Euthanasia and assisted dying.

Linking assisted dying to "a certain dark period in Western Europe in the 20th century" is an absolute stretch.

And that aside, as you say in your post, the law in Belgium permits this course for children "with terminal illness" i.e they are going to die anyway and this is to allow them to choose the manner in which they do so.

There's vastly more pertinent ways to be outraged about the abuse of mentally ill people (children or otherwise) than choosing this as being the trigger to say something.

In the netherlands, where assisted dying for mental health reasons is permitted, the figure for people who choose assisted dying is about 15% of those who died by suicide in a given year. So you could argue that it helped ease the suffering of some people who may have chosen to die a different way if this wasn't available to them.

Personally, I am conflicted by the topic. In principle I agree with it for severe cases of suffering (physical or otherwise) but I am also wary of some people being manipulated in to choosing this path. I understand some of the people who voted against the bill in the UK today felt that there weren't sufficient safeguards being proposed to mitigate against this and that would concern me.

As a global society, I feel we've already cheapened the value of life too much in how we expect people to struggle and suffer and in that scenario, it's a bit hypocritical for some people to insist everyone has to stick around.

Usually, in a democratic country, the abuse of vulnerable people causes a public outcry. 

So how can so many Belgian and Dutch people be OK with the euthanising of children and people who have mental illness or dementia? 

You answered your own question in the same post -

“We start from the liberal principle that you decide for yourself about your life,” they say.'

iIn order for there to be public outcry about children and vulnerable adults being abused, it would have to be established that there are children and vulnerable adults being abused.

Have they forgotten about what happened in a certain dark period in Western Europe in the 20th century?

I don’t think anyone’s forgotten about the decades of abuse of children and vulnerable adults perpetrated by the Catholic Church in Western Europe in the 20th century. It’s why in most countries in Western Europe they have since leaned more towards becoming liberal democracies, with the result in the UK being indicative of a shift towards a more liberal democracy. For a while there it was touch and go with the Conservatives in power making an absolute balls of everything and just generally making people’s lives more difficult and miserable.

I don't think anyone was wondering what was the dark period you were referring to, I know I wasn't.

With respect to cheapening the value of life, have a look around you, the flippant manner in which the treatment of the palestinians has been viewed by much of the west, the blase conversations that are happening right now about another potential war in the Middle East. How little meaningful action is taken to reign in climate damage. How people are viewed as commodities who must add monetary value above all else. Look at the impact AI is going to have on people going forward, the wellbeing of our societies is very far down the list of priorities of the people pushing that technology.

I don't think anyone could argue that the overall quality of life has improved in the West over the last 20 years or so, irrespective of what the life expectancy values have been.

I don't look at things through a singular selective lens. Sorry.

Don't see any reason why a person of sane mind undergoing intense suffering with a medically confirmed life expectancy and no possible hope of a cure should not be allowed to end their suffering under their own terms instead of being forced to live to their dying breath wishing they were dead every second of their existence

Like another relevantly recent societal referendum, if and when it is brought to us to vote, it will be marketed as only happening on rare occasions and having plenty of safe guards. But as we always see, this is a lie to win over the middle ground. It will be a sad day if this is voted in imo. Life certainly is cheap in this so called modern and progressive world.

Anybody who has ever had to sit and watch somebody slowly and painfully die would support this, as long as they're not the sort who gets a kick from the suffering of others.

A diagnosis, a few years of ineffective treatment, a slow decline. One day you realise that this will probably be the last time we'll go for a walk together. This might be their last trip to the shops, it took too much out of them. You watch as they resign themselves to the loss of privacy, independence and dignity. They try to hide pain, their medication is making them drowsy and confused. And still, it could be years before the end.

When somebody dies there's often a lot of stupid talk about how bravely they bore their illness. As if they had a choice.

Yes because your political misgivings on this topic completely override the autonomy of people you don't know. Let me guess, repealing the 8th was a mistake?

Pretty sure most people would happily vote for repeal again. Forcing people to do something against their will doesn't tend to work.

Anybody who has ever had to sit and watch somebody slowly and painfully die would support this, as long as they're not the sort who gets a kick from the suffering of others.

That’s a hell of a ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy you’re setting up there that is not remotely reflected in reality. There are many people who have had to watch loved ones dying in pain who didn’t perceive euthanasia as the answer, rather they seek to alleviate the person’s suffering and are frustrated with the fact that social, medical and scientific knowledge has failed to provide an adequate answer. Euthanasia is not the answer.

The premise of the opening post is a mish-mash effort to conflate voluntary euthanasia with involuntary euthanasia using the suffering of children and vulnerable adults in the same way as you’re doing. The issue then was that children and vulnerable adults were portrayed as a burden on society, a barrier to social progress, an ideology which facilitated seeing children and vulnerable adults as non-persons, unworthy of being treated with dignity and respect which was a right only afforded to individuals who promoted the pervasive ideology which led to the circumstances the OP is referring to in Germany, a bit more specific than their original claim of public outcry regarding the abuse of children and vulnerable adults in Western Europe.

The fundamental premise of their argument is no different than yours in that it has a fatal flaw - it relies on people making the connection between children and vulnerable adults suffering, and portraying legislating for euthanasia as the slippery slope toward abuse of children and vulnerable adults, when in reality one has nothing to do with the other. It’s an emotionally laden argument designed to elicit a feeling of wanting to be on the right side of history which serves as a distraction from coming up with solutions to understanding why people are suffering in the first place, and in second place how to alleviate their suffering. Mercy killing sounds like the right thing to do in those circumstances, but that’s only because it’s the logical conclusion of a solution that has it’s foundation in liberal principles - We start from the liberal principle that you decide for yourself about your life

Characterising anyone who doesn’t share those values as someone who gets a kick out of the suffering of others only provides an insight into your own individual philosophy which informs your perception. It’s not an objective observation based upon reality.

I'd say you have it. The RCC has made a business promoting suffering and paying them is the only way to mitigate it - not relieve it, but be able to assuage yourself before you die that you did everything they groomed you to believe would be right, including of course contributing money, time and energy to promulgating the beliefs and business model of the RCC.

you did everything they groomed you to believe would be right

That word too will lose its barb through over-use, but not before it’s appropriated by those who wish to portray anyone who supports euthanasia as being groomed to believe it’s the answer to address any and all of life’s struggles.

I find it amazing that people go on about the sanctity of life and will quite happily eat pork or chicken from an animal whose entire life and death was abject cruelty.

Also, they are quite happy that someone in another country leads a cheap, hard, short unhealthy life making their clothes or Christmas decorations.

Or they think people who follow speed limits or vaccinate themselves to prevents the spread of disease or death in society are idiots.

Or that's it's ok to have shares in companies that destroy the planet that is necessary for life, or that sell products and services that promote addictions, fear, self hate, and suicide in society.

Yeah, thanks for telling me what the 'real question here' is.

Such insight.