By Matt for the TIB Network:
Peter van P. has found an article that sheds some light on a few of the problems I've had with this. It doesn't answer all the questions, and I still wonder whether or not the ACTUAL protocol is available somewhere...There are five criteria (reportedly) to the Groningen Protocol:
A number of problems with these criteria, as I see it: (1) if the child is killed, there is no future let alone prospects for one; (2) one must assume that these doctors carry crystal balls and/or are informed of all medical research taking place on the ENTIRE planet; (3) parental consent is good...what kind of parent (and I'm not one, so this is a question not a criticism) would want to have their baby killed; (4) because two "gods" are better than one, I suppose; (5) if you end a life, what sort of "aftercare" can there possibly be that would make any kind of difference?[T]he suffering must be so severe that the newborn has no prospects of a future; [T]here is no possibility of a cure or alleviation with medication or surgery; [T]he parents must always give their consent; [A] second opinion must be provided by an independent doctor who has not been involved with the child’s treatment; [A]nd the deliberate ending of life must be meticulously carried out with the emphasis on aftercare.
I think this is the piece that CyberCast News Service got a hold of earlier in the week that Radioblogger found.
While the parental consent question appears to be resolved (although I would still like to see an English translation of the actual protocol), there are still a number of moral and ethical questions hanging in the balance.
