LOS MARGINADOS: BioEdge: WHO to create universal right to a child

domingo, 30 de octubre de 2016

BioEdge: WHO to create universal right to a child

BioEdge: WHO to create universal right to a child

Bioedge

WHO to create universal right to a child

by Michael Cook | 29 Oct 2016 |

The World Health Organisation may redefine infertility so that everyone who wants a child but cannot will be considered infertile – including single men and gay and lesbian couples.

Currently the WHO defines infertility as “a disease of the reproductive system defined by the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse”. However, new guidelines could radically change this by treating social infertility in the same way as medical infertility. Dr David Adamson, an American IVF physician and one of the authors of the new standards, told the British media:

“The definition of infertility is now written in such a way that it includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women. It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual's got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It's a big change. It fundamentally alters who should be included in this group and who should have access to healthcare. It sets an international legal standard. Countries are bound by it."

Since the new standards do not appear to be available, it is unclear how broad they are. However, media reports suggest that having a child will be regarded as a fundamental right, opening the door to commercial surrogacy, amongst other policies. Of course, the WHO policies do not automatically override national legislation, but they will be used to pressure law-makers.

BioEdge

Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia

Phone: +61 2 8005 8605

Mobile: 0422-691-615

Email: michael@bioedge.org

It appears that Canada has experienced a visitation from an “angel of mercy”, a media euphemism for a medical serial killer. Arrested this week, Elizabeth Wettlaufer allegedly killed eight patients in Ontario nursing homes since 2007. The Canadian media is describing her as one of Canada’s worst serial killers.

She faces stiff competition in other countries. In Italy, Daniela Poggiali, a nurse, was sentenced earlier this year over 13 deaths. In the US, Charles Cullen, a nurse. was sentenced in 2006 over the deaths of about 40 patients. In Germany Stephan Letter killed at least 29 patients in 2003 and 2004. And then there is Dr Harold Shipman, the quiet English doctor who killed 250 patients.

These horrors never seem to be mentioned when the legalization of euthanasia is being debated, but they should be. The existence of these mad “angels of mercy” demonstrates that some healthcare professionals feel compelled to kill the defenceless people entrusted to their care.

Legalisation creates a class of people who do the same thing but without the secrecy. In Belgium and the Netherlands, the bulk of the euthanasia business seems to be carried out by a handful of doctors. Some of them have killed scores of patients. What does that do to them? Why do they volunteer? Will there be more “angels of mercy” in jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal? These are all questions that need to be asked and answered.