Belgian senate approves euthanasia for children [CWN]

[Rau]

My problem with euthanasia, from a non-religious point of view, is that a person may want death because of reasons which are coerced or symptoms of his condition. The death wish is a symptom of his extended condition. There is no free rational decision making process going on. We have someone who is disabled, sick, depressed, anxious, afraid to be a burden, who thinks they have less dignity and so on… but these things are part and parcel of what they are because of their condition. The person cannot freely decide, “I want to die” any more so than a person who is depressed can do so or a psychotic person can do so. Some people are willing to take the chance and kill them but that’s guesswork.

Of course I also have moral objections. Even if I was an atheist, I would think it is wrong to kill someone, even someone who wishes to die. None of us has that authority. And if I was a consistent atheist who was also a materialist I would realise we cannot make such a decision. Yes we’re programmed ’ pain.

While I am no fan of euthanasia, I see some issues in your argument…

The decision of a person is obviously influenced by their situation. A well person does not seek an end to pain, or seek death. They want death because of their situation, and I don’t think it makes sense to invalidate their decision because of their situation, unless there is the possibility that the situation will change.

Regarding the moral situation, it may be best to start with a consideration of whether an individual has the right to end his own life, as that limitation avoids the wider issues that arise from involvement of others and a State sanctioned process.

 

[LisaA]

While I am no fan of euthanasia, I see some issues in your argument…

The decision of a person is obviously influenced by their situation. A well person does not seek an end to pain, or seek death. They want death because of their situation, and I don’t think it makes sense to invalidate their decision because of their situation, unless there is the possibility that the situation will change.

Regarding the moral situation, it may be best to start with a consideration of whether an individual has the right to end his own life, as that limitation avoids the wider issues that arise from involvement of others and a State sanctioned process.

There is always the possibility the situation may change. That is the problem with “helping” people along.

As to your second question, whom or what would give him that right?

Again, what possible justification is there for euthanasia when the purported reasons for its existence, alleviate suffering, pain, emotional anguish, can be addressed by other means?

Don’t lose sight of the problem when suggesting solutions. I think the entire argument is based on trying to justify a pre-determined outcome rather than addressing the actual issues involved.

Lisa

 

[Rau]

As to your second question, whom or what would give him that right?

Don’t lose sight of the problem when suggesting solutions.

I am suggesting no solutions.

What is the source of our “rights”? Eg. The right to live peacefully, the right to marry, the right to religious freedoms, etc?

 

[LisaA]

I am suggesting no solutions.

What is the source of our “rights”? Eg. The right to live peacefully, the right to marry, the right to religious freedoms, etc?

Are you an American? If so you might check out our founding documents that point to the rights granted by our Creator.

Lisa

 

[Rau]

Are you an American? If so you might check out our founding documents that point to the rights granted by our Creator.

Lisa

Not American, but I’m assuming the sourcing of the rights I listed is beyond the State (which I think is your point also).

So while we may hold that God grants these rights, that is unlikely to most unlikely to resonate with an atheist. Does an atheist have the right to commit suicide? From his perspective, how could he not? I can therefore understand the atheist’s belief that he has such a right, and the State oversteps to deny that “right”.

 

[LisaA]

Not American, but I’m assuming the sourcing of the rights I listed is beyond the State (which I think is your point also).

So while we may hold that God grants these rights, that is unlikely to most unlikely to resonate with an atheist. Does an atheist have the right to commit suicide? From his perspective, how could he not? I can therefore understand the atheist’s belief that he has such a right, and the State oversteps to deny that “right”.

I used to be an atheist and was raised by militant atheists so I know how they think . Even atheists believe in science. A study of biology (my parents had PhD’s in biology and were college profs) indicate that species are ordered toward survival and ordered toward survival long enough to procreate. Thus any action in opposition is abnormal, disordered behavior. While an atheist has the “right” to commit suicide, in doing so he acts in opposition to his natural instinct to survive. He defies the very biology that caused his existence in the first place. To an atheist, with no thought of life everlasting, this would seem the most perverted and disordered behavior of all.

Further we are not discussing someone taking their own life, which is both abnormal behavior, and to those who are Catholic or Christian a very grave sin. We are talking about a child being able to ask another to kill him or her. Completely different issues. I od not think that the state can or should grant a minor the ability to demand he or she be killed.

Lisa

 

[Rau]

I used to be an atheist and was raised by militant atheists so I know how they think . Even atheists believe in science. A study of biology (my parents had PhD’s in biology and were college profs) indicate that species are ordered toward survival and ordered toward survival long enough to procreate. Thus any action in opposition is abnormal, disordered behavior. While an atheist has the “right” to commit suicide, in doing so he acts in opposition to his natural instinct to survive. He defies the very biology that caused his existence in the first place. To an atheist, with no thought of life everlasting, this would seem the most perverted and disordered behavior of all.

Further we are not discussing someone taking their own life, which is both abnormal behavior, and to those who are Catholic or Christian a very grave sin. We are talking about a child being able to ask another to kill him or her. Completely different issues. I od not think that the state can or should grant a minor the ability to demand he or she be killed.

Lisa

Ok, but I think the discussion has broadened beyond the child element. I guess what I’m exploring is that there is dichotomy of issues here. There are secular arguments against euthanasia, given the potential for mistakes (affecting either ‘willing’ patients or others) as well as moral arguments. Suicide faces pretty much only moral arguments. And assisted suicide is a bridge,

But if we accept that an atheist has a right to suicide (put aside questions of his logic, etc) and hence potentially to assisted suicide, should we Catholics oppose laws which enable that on moral grounds?

I think it’s a topic for another thread.

 

[LisaA]

Ok, but I think the discussion has broadened beyond the child element. I guess what I’m exploring is that there is dichotomy of issues here. There are secular arguments against euthanasia, given the potential for mistakes (affecting either ‘willing’ patients or others) as well as moral arguments. Suicide faces pretty much only moral arguments. And assisted suicide is a bridge,.

What gives anyone the right to commit suicide? Practically speaking it’s unlikely people can be prevented from committing suicide. So not sure it’s worth the energy to discuss. If assisted suicide is a bridge, then it is a bridge too far. It’s one thing to kill yourself but quite another to involve another party. It IS possible to prevent “legal” euthanasia and as the saying goes, we must stand athwart history screaming NO!

But if we accept that an atheist has a right to suicide (put aside questions of his logic, etc) and hence potentially to assisted suicide, should we Catholics oppose laws which enable that on moral grounds?

.

The answer to that is obvious, YES.

Lisa

 

[Laurent_LUG]

Precisely. From a purely utilitarian point of view euthanisa is simply a cost saving measure and thus, as you said, those in physical and emotional pain can easily be manipulated into “requesting” death so as not to suffer nor to have one’s family suffer. Sick cihldren are incredibly empathic and just as the parent doesn’t want to see his child in pain, the child seeing the agony of his parents may be convinced his death will “help” the parents.

You know: Doctors can make more from living persons !!

The reality is that there is no need for euthanasia.

Lisa

Nature decides , the weak ones will die first , that’s what happen in wild nature !!

The decision of a person is obviously influenced by their situation. A well person does not seek an end to pain, or seek death. They want death because of their situation, and I don’t think it makes sense to invalidate their decision because of their situation, unless there is the possibility that the situation will change.

Indeed !!
If i was at such point , and suddenly there is cure , and i still have power ,
i’d take a change to live again

We all know we will die. You see nobody lives forever.

That’s a fact !!

 

[LisaA]

You know: Doctors can make more from living persons !!

Nature decides , the weak ones will die first , that’s what happen in wild nature !!

I don’t know if you are joking or not. What are you talking about? FWIW with respect to your first statement, it denotes a lack of knowledge about the cost of medical care. The costs of a criticallly ill patient or one being treated for a serious illness are mostly for hospital care and medications, not doctors. Further and particularly in European countries, the costs are not reimbursed and thus the only way to cut the cost is to ration the care.

Your second comment is odd…what are you talking about?

Lisa

 

[Laurent_LUG]

I don’t know if you are joking or not. What are you talking about? FWIW with respect to your first statement, it denotes a lack of knowledge about the cost of medical care. The costs of a criticallly ill patient or one being treated for a serious illness are mostly for hospital care and medications, not doctors. Further and particularly in European countries, the costs are not reimbursed and thus the only way to cut the cost is to ration the care.

Ok , i’m not a doctor , or something like that

Living persons/patients are costing more …
Maybe (a bit) cruel: A living patient still have to pay …

Your second comment is odd…what are you talking about?

Lisa

Let’s say 5000 years ago or more , medical care wasn’t the same as today ,
only the strongest survived !!

 

[grotto]

Its a sad state of affairs when people are arguing about the premature end of a child’s life!
Children are the most innocent of God’s people. Who can dare suggest a child would propose that his parents should have the doctor kill him? Knock off the stupidity. It is a crime of the worst order and whether one believes it or not, a hell awaits the one who would scandalize a child. If one has no fear of Hell because they are an unbeliever, then by all means don’t have a moments worry, belief will be delivered also. There may be a few countries that have gone over to the crazy side but they will end up all alone. Killing children, born and unborn; killing the old; whats left? Look in the mirror!

 

[josie_L]

You know: Doctors can make more from living persons !!

Nature decides , the weak ones will die first , that’s what happen in wild nature !!

If nature is to take it’s course, then don’t euthanize, i.e., it is not nature’s way to purposely inject barbituates to kill very ill patients.

 

[LisaA]

Ok , i’m not a doctor , or something like that

Living persons/patients are costing more …
Maybe (a bit) cruel: A living patient still have to pay …

Let’s say 5000 years ago or more , medical care wasn’t the same as today ,
only the strongest survived !!

I don’t think your post makes any sense. My point is that there is no reason for euthanasia if the objective is to alleviate pain and suffering. Thus the rationale for euthanasia is simply economics, cloaked in cotton wool of “dying with dignity” or “not prolonging suffering.” The problems of mental and physical pain can be addressed with medications, counseling, and other therapies.

As to living patients costing more, yes that is my point. The longer a person lives with the kind of high tech medical care available, the more it costs. In Europe and to some extent in America, this cost is borne by the government which extracts funds from its citizens in the form of taxes. Depending on the form of government and taxation, there are limits to these funds. Hence in the high cost welfare states in Europe, there is a downward pressure exerted through rationing care.

As to your second sentence, what point are you trying to make?

Lisa

 

[Laurent_LUG]

If medical care didn’t exist , only the strongest will survive !!

 

[LisaA]

If medical care didn’t exist , only the strongest will survive !!

 

[Laurent_LUG]

Ok , a lion attacks his prey , the lion always take the weakest , that’s how nature works !!

 

[josie_L]

Ok , a lion attacks his prey , the lion always take the weakest , that’s how nature works !!

But what does this have to do with euthanasia?

 

[Laurent_LUG]

If medical care didn’t exist , they also wouldn’t talk about palliative care !!

 

[LisaA]

If medical care didn’t exist , they also wouldn’t talk about palliative care !!

I think it’s time for you to address the thread or start a new one. Nothing you say seems to apply to the issues in this thread.

Lisa