Belgium nears controversial law

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 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

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'.

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.

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.

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.

conorhal wrote: »

No.



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.

What culture of death? the one where we go and sit in a cold and uncomfortable building to be told a story that talks about some hippys death week in week out?

I live life to the fullest as I believe this is it, one life and 80 years if your lucky and if i had to go through what ive seen with cancer and all these other diseases i would want the choice.
Sure lets pump them full of heroin and let them suffer.

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

How dare you!
My only interest is in the right of those suffering excruciating pain in death to be allowed to choose to be released from it.
Nice one attacking me personally as opposed to my post!

Hes doing it to everyone he disagrees with and it says more of him than us.

What is the problem these people have with choice? Its the same with abortions who gave these pious fools the right to say what a person can and cannot do to there own body?

Pro-life equals anti-choice.

you would almost swear it was all compulsory the way they ring their hands.