Fairly often Iâ€™m taken to task by some of my friends for suggesting that state-sanctioned eugenics is alive and well in the 21st century. I have a question to ask them: Explain to me that what Iâ€™m about to report is not eugenics in its purest, simplest, and ugliest form.
First, a standard definition of eugenics:
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics).
The Nazis took eugenics a step further to take care of all those pesky people with medical and other disabilities who were inconveniently alive, believing that they were so debilitated that they had no acceptable quality of life.
The Dutch are now doing the same. (Google translate will give you a close English version).
On Monday, a Dutch medical researcher, Hilde Buiting, called for another step down the slippery slope to pure insanity by calling for the government and the medical profession to change the rules on euthanizing newborn infants.
NOTE: I said change the rules, not devise the rules, because euthanizing newborns in the Netherlands has been officially allowed for quite a while, via the so-called Groningen Protocol of 2006.
In 2006 the argument was the same as what Iâ€™ll share below: Killing newborns was already happening in Dutch hospitals, but it was unregulated and therefore uncontrolled.
PRESTO!! Develop a medical set of rules that lay out when doctors may kill newborns. The Groningen Protocol makes killing newborn infants OK!! (An act of love and mercy, you understand).
I really wish I were making this up.
So now, in 2009, the Dutch are again pushing toward expanding euthanasia beyond the Groningen Protocol. More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2406663/posts