British Begin Debate on Killing Disabled Babies

If top British doctors have their way, routinely killing babies born with serious disabilities will be allowed.

Behind this shocking proposal is nothing less than Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology, which has called on doctors to consider permitting infanticide in the case of seriously disabled newborn babies. According to Britain�s Sunday Times, geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal -� as did the mother of a severely disabled child -� while a prominent children�s doctor described it as "social engineering.�

John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College London hospital, told the Times: "Intentional killing is not part of medical care,� adding that "The majority of doctors and health professionals believe that once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It immediately becomes a subjective decision as to whose life is worthwhile.�

If a doctor can decide whether a life is worth living, he told the Times, "it changes medicine into a form of social engineering where the aim is to maximize the benefit for society and minimize those who are perceived as worthless.�

And Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People told the Times: "If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions it would tell adults with those conditions that they were worth less than other members of society.�

Arguing that what it called "active euthanasia� -- their euphemism for infanticide -- should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies, the college statement declared: "A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.�

The college�s call that "active euthanasia� of newborns be considered came as part of an inquiry into the ethical issues raised by the policy of prolonging life in newborn babies by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

In response to the inquiry, the college stated: "We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns.�

Initially, the inquiry did not address euthanasia of newborns, as this is illegal in Britain, the Times reported, noting that now the college has succeeded in having it considered. Although it says it is not formally calling for active euthanasia to be introduced, it wants the mercy killing of newborn babies to be debated by society.

If doctors in the Netherlands �- where the Times observes mercy killing is permitted for a range of incurable conditions, including severe spina bifida and the painful skin condition called epidermolysis bullosa �- the question may be moot; they say that British doctors are already killing disabled babies.

Dr. Pieter Sauer, co-author of the Groningen Protocol, the Dutch national guidelines on euthanasia of newborns, told the Times that British pediatricians are already performing mercy killings, and says the practice should be done openly.

Sauer, head of the department of pediatrics at the University Medical Centre Groningen, told the Times: "In England they have exactly the same type of patients as we have here. English neonatologists gave me the indication that this is happening.�

As much was admitted by Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, who told the Times he hastened the death of two severely handicapped newborn babies when he was a junior doctor in the 1970s. Speaking of the "pain, distress and discomfort� of severely handicapped babies he said: "I wouldn�t argue against this.�

Others coming out in favor of killing disabled babies were John Harris, a member of the government�s Human Genetics Commission and professor of bioethics at Manchester University and the mother of a baby born with a serious disability. Harris told the Times: "We can terminate for serious fetal abnormality up to term but cannot kill a newborn. What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the fetus at one end of the birth canal but not at the other?� he said, obviously referring to partial-birth abortion.

And Edna Kennedy of Newcastle upon Tyne, whose son suffered epidermolysis bullosa, said: "In extremely controlled circumstances, where the baby is really suffering, it should be an option for the mother.�

So what's with all the dinosaurs?


The world's first Creationist museum - dedicated to the idea that the creation of the world, as told in Genesis, is factually correct - will soon open. Stephen Bates is given a sneak preview and asks: was there really a tyrannosaurus in the Bible?

Monday November 13, 2006
The Guardian

     Dinosaur
The Creation Museum's motto: Prepare to Believe.

Just off the interstate, a couple of junctions down from Cincinnati's international airport, over the state line in rural Kentucky, the finishing touches are being put to an impressive-looking building. When it is finished and open to the public next summer, it may, quite possibly, be one of the weirdest museums in the world.

The Creation Museum - motto: "Prepare to Believe!" - will be the first institution in the world whose contents, with the exception of a few turtles swimming in an artificial pond, are entirely fake. It is dedicated to the proposition that the account of the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis is completely correct, and its mission is to convince visitors through a mixture of animatronic models, tableaux and a strangely Disneyfied version of the Bible story.

Article continues
Its designer, Patrick Marsh, used to work at Universal Studios in Los Angeles and then in Japan before he saw the light, opened his soul to Jesus, and was born anew. "The Bible is the only thing that gives you the full picture," he says. "Other religions don't have that, and, as for scientists, so much of what they believe is pretty fuzzy about life and its origins ... oh, this is a great place to work, I will tell you that."

So this is the Bible story, as truth. Apart from the dinosaurs, that is. As you stand in the museum's lobby - the only part of the building approaching completion - you are surrounded by life-size dinosaur models, some moving and occasionally grunting as they chew the cud.Beside the turtle pool, two animatronic, brown-complexioned children, demurely dressed in Hiawatha-like buckskin, gravely flutter with movement. Behind them lurk two small Tyrannosaurus Rexes. This scene is meant to date from before the Fall of Man and, apparently, dinosaurs.

Theological scholars may have noticed that there are, in fact, no dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible - and here lies the Creationists' first problem. Since there are undoubtedly dinosaur bones and since, according to the Creationists, the world is only 6,000 years old - a calculation devised by the 17th-century Bishop Ussher, counting back through the Bible to the Creation, a formula more or less accepted by the museum - dinosaurs must be shoehorned in somewhere, along with the Babylonians, Egyptians and the other ancient civilisations. As for the Grand Canyon - no problem: that was, of course, created in a few months by Noah's Flood.

But what, I ask wonderingly, about those fossilised remains of early man-like creatures? Marsh knows all about that: "There are no such things. Humans are basically as you see them today. Those skeletons they've found, what's the word? ... they could have been deformed, diseased or something. I've seen people like that running round the streets of New York."

Nothing can dent the designer's zeal as he leads us gingerly through the labyrinth of rooms still under construction, with bits of wood, and the odd dinosaur head occasionally blocking our path. The light of keenness shines from the faces of the workers, too, as they chisel out mountain sides and work out where to put the Tree of Life. They greet us cheerily as we pass.

They, too, know they are doing the Lord's Work, and each has signed a contract saying they believe in the Seven Days of Creation theory. Mornings on this construction site start with prayer meetings. Don't think for a minute that this is some sort of crazy little hole-in-the-corner project. The museum is costing $25m (£13m) and all but $3m has already been raised from private donations. It is strategically placed, too - not in the middle of nowhere, but within six hours' drive of two-thirds of the entire population of the US. And, as we know, up to 50 million of them do believe that the Bible's account of Creation is literally true.

We pass the site where one day an animatronic Adam will squat beside the Tree. With this commitment to authenticity, I find myself asking what they are doing about the fig leaf. Marsh considers this gravely and replies: "He is appropriately positioned, so he can be modest. There will be a lamb or something there next to him. We are very careful about that: some of our donors are scared to death about nudity."

The same will go for the scene where Eve is created out of Adam's rib, apparently, and parents will be warned that little children may be scared by the authenticity of some of the scenes. "Absolutely, because we are in there, being faithful to scripture."

A little licence is allowed, however, where the Bible falls down on the details. The depiction of a wall-sized section of Noah's Ark is based, not on the traditional picture of a flat-decked boat, but one designed by navy engineers with a keel and bows, which might, at least, have floated. "You can surmise," says Marsh. When you get inside, there's nifty computer software telling you how they fitted all the animals in, too.

The museum's research scientist, Dr Jason Lisle, has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. He realised he was a Christian while he was an undergraduate, but didn't spread it around: "People get very emotional about the issue. I don't believe we should ever be obnoxious about our faith. I just kept quiet." And how did he pass the exams? "I never lied, but if I was asked a question about the age of the universe, I answered from my knowledge of the topic, not my beliefs."

The museum's planetarium is his pride and joy. Lisle writes the commentary. "Amazing! God has a name for each star," it says, and: "The sun's distance from earth did not happen by chance." There is much more in this vein, but not what God thought he was doing when he made Pluto, or why.

Now, we are taken to meet Ken Ham, the museum's director and its inspiration. Ham is an Australian, a former science teacher - though not, he is at pains to say, a scientist - and he has been working on the project for much of the past 20 years since moving to the US. "You'd never find something like this in Australia," he says. "If you want to get the message out, it has to be here."

Reassuringly, on the wall outside his office, are three framed photographs of the former Australian cricket captain Steve Waugh - "cricket's never really caught on over here" - and inside, on his bookshelves, is a wooden model of a platypus. On top of the shelves is an array of fluffy poodle toys, as well as cuddly dinosaurs. "Poodles are degenerate mutants of dogs. I say that in my lectures and people present them to me as gifts."

Ham is a large man with a chin-hugging beard like an Old Testament prophet or an old-fashioned preacher, both of which he is, in a way. He lectures all over the world and spent a month in Britain earlier in the summer spreading the message to the faithful in parish halls from Cornwall to Scotland. "We want to try to convince people using observational science," he says. "It's done very gently but forthrightly. We give both sides, which is more than the Science Museum in London does."

This is true in that the Creation museum does include an animatronic evolutionist archaeologist, sitting beside a creationist, at one point. But there's no space for an animatronic Charles Darwin to fit alongside King David and his harp.

On the shelf behind Ham's desk lie several surprising books, including Richard Dawkins' latest. "I've skipped through it. The thing is, Dawkins does not have infinite knowledge or understanding himself. He's got a position, too, it's just a different one from ours. The Bible makes sense and is overwhelmingly confirmed by observable science. It does not confirm the belief in evolution."

But if you believe in the Bible, why do you need to seek scientific credibility, and why are Creationists so reluctant to put their theories to peer review, I ask?

"I would give the same answer as Dawkins. He believes there is no God and nothing you could say would convince him otherwise. You are dealing with an origins issue. If you don't have the information, you cannot be sure. Nothing contradicts the Bible's account of the origins."

We wander across to the bookshop, which, far from being another biblical epic, is done up like a medieval castle, framed with heraldic shields and filled with images of dragons - dragons, you see, being what dinosaurs became. It is full of books with titles such as Infallible Proofs, The Lie, The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved and even a DVD entitled Arguments Creationists Should Not Use. As we finish the tour, Ham tells us about the museum's website, AnswersInGenesis.org. They are expecting 300,000 visitors a year. "You've not seen anything yet," he says with a smile.

New evidence shows a different meteor killed dinosaurs By Ernest Gill

dpa German Press Agency
Published: Sunday November 12, 2006

By Ernest Gill, Hamburg- In a scenario resembling the dramatic conclusion to a TV crime drama, paleo-forensics experts have produced new evidence to show that the dinosaurs were bumped off by a different meteor than the one that has received the rap for their extinction. The German palaeontologists insist that a mysterious meteor or comet must have done the deadly deed - long after the notorious Yucatan meteor that has hitherto been blamed.

Until now, it has been accepted generally that the Chicxulub impact off the coast of Mexico 65 million years ago wiped out the dinosaurs. Evidence of the crater left by the giant asteroid or comet has been found under the sea off the coast of Yucatan.

But a group of scientists led by Professor Gerta Keller of Princeton and Professor Wolfgang Stinnesbeck of the University of Karlsruhe begged to differ. They uncovered a series of geological clues which suggests the truth may be far more complicated.

In short, they say that the crater in the Yucatan is too old to have killed off the dinosaurs. Yucatan took the rap for a dino murder that occurred much later.

However, no-one has yet found the crater from the "real culprit" impact which ended the Age of Reptiles and caused one of the largest mass extinctions in history.

"There is some evidence that it may have hit in India," says Dr. Keller. The crater, named Shiva by one expert, is estimated to measure 500 kilometres (over 300 miles) in diameter. However, at this time there is little proof of its existence.

Keller says marine microfossils in sediments drilled from the ocean floor show that Chicxulub hit Earth 300,000 years before the mass extinction it was supposed to have caused.

The small marine animals that produced the microfossils escaped virtually unscathed.

Weakened by these events, species were finally killed off by the second impact.

The previous impact theory was beautifully simple and appealing. Much of its evidence was drawn from a thin layer of rock known as the "KT boundary." This layer is 65 million years old (which is around the time when the dinosaurs disappeared) and is found around the world exposed in cliffs and mines.

For supporters of the impact theory, the KT boundary layers contained two crucial clues. In 1979, scientists discovered that there were high concentrations of a rare element called iridium, which they thought could only have come from an asteroid. Right underneath the iridium was a layer of spherules, tiny balls of rock which seemed to have been condensed from rock which had been vapourised by a massive impact.

But Keller's team concentrated on a series of rock formations in Mexico where the iridium layer was separated from the spherule layer by many metres of sandstone. Keller found evidence such as ancient worm burrows that suggested that the deposition of the sandstone had been interrupted many times.

Her team concluded that there was a gap of some 300,000 years between the deposition of the spherules (from the Chicxulub crater) and the iridium (from an asteroid). Therefore, there must have been two impacts.