational decision as a parent - despite the obvious moral implications - would be to prevent your child from further harm - from inescapable suffering - to do whatever possible to give your child a peaceful end - because surely he or she would deserve that rather than an agonising few days or weeks witnessing every minute of pain and being helpless to do anything about it to save your child but watch and wait for its last breath to end its ordeal - which I can't see as anything BUT clinical torture
In contrast to some opinions here, I think that there is actually no real excuse not to allow euthanasia as a last resort for extreme cases, where there is nothing else to be done except wait for a slow death that could last for days or even weeks. To have the option to end suffering in a quick, peaceful and humane way seems to be a perfectly fair, rational and necessary step - one that is easily conceivable where you are confronted with such a horrific situation - nobody deserves to have to be put through unnecessary pain where there is the option to solve the problem peacefully.
There is a difference between "morals" which can risk becoming nothing but "ideals" from people living for some conception that the world must be a "perfect utopia". Where people with different "morals" underpinned by religious values are confronted, it usually results in war...this is because there is one factor missing: EMPATHY.
I think it is more a case of EMPATHY than MORALS; anybody with a realistic perception would be able to see that MORALS mean little without a degree of EMPATHY. Anybody with EMPATHY would see that euthanasia is the rational and humane option for a desperately suffering infant with a terminal illness or some such incurable defect.
I'm afraid that with most debates like this - empathy is overlooked in favour of a morality that comes down to nothing less than a brand of EGOTISM obsessed with superiority and a desire prove how "civilised" one is. To prove, as Bish says how far ones own FINE "Morals" and "values" make him superior as a human being. It is important tp be able to differentiate between the two and be a bit critical about where your own personal values and morals really lie...
Why should A HELPLESS CHILD be
punished for the sake of upholding the selfish values and morals of adults dead set on having 'something' to prove...?
winks... can I also just point out that the article DOES actually mention the role of parents... 
so leave me alone, okay or I'll go and terrorize another board...
