Belgium nears controversial law

bear1

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/belgium-on-verge-of-giving-children-righttodie-in-controversial-vote-30000854.html

Very difficult to judge this but I'm thinking it may be a step too far.
It's a terrible situation to see your child in a state of pain to the point where death is a sweet release but if 160 paediatrician's are challenging this law then maybe more thought should be put into it?
What's everyone elses' opinion on this?

biko

The law is giving children right-to-die, controversial indeed.

Belgium, one of the very few countries where euthanasia is legal, is expected to abolish age restrictions on who can ask to be put to death – extending the right to children for the first time.

Temptamperu

As long as its not compulsory i don't see the problem. Children can suffer some terrible ailments just like grown ups.

bear1

Temptamperu wrote: »

As long as its not compulsory i don't see the problem. Children can suffer some terrible ailments just like grown ups.

The problem that I could see happening is that it will be like opening the flood gates..
Very difficult to come to a proper conclusion regarding it.

Penny Tration

I'm really uncomfortable with this.

I agree with legalised euthanasia, but for children?

If they're not considered mentally and emotionally mature enough to vote/have sex, how can they make an informed decision on their life?

iDave

Controversial social issue involving life and death, children and has religious implications. This will end well.

Temptamperu

bear1 wrote: »

The problem that I could see happening is that it will be like opening the flood gates..
Very difficult to come to a proper conclusion regarding it.

What flood gates? Do you think teenagers who want to commit suicide can walk into a doctors and get euthinised? its not that simple.
If people have life threatening diseases or illnesses that they wont get better, leukemia and other awful brain disorders do you not think it fair to end that suffering?
We do it to dogs to "end their suffering" while we leave our sick and ill suffer as long as possible before their body gives up.
Euthanasia should be available everywhere. There is no flood gates.

I would assume that euthanasia would only be available to those who's conditions/illness/impairments essentially make having any sort of standard of life almost impossible. If so, then why shouldn't the right be afforded to children? It's not nice, but neither is whatever what would be pushing them to make the decision and if I had to pick between one or the other, I think I know which I'd rather pick.

Andy-Pandy

People should have the right to die, we don't let animals suffer, we should give that same consideration to people. As long a there are some steadfast and rock solid checks in place I can see a need for this in very rare occasion , it's a horrible choice though

Sir Humphrey Appleby

bear1 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/belgium-on-verge-of-giving-children-righttodie-in-controversial-vote-30000854.html


What's everyone elses' opinion on this?

I fully support it.

Akrasia

I doubt that this law would be used very often. I very very much doubt that there would be any kind of floodgate. There are laws on every statute book that were introduced to cater for extreme situations where the 'floodgate' argument was used to oppose them, and most of these laws have rarely if ever been used.


If I had a child who was terminally ill and I could see that s/he was in agony and would be for the rest of his/her life, I know what the moral thing to do would be.

Some situations are totally FUBAR and the best thing to do is the least worst option.

SEPT 23 1989

Why would anyone want a human to die in agony rather than a painless,peaceful release?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

bear1 wrote: »

The problem that I could see happening is that it will be like opening the flood gates..
Very difficult to come to a proper conclusion regarding it.

The floodgates to what?
It currently only applies in the case of terminal illness and/or an incurable illness causing extreme pain.
In the case of children it will only apply to terminal illness.

nicowa

There's plenty enough sufferers of cystic fibrosis who've asked for their oxygen to be turned off. And the only thing that can be done for them is to give them painkillers as they drown from the mucus buildup in their lungs. These are not all adults.

McDermotX

Aye.....but a lot of society's rules governing under-18s needing permission from parents, Over-18s only etc etc, are in place for a reason. Chiefly that children are, for the most part, incapable (or rather, lack the experience) of making life-changing decisions for themselves, and need a guiding hand in most areas of their development.
Given that the individual's wishes is one of the main guiding concept of euthanasia, it does open a few issues regarding the suitability of extending the law to children, whom we don't trust in other decision-making processes ......even with the necessary parental consent and medical evaluations around sound-mind/terminal conditions etc



Having said that, I believe if someone wants to die, for fear of living anymore (whatever the reasons), it's not society's responsibility to interfere in their decision, or prevent them from doing so.........................that person's only responsibility is to those loved ones they leave behind.

Riskymove

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Why would anyone want a human to die in agony rather than a painless,peaceful release?

Happens here every day

"managing the pain" is usually all they can try to do for some

In the case of children it will only apply to terminal illness.

even the use of the term "children" isn't clear. In the article it states that it would be limited to "a handful of teenagers" in terminally ill situations

bear1

Temptamperu wrote: »

What flood gates? Do you think teenagers who want to commit suicide can walk into a doctors and get euthinised? its not that simple.
If people have life threatening diseases or illnesses that they wont get better, leukemia and other awful brain disorders do you not think it fair to end that suffering?
We do it to dogs to "end their suffering" while we leave our sick and ill suffer as long as possible before their body gives up.
Euthanasia should be available everywhere. There is no flood gates.

As I said, could.
Besides, it's also very difficult to say "there are no flood gates".
We don't know what the future has in store for any of us, so it may look like there are no flood gates at all, it doesn't negate the fact that something could go wrong.
No need to be attacking about it.
You can't honestly compare a dog to a child can you?
I don't think either that one can simply walk in and get euthanised. I can see the point of the the law where the child has effectively reached a point where no improvement can be made and is bed bound in agony for the rest of their life.

Riskymove

McDermotX wrote: »

Aye.....but a lot of society's rules governing under-18s needing permission from parents, Over-18s only etc etc, are in place for a reason. Chiefly that children are, for the most part, incapable (or rather, lack the experience) of making life-changing decisions for themselves, and need a guiding hand in most areas of their development.

the problem here is that the child is the one experiencing pain, in a terminal situation and the parents may not have any experience of living in agony

GaelMise

bear1 wrote: »

The problem that I could see happening is that it will be like opening the flood gates..
Very difficult to come to a proper conclusion regarding it.

The floodgate holding back all of the children that have come to the decision that they want to die due to being in the advanced stages of a terminal illness that is causing them extreme pain?

Don't see it myself.

Vincent Vega

green_screen wrote: »

I'm really uncomfortable with this.

I agree with legalised euthanasia, but for children?

If they're not considered mentally and emotionally mature enough to vote/have sex, how can they make an informed decision on their life?

I think everyone should have the right to end their life if they choose to, but this is the one problem I'd have with it too.

It would be difficult to be sure if the child was fully aware of the implications of what they were choosing to do or whether it was a decision reached by other people on their behalf.

I think it should only but definitely be an option where the chance of improvement in their quality of life is non existent.

Tokyo

My biggest question is how a child can be expected to consent to this in the first place, given that they aren't really aware of all of the facts regarding what death is - what they are truly giving up, and how it impacts those around them. It's all well and good saying "well it won't hurt any more", but that's not the whole picture, not by a long shot. And by definition, objectivity means having the whole picture before making an informed decision.

To put things in perspective, I had a young sibling that suffered quite considerably for a prolonged length of time before she passed away, and while of course it was terrible to see her suffer, I also don't think that she would have had the ability to actually discern what death was, and make an objective decision as to whether it was something that she would have wanted or not. She had a strong will to live, but when the game was over, in her head, she was just heading off to a big playground in the sky, where she wouldn't be sick anymore, and I'm glad that she had that picture in her head. I can't imagine what it would have done to her to have to sit down with her and had a deep and meaningful conversation about what death and choosing to die actually entailed, and personally, I'm glad that she didn't have the picture in her head taken away from her.

suicide_circus

I guess it's the natural next step. it would want to be signed off on by a panel of experts. dont really know how a 5 year old can have the capacity to understand the decision though.

Riskymove

mike_ie wrote: »

My biggest question is how a child can be expected to consent to this in the first place, given that they aren't really aware of all of the facts regarding what death is -

sorry to hear about your loss

again I would say that if you scratch the surface of what is proposed here it gets a bit clearer

the changes proposed include, among other things, that parent's permission is required and that the minor talks to psycology professionals who give their view.

It also seems to be aimed at teenagers rather than ssmaller children.

TBH in the case of younger children, the lack of understanding of death etc. is such that the idea of being euthanised would not occur to them and they would be unlikely to seek it

conorhal

The liberal 'culture of death' proceeds apace. Will the last person to discard the last shread of what once passed for humanity please turn out the lights.

GaelMise

conorhal wrote: »

The liberal 'culture of death' proceeds apace. Will the last person to discard the last shread of what once passed for humanity please turn out the lights.

You think it is more humane to force someone in the last stages of a terminal illness to go on suffering immence pain untill their body gives up, regardless of their own wishes, than to allow them to choose to end their own life if they want to?

Really? You know better than they do themselves? Because it seems to me that you are not the one that will have to literally suffer the consequences of your decision for them.

Bannasidhe

conorhal wrote: »

The liberal 'culture of death' proceeds apace. Will the last person to discard the last shread of what once passed for humanity please turn out the lights.

Because forcing a terminally ill human of any age to suffer a painful death is the mark of 'humanity'.

Call Me Jimmy

mike_ie wrote: »

My biggest question is how a child can be expected to consent to this in the first place, given that they aren't really aware of all of the facts regarding what death is - what they are truly giving up, and how it impacts those around them. It's all well and good saying "well it won't hurt any more", but that's not the whole picture, not by a long shot. And by definition, objectivity means having the whole picture before making an informed decision.

To put things in perspective, I had a young sibling that suffered quite considerably for a prolonged length of time before she passed away, and while of course it was terrible to see her suffer, I also don't think that she would have had the ability to actually discern what death was, and make an objective decision as to whether it was something that she would have wanted or not. She had a strong will to live, but when the game was over, in her head, she was just heading off to a big playground in the sky, where she wouldn't be sick anymore, and I'm glad that she had that picture in her head. I can't imagine what it would have done to her to have to sit down with her and had a deep and meaningful conversation about what death and choosing to die actually entailed, and personally, I'm glad that she didn't have the picture in her head taken away from her.

First, sorry to hear about that

But why was it easier to explain about the playground in the sky when it was a natural death, when the possibility of dying is there, could one not explain it the same way?

Also what facts are children unaware of that adults ARE aware of about death and what they are truly giving up?

EDIT: Just wondering, would almost all people with a long term, painful illness end up on progressively more and more morphine, to the point where they are basically in a coma? (I have no idea about this)

Manach

The main aim of the medical profession is to cure and prolong life. That must be their intention. To undermine this, by accepting that some lives are less worthy than others so assist implies that something is broken at the heart of Europe. All steps, up to the natural end of life, should be taken to fight for life : and a law, than bears more than a passing resemblance to eugenics legisislation from the 30s, undermines that the advice given by medical professions is more to do with financial considerations than a patient's best interests.

Tokyo

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

First, sorry to hear about that

But why was it easier to explain about the playground in the sky when it was a natural death, when the possibility of dying is there, could one not explain it the same way?

Also what facts are children unaware of that adults are about death and what they are truly giving up?

I appreciate the condolences - however it's something that happened a long time ago. I just thought that in this case it made a relevant example.

Nobody lied to her, my parents were always pretty honest about what death was, and what it entailed - nobody created this fantasy image FOR her, yet still, after all of that, this is the image that she created for herself in her head. My point being, that with the best will in the world, you can't teach a child to make an informed decision.

Tokyo

GaelMise wrote: »

You think it is more humane to force someone in the last stages of a terminal illness to go on suffering immence pain untill their body gives up, regardless of their own wishes, than to allow them to choose to end their own life if they want to?

Really? You know better than they do themselves?

Personally I support the right to die. And it's a fairly clear-cut thing for an adult to decide, and make an informed decision upon. My issue is whether a child can actually make that informed decision as to whether it's best for them to end their own life.

I wouldn't wish that kind of suffering on anybody - in my case there were nights when more than myself secretly hoped that it would all end for my sibling, for sure. But the fact remains that there is no way that she would have been able to make a fully informed decision on this. Nor is there any way she should be spending the last months of her life sitting in on talks with psychologists to assess if she really knew the decision that she was making.

conorhal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because forcing a terminally ill human of any age to suffer a painful death is the mark of 'humanity'.

There is literally no point in trying to explain to those that have no humanity and consider life as disposable comodity that there is more to a person then their suffering.

GaelMise

mike_ie wrote: »

Personally I support the right to die. And it's a fairly clear-cut thing for an adult to decide, and make an informed decision upon. My issue is whether a child can actually make that informed decision as to whether it's best for them to end their own life.

I wouldn't wish that kind of suffering on anybody - in my case there were nights when more than myself secretly hoped that it would all end for my sibling, for sure. But the fact remains that there is no way that she would have been able to make a fully informed decision on this. Nor is there any way she should be spending the last months of her life sitting in on talks with psychologists to assess if she really knew the decision that she was making.

If we are talking about a young child I would agree with you, young children do not have the ability to comprehend abstractions, and death can easily be considered to be the abstraction of abstractions.

However, the article itself pointed out that this law is primarily aimed at allowing a choice for a small number of teenagers. I am unaware of anything that would suggest that a 16 year old is likely to be less well equiped to comprehend such a choice than an 18 year old.

When it comes to dealing with the same circumstance in the case of young children, obviously the ideal option would be for it to simply never come up, unfortunatly that is not the world we live in. When it does come up then, how are we as a society to deal with it?
Is forcing the child to go through the process untill their body gives up the best way of dealing with it?
Is giving them the choice even through they may not be able to comprehend that choice, the best way? Would involving their family and the medical profession in the choice be better?
Its not an easy question to answer, but it seems to me that we have defaulted to the first option on the list even though it may not be the best option out of fear of tackeling the question.

Call Me Jimmy

mike_ie wrote: »

I appreciate the condolences - however it's something that happened a long time ago. I just thought that in this case it made a relevant example.

Nobody lied to her, my parents were always pretty honest about what death was, and what it entailed - nobody created this fantasy image FOR her, yet still, after all of that, this is the image that she created for herself in her head. My point being, that with the best will in the world, you can't teach a child to make an informed decision.

Yea my point is just that nobody has any actual information on death. If I said to you, just for example, my information on death is that it's not at all a bad thing to be completely at peace, possibly being greater than the greatest ecstacy in life. You'd rightly say, well that's just your opinion. How is it different when an adult is explaining it to a child?

I'd say any child making the decision who has the mental faculty to make the decision themselves knows just as much as an adult - that you go to sleep and don't wake up. I don't know any adults who understand the true gravity of this because I don't think anyone no matter how long they live can really grasp that anymore than a vague concept, which I think children are capable of conceptualising as well as an adult.

For me it's just a question of timing. If it is a terminal illness for example, say the child will die in 2 years. The question is simply, is it worth bearing the pain? The same discussion will have to be had before they die in 2 years, it can just be brought forward with a view of avoiding the experience of a whole lot of pain and not much if any relief.

Riskymove

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

For me it's just a question of timing. If it is a terminal illness for example, say the child will die in 2 years. The question is simply, is it worth bearing the pain? The same discussion will have to be had before they die in 2 years, it can just be brought forward with a view of avoiding the experience of a whole lot of pain and not much if any relief.

if you read some articles on what is proposed it really is about the end of life, where the minor has a short-term, painful existence left and wants a more dignified and peaceful event

GaelMise

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I'd say any child making the decision who has the mental faculty to make the decision themselves knows just as much as an adult - that you go to sleep and don't wake up. I don't know any adults who understand the true gravity of this because I don't think anyone no matter how long they can really grasp that anymore than a vague concept, which I think children are capable of conceptualising as well as an adult.

I would not agree with you here. Adults has developed an ability to deal with abstract concepts that children do not have.

You are correct in the narrow sense that in death being an unknown, a childs conception of it is as accurate as an adults, however a child is much less able to deal with an abstraction such as death, and make decisions for what they want or what is in their best interest in such a circumstance.

RDM_83 again

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because forcing a terminally ill human of any age to suffer a painful death is the mark of 'humanity'.

is there actually any need for those that are in this situation to suffer considerable amounts of pain, i presume for those suffering they would be under some serious levels of.medication. The level of opposition among paediatrician is very high its not a small minority for a country the size of belgium

Riskymove

RDM_83 again wrote: »

is there actually any need for those that are in this situation to suffer considerable amounts of pain, i presume for those suffering they would be under some serious levels of.medication.

with some illnesses, medication can only do so much, especially if on it for a while

I've experience of one person going through a particularly painful death despite being in care and medicated

Bannasidhe

conorhal wrote: »

There is literally no point in trying to explain to those that have no humanity and consider life as disposable comodity that there is more to a person then their suffering.

There comes a time when all there is to some people's lives is suffering. Endless pain with death as the only release. I fail to see how those who would condemn anyone to that can claim to be the embodiment of 'humanity'.

conorhal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There comes a time when all there is to some people's lives is suffering. Endless pain with death as the only release. I fail to see how those who would condemn anyone to that can claim to be the embodiment of 'humanity'.

And there you go proving my point. Your thinking is reductive and limited.

Bannasidhe

RDM_83 again wrote: »

is there actually any need for those that are in this situation to suffer considerable amounts of pain, i presume for those suffering they would be under some serious levels of.medication. The level of opposition among paediatrician is very high its not a small minority for a country the size of belgium

My cousin is dying a slow, painful death. There is nothing medical science can do for her now. If she is given a higher dose of morphine she will OD but her current dose is a drop in the ocean when it comes to alleviating her suffering. She has gone from being an active, fit dancer and choreographer to a shell who cannot even hold a spoon to feed herself, she has to wear nappies and her 80 year old mother changes them. That is her life now. Agony and anger with no hope.

Two years ago my aunt literally died screaming in agony. No amount of pain medication could help her.

How anyone would want people to suffer like that is beyond me.

Call Me Jimmy

conorhal wrote: »

And there you go proving my point. Your thinking is reductive and limited.

Care to elaborate?

Bannasidhe

conorhal wrote: »

And there you go proving my point. Your thinking is reductive and limited.

The fact that you had to stoop to having a dig at my way of thinking says far more about you then me.

Temptamperu

conorhal wrote: »

The liberal 'culture of death' proceeds apace. Will the last person to discard the last shread of what once passed for humanity please turn out the lights.

Why are you one of these people who think suffering pleases you god?

Humanity is a shít stain on the history of this planet.

osarusan

mike_ie wrote: »

I had a young sibling that suffered quite considerably for a prolonged length of time before she passed away, and while of course it was terrible to see her suffer, I also don't think that she would have had the ability to actually discern what death was, and make an objective decision as to whether it was something that she would have wanted or not. She had a strong will to live, but when the game was over, in her head, she was just heading off to a big playground in the sky, where she wouldn't be sick anymore, and I'm glad that she had that picture in her head. I can't imagine what it would have done to her to have to sit down with her and had a deep and meaningful conversation about what death and choosing to die actually entailed, and personally, I'm glad that she didn't have the picture in her head taken away from her.

Oh jesus, I have two young children, and reading your post, and entertaining the thought of having to deal with any of this, nearly made me cry.

I am so sorry to read it, and you raised the same questions I had about the issue of informed consent.

bear1

Please, no bickering in this thread or I'll request it be closed.
There is no need to resort to petty one liners to get a point through.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

conorhal wrote: »

The liberal 'culture of death' proceeds apace. Will the last person to discard the last shread of what once passed for humanity please turn out the lights.

What "Culture of Death", these people are already dying, they are just exercising their right to do so without pain and with dome dignity.
Need a hand down offa that there high horse

Sulla Felix

bear1 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/belgium-on-verge-of-giving-children-righttodie-in-controversial-vote-30000854.html

Very difficult to judge this but I'm thinking it may be a step too far.
It's a terrible situation to see your child in a state of pain to the point where death is a sweet release but if 160 paediatrician's are challenging this law then maybe more thought should be put into it?
What's everyone elses' opinion on this?

How many are there in Belgium? Is 160 a large proportion of them? Kind of a meaningless statistic imo.

Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea. In a variety of areas we acknowledge that children aren't fit to make their own decisions yet they're about to give possibly the biggest one to them to make.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

conorhal wrote: »

There is literally no point in trying to explain to those that have no humanity and consider life as disposable comodity that there is more to a person then their suffering.

Really? Their suffering doesn't count,now!
Only ones I see lacking in humanity are those preaching that the suffering of others doesn't count!

conorhal

Temptamperu wrote: »

Why are you one of these people who think suffering pleases you god?

No.

Temptamperu wrote: »

Humanity is a shít stain on the history of this planet.

An opinion that I'd expect to be shared by you culture of death people. It's an expression of the nhillism that is the anthisis, the very opposite of humanity.

bear1

Sulla Felix wrote: »

How many are there in Belgium? Is 160 a large proportion of them? Kind of a meaningless statistic imo.

Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea. In a variety of areas we acknowledge that children aren't fit to make their own decisions yet they're about to give possibly the biggest one to them to make.

It's not my statistic, I took it from the artifcle.
I don't know how many are in Belgium but I would imagine 160 is quite a bit

conorhal

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Really? Their suffering doesn't count,now!
Only ones I see lacking in humanity are those preaching that the suffering of others doesn't count!

You only cloak your nhillistic self interest in the guise of compassion.