Turn on thread page Beta

NHS to harvest babies' organs watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by donte)
    The organs would go to good use but I know many that this would be unbearable for. Imagine carrying your dead child for 9 months, giving birth in painful labour, only to have it taken away and left to vegitate in a box, before cutting it up to give to another ill child. Whereas most would abort and try for another.
    The child will still be alive during pregnancy, but wouldn't survive long after birth. As previously stated, some women find comfort knowing that a part of their child still lives on.

    I dont see this going down amazingly well. My younger sibling died at 1 month from her due date. Obviously my mum was distraught, she had no choice but to give birth to her, as c-section had other complications for my mum. My mum was too upset for them to do a post-mortem, let alone donate her baby's organs. I know my mum doesnt speak for all women on this front, but its going to be painful and upsetting for someone down the road.
    I agree, a lot of people will be opposed to this proposal
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    My older brother and his wife's first born was identified as a baby who would either die before or within minutes of birth. They were devastated at having to induce labour prematurely. It would've been monstrous for any doctor to suggest to them that the pregnancy should be sustained to provide organs for another child. I find the suggestion monstrous. Until you have been close to people who have gone through this trauma you cannot fathom the pain this causes people. 100 % against this. These are babies, who are handled tenderly by grieving parents. I cannot think of anything more Inhumane than to sustain such pregnancies to butcher them for organs. This is sick and twisted.
    It's not 'monstrous'. When they are told the bad news, they're given options. Some women even want to continue with the pregnancy so they can meet their baby before they die. Some would rather abort. Another option is to continue with the pregnancy so that their baby can be a donor. How is this so different to parents agreeing to have their dying child's organs donated?
    Are you just against organ donation?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    It's not 'monstrous'. When they are told the bad news, they're given options. Some women even want to continue with the pregnancy so they can meet their baby before they die. Some would rather abort. Another option is to continue with the pregnancy so that their baby can be a donor. How is this so different to parents agreeing to have their dying child's organs donated?
    Are you just against organ donation?
    Really? Where do you get your information from? They meet their baby when it's born at whatever month of gestation it's born! Yes it is monstrous. Nothing you say on the subject will make me change my mind. As my original post indicated, you need to be living it to have an ounce of comprehension about what this means for families.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    Really? Where do you get your information from? They meet their baby when it's born at whatever month of gestation it's born! Yes it is monstrous. Nothing you say on the subject will make me change my mind. As my original post indicated, you need to be living it to have an ounce of comprehension about what this means for families.
    How about if the child could have been saved had it been suitable for an organ donation?

    would that change your mind or would you decide to let the child die?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    Really? Where do you get your information from? They meet their baby when it's born at whatever month of gestation it's born! Yes it is monstrous. Nothing you say on the subject will make me change my mind. As my original post indicated, you need to be living it to have an ounce of comprehension about what this means for families.
    If you have an abortion, you're not going to meet your baby because it won't be born.
    You didn't answer the question. Are you against organ donation?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Well it is presented as pretty macabre in the article but I'm sure the majority of those who are quick to call it so would be first in line if they needed a medical procedure which uses data collected from unethical trials on prisoners of war like Unit 731.

    People want the good stuff like medicine but they don't want to know what had to be done for the research in case it shatters their angelic ego.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    That life of a newborn baby is just as unique, special and precious as any of ours. Organ donation can be a very good thing.

    Even if child is destined to have a small life, they should be given as much love as they can receive because they is important and human. Not just seen as a factory farm for another person's baby.


    Even if your son or daughter will only live a short time after birth, it can still be a good life.

    I would challenge anyone who believes that the only gift of a baby destined to die early is their organs to watch this video of a father documenting his son's short life. I'm unashamed to say this made me cry with how beautiful and sad it is.



    Again, I'm not saying organ donation for babies is wrong. But looking at babies as merely organ donors is. Watch the video.

    SS
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    How is this so different to parents agreeing to have their dying child's organs donated?
    Are you just against organ donation?
    Because they are prolonging the childs life only to murder it later.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Pressurising women into this would obviously be wrong, and that's not at all what the NHS are suggesting.

    But if the mother were to agree to have the baby with a fatal condition so that its organs could be used, that would be perfectly justifiable. This shouldn't be opposed by anyone, in my view, regardless of your views on similar issues. For one, this actually reduces the chance of an abortion occurring, so people who are anti-abortion should support this. Also, turning off life-support machines for babies with severe disabilities and fatal conditions occurs already, the only difference is that the baby's organs would be used to do good.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Because they are prolonging the childs life only to murder it later.
    How are they murdering it? It's either going to die or is already dead when born..
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersaps)


    Even if your son or daughter will only live a short time after birth, it can still be a good life.

    How? It could easily be a life that is 100% made up of pain.

    I don't agree with the concept of total sanctity of life. There is no reason why life is always the best option. If I was a potential father and my partner had foetus that was going to develop into the kind of scenario I don;t think I would want to bring that into the world.

    Wanting to drag out it's existence for my own "benefit" of wanting to see it alive at any cost feels morally wrong to me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    How are they murdering it? It's either going to die or is already dead when born..
    Because they are actively killing it at a later date (that's the whole point of keeping it alive). While I agree with the principle of aborting the child because it has an incurable fatal disorder, but keeping it alive until it is born and then killing it, is morally wrong.

    Like I said though, if they can guarantee they fetus is completely brain dead up until the point of death.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm okay with all this as long as its the mother's choice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Because they are actively killing it at a later date (that's the whole point of keeping it alive). While I agree with the principle of aborting the child because it has an incurable fatal disorder, but keeping it alive until it is born and then killing it, is morally wrong.
    They are not actively killing it though. The baby has already passed before they intervene, they're brain dead. It'll be a ventilator breathing for them.

    Like I said though, if they can guarantee they fetus is completely brain dead up until the point of death.
    As above.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    That actually seems like a really good idea, instead of forcing a late term misscarriage (abortion), you allow the foetus to be carried to term so it can go on to save the life of another baby. Provided there is no pressure on the woman at the very difficult time I think this is a good thing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    If you have an abortion, you're not going to meet your baby because it won't be born.
    You didn't answer the question. Are you against organ donation?
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    If you have an abortion, you're not going to meet your baby because it won't be born.
    You didn't answer the question. Are you against organ donation?
    Wrong! By the time doctors have carried out all the tests necessary to be able to be absolutely certain that a baby's life is untenable, the child is beyond foetus stage, it is a fully developed baby and the mother goes through labour to give birth to her child. My brother, his wife and both sets of grandparents were there for the birth. My brother and his wife spent the night with the baby swaddled in a little Moses basket beside them, nursing and cuddling her for most of it. Baby was baptised the following day with her parents and grandparents present and I can tell you it was heartbreaking for them to leave hospital without her. I can without question feel compassion for those whose child is in desperate need of organ donation but to suggest that Elizabeth, that is/was her name, should've been nurtured till she was nine months gestation rather than the six she was born at, to be butchered horrifies me. This is standard procedure of care for any family in this situation. My brother, his wife and their daughter would not be responsible for any other child's survival and it is disgusting for anyone to imply that they or anyone facing a similar situation would be.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougallnDougall)
    Wrong! By the time doctors have carried out all the tests necessary to be able to be absolutely certain that a baby's life is untenable, the child is beyond foetus stage, it is a fully developed baby and the mother goes through labour to give birth to her child. My brother, his wife and both sets of grandparents were there for the birth. My brother and his wife spent the night with the baby swaddled in a little Moses basket beside them, nursing and cuddling her for most of it. Baby was baptised the following day with her parents and grandparents present and I can tell you it was heartbreaking for them to leave hospital without her. I can without question feel compassion for those whose child is in desperate need of organ donation but to suggest that Elizabeth, that is/was her name, should've been nurtured till she was nine months gestation rather than the six she was born at, to be butchered horrifies me. This is standard procedure of care for any family in this situation. My brother, his wife and their daughter would not be responsible for any other child's survival and it is disgusting for anyone to imply that they or anyone facing a similar situation would be.
    That's not true at all. Doctors can detect abnormalities from 12wks. If missed, they can detect them at the 20 weeks scan, that's why it's called an anomaly scan. Abortions can be carried out as late as 24 weeks, so the mother doesn't have to give birth if she doesn't want to. In fact, many women do opt for an abortion.

    Your brothers wife chose not to continue with her pregnancy. That was her decision and she was supported. Why shouldn't all women be supported in their decisions? How is it horrific to want to save the life of another child?

    Your brother and his wife cannot speak for everyone who's experienced the same loss. Some women find comfort knowing that they have prevented another parent enduring the same trauma as them and that a part of their child will continue to live on.
    I'll ask you again, are you against organ donation?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TaintedLight)
    what if you are the baby with a missing or defective kidney?
    They probably wont make them donate of theyre defective.
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.