Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Life and Death in Holland

(btw, if there are three colorful dots before the title, that means the title is a hyperlink. Click the title to see the article.)
A fellow Chestertonian sends me this scary link to a proposal that's being proposed in Holland.

I've predicted elsewhere, and I'll predict it here, too. I see a time in our future, and sadly, possibly, not that far in the future, when insurance companies (who dictate many things in the medical field these days) will see an ultrasound result, that the baby has some sort of "defect" or problem or syndrome, something that will cost medically to fix or deal with in life, and they will say, "OK, we're paying for an abortion here, and that's our limit with this bit of fetal tissue."

In a sad way, there are tremblings of this already happening in our medical world. A friend recently went through a horrendous pregnancy, finding out at 21 weeks that there was a problem, a serious problem, with the baby's brain. There were several doctors who suggested to her, despite the fact that her pro-life stance was perfectly clear and that this was her eight pregnancy and sixth child, that she might want to consider termination, "for her own mental and physical well-being." She had to switch doctors mid-term, but the new one was no better. So, in a way, terminating "problems" is already a suggested option, although not mandatory yet, today. Scary.

10 comments:

  1. Any Chesterton fan is quite aware of how ardent GKC was in his opposition to eugenics compared to a lot of the other social issues of his day. George Will, who often quotes Chesterton, has a son who was born with Down syndrome. George will wrote a very interesting article last year entitled "Eugenics By Abortion, is perfection an entitlement?" You can read it if you like at http://www.aapd-dc.org/News/disability/eugenicsAbort.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Insurance companies (in general) are already anti-life. I am not sure if this is how it is with big companies or group plans, but try to get maternity coverage for a family insurance plan. It is a joke. Either they do not offer it or the price is so high it is cheaper to pay the hospital direct. So, you are right, this is the next logical step for them. It's all about cutting costs and shareholder value right? Sadly, the culture of death continues on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks to being type 1 diabetic and a bad heart, my wife most likely would not survive another pregnancy. So when our second was born last March, you should have heard the chorus of doctors telling us to "get fixed," mostly directed at me to get a vascectomy, as the wife was/is too weak to undergo a tubal ligation surgury.

    When we told them no thanks on the mutilation, they were literally incensed. "Don't you know what this means?" was the usual response. Her OBGYN even went so far as to write a letter to our priest explaining the gravity of the situation and that I should get a vascectomy, bla bla bla. I could not believe his cheek: imagine his reaction if a priest stepped into his examining room or operating room to tell him how to do his job. We never delivered the letter.

    Yes, this is a great sacrifice for us, but by God when He gives you a cross, you hug it, kiss it, and shoulder it manfully, not look for a loophole.

    The medical community constantly whines that insurance companies have too much authority in how medical care is administered. But I think most doctors are all too happy to go along with what insurance companies dictate so long as the checks keep clearing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The two things that disturb me most about this article are 1) the Alderman's belief that targeting certain groups for compulsory abortion and contraception is both kind and socially responsible, and 2) that this program is predicated on race. The idea that the poor and disadvantaged are incapable of being good parents or even giving children the love they need disgusts me.

    In regard to insurance companies and the medical community, I'd like to cite the example of my mother, who's a psychologist and constantly at odds with the insurance companies. She's always writing letters and making long phone calls in order to get them to change their unfair and often insulting policies. Most of her colleagues have the same problems, and they mostly think that the insurance companies won't change until the medical establishment stands up to them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The comments about insurance companies reminds me of the scene in The Incredibles where Bob Parr (Mr. Incredible) is working as an insurance claims adjuster, and his boss blasts into Parr's office and wonders how Bob is making the shareholders happy by paying claims? He has no thought for his customers, his clients, he's only trying to please the stockholders.
    Sadly, I think this is a slice of life.

    Chris: I agree. First off, I find it offensive that anyone should make a judgement call on someone's parenting based on either a)location of home or b) poverty level. Neither of these can judge the love or ability of a mother to love. Neither of these necessarily hinder a mother's ability to love.

    Second, if being in charge of who reproduces is "socially responsible" then let's just talk about Hitler, why don't we? And btw, if you are interested in knowing more about Margaret Sanger and her sweet little Eugenics ideas, there is a fairly new book out called something like Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy. A sad but true eye opening book.

    The other thing I find missing in all of these discussions is the adoption factor. Is anyone, anymore, recommending putting the baby up for adoption if and when the mother decides she might possibly not be up for the task? It seems to me there has been a cultural shift away from the acceptance and even encouragement of young scared pregnant women to consider adoption. And there certainly are plenty of loving and waiting parents who would love to adopt a baby.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nancy, yes the adoption factor. Unfortunately we have to give much thanks to the psychological industry which keeps putting out nonsense that adoptees will always have this void in their heart which cannot be filled by adoptive parents or siblings. Sane psychologists think that absurd, and I agree. We have adopted and plan to again, and it has been a blessing to our family in many ways. Our "natural" kids sometimes even ask if they can be adopted too, cause they think it sounds so neat. Anyway, here is yet another aspect of life where the truth is not told to the people.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >>adoptees will always have this void in their heart which cannot be filled

    they only get away with this falsity because it is politically OK to say it. Replace adoptees with "kids of divorce" or "Kids with absentee parents" or "Kids with parents who have mentally and emotionally checked out" or "kids of homosexual so-called unions" or, or or...."kids of single parent families" or even "kids whose parents work too much" or "kids whose mothers prefer to be away from them all day while they work and are kept in love-less day-cares"

    Nope, you'll not see those studies done. But they can still bemoan adoption. Sad.

    That's cool about your family. My cousin just adopted and what a blessing the new girls are to the whole family! Joy beyond joy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm researching many things eugenics-related, and I'm doing my masters thesis on Milwaukee's Catholic groups and their resistance to the eugenics movement during the early 20th century. One large section of the essay is devoted to how a speech Sanger made in Milwaukee divided the city. It's interesting, because there are two diametrically opposed perspectives on Sanger: one treats her as a secular saint, the other sees her as a bigot that brought a blight on the country. It should go without saying that I incline towards the latter view. Check out Amazon.com for books by George Grant on Sanger (as well as Michael Perry books on eugenics). The customer reviews are pretty evenly split between these two perspectives, with a few people who seem to believe that the truth must be somewhere in-between.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In regard to insurance companies and the medical community, I'd like to cite the example of my mother, who's a psychologist and constantly at odds with the insurance companies.

    Sorry, Chanster, I didn't mean to impugn your mother in my blanket statement. For the record, my father is a physician too and like your mother also butts heads with insurance companies constantly.

    Perhaps I should clarify by saying, "most doctors EXCEPT those who are parents of Chestertonians."

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Excellent clarification, Chestertonian!

    (I knew that there was no intent to impugn my mother or any other fine Chestertonian parents in that blanket statement, but it's good to complain about the insurance companies.)

    ReplyDelete

Join our FaceBook fan page today!