Belgian senate approves euthanasia for children [CWN]

[vera_dicere]

Those people really are a pack of idiots, and I mean that with all charity. We all know the abuses that have taken place under teh adult programme, and doctors have admitted to euth’ing children for years. We’d be all a bunch of naive dunces if we beleived having three doctors and a shrink sign off on it is going to ensure there’s no abuses.

As a nurse, it boils my blood that people in this day and age really think the best thing we can do for the terminally ill is to murder them. Pallative care is effective and upholds the dignity of the human person and assists them, their family and friends to face the end.

 

[belorg]

The focus on pain, in a near death patient, is an interesting limitation of the law. I believe it unlikely that the pain cannot be controlled via medicines. It is not unheard of for increasing doses of morphine to be given to the point of risking death. That is not immoral. One wonders why the law was not formulated to give protection to doctors administering high doses of drugs for pain relief, with the patients acknowledgement of the risk?

Because the practise of administering high doses of drugs without consent and with the certainty that death will occur is so commom , and condoned by the Catholic church, that a law on euthanasia is one step in the direction of getting rid of this hypocrisy.

The more questionable cases arise in individuals suffering intolerable (their assessment) quality of life. Here there are no medical options, so the “freedom” of the sufferer to die by choice is asserted. This new law in Belgium seems to be framed in keeping with that principle…

Sure.

 

[Rau]

Because the practise of administering high doses of drugs without consent and with the certainty that death will occur is so commom , and condoned by the Catholic church, that a law on euthanasia is one step in the direction of getting rid of this hypocrisy.

The lack of consent is what must be addressed (as I said).

There is no hypocrisy in ethically conducted pain management. The parties want the pain to stop and will use the best choice of drug in the least quantity to get that result. They do not seek death, they do all to avoid it, but it may happen, and the patient must consent to treatment bearing such risk.

The same ethical principle is adopted to treat ectopic pregnancy. The child’s death is not wanted but the treatment of the mother has that unwanted effect, which would be avoided were it humanly possible.

Euthanasia takes the approach of “let’s end the person’s life” - which will stop the pain.

Intent matters.

 

[belorg]

The lack of consent is what must be addressed (as I said).

Unlike in the case of T4, there is no lack of consent in the belgian law.

There is no hypocrisy in ethically conducted pain management. The parties want the pain to stop and will use the best choice of drug in the least quantity to get that result. They do not seek death, they do all to avoid it, but it may happen, and the patient must consent to treatment bearing such risk.

In lots of cases , they do “seek death” but do not admit it, and since the difference between a quantity to stop the pain and a lethal quantity is very difficult to assess, the doctors get away with this, with a clear conscience and hardly any chance of legal persecution.
This practice is widely spread among Belgian hospitals, including the many catholic ones in Belgium.
My father-in-law died in a Catholic hospital, and the doctors and nurses knowingly administered him a lethal dosis of pain relief drugs. Fortunately, in the case of my father- in- law, this was done with his full consent.
The words of the doctor, "This is better than euthanasia, because it doesn’t envolve lots of paperwork and nobody will ever ask question about this.

My grandmother, on the other hand, was knowingly given a lethal amount of pain relief without her consent. That happened in 1979, long before euthanasia was legal. By a Catholic doctor.

Euthanasia takes the approach of “let’s end the person’s life” - which will stop the pain.

Intent matters.

The end of the person’s life is due to his or her illness, euthanasia or pain relief merely change the moment of death. That the patient will die is not decided by doctors or even by the patient himself, all that’s decided is when he will die and how he will die.

And that’s his right. Even if ,as a Catholic, you don’t approve of it, you should respect it. Nobody forces you to take the same road, but if in great pain and agony, you change your mind, the law allows you to do so.

 

[Rau]

Even if ,as a Catholic, you don’t approve of it, you should respect it. Nobody forces you to take the same road, but if in great pain and agony, you change your mind, the law allows you to do so.

I wish to be able to access pain management sufficient to stop pain, not kill me. I am prepared to authorise the pain medication on that basis, and to accept the risk that it might kill me, and thus ethical doctors need protection under the law in the event I do die from the medication, without me requesting death.

I don’t want the doctor to say - “sorry, I can’t treat you under those terms, but I can give you something that will certainly kill you”.

 

[belorg]

I wish to be able to access pain management sufficient to stop pain, not kill me. I am prepared to authorise the pain medication on that basis, and to accept the risk that it might kill me, and thus ethical doctors need protection under the law in the event I do die from the medication, without me requesting death.

At least in Belgium, "ethica"l doctors are protected under the law. The problem is that in most cases there is no way to distinguish “ethical” doctors for “unethical” ones.

I don’t want the doctor to say - “sorry, I can’t treat you under those terms, but I can give you something that will certainly kill you”.

Don’t worry, doctors will know exactly how to word it and the result will be exactly the same, but you conscience and the doctor’s will be cleared.
The problem is that, with or without the law, there is always a risk that, if a doctor feels you are in so much pain that he needs to give you a dosis which he knows will be lethal, he will give it to you, whether you have consented or not. And no law can stop him.
That’s why I am happy to live in Belgium, that I have the possibility to ask for euthanasia when in great pain and near death. I don’t know whether I will in fact do so, but the knowledge I have a choice in this makes me feel good.

 

[Rau]

Don’t worry, doctors will know exactly how to word it and the result will be exactly the same, but you conscience and the doctor’s will be cleared…

You appear to be saying that my wish to live will be ignored, or not believed, and I am likely to be killed. C’est la vie?

 

[mrsjennymulhall]

That’s why I am happy to live in Belgium, that I have the possibility to ask for euthanasia when in great pain and near death. I don’t know whether I will in fact do so, but the knowledge I have a choice in this makes me feel good.

My own concern lies in whether the elderly or infirm do truly make that choice… I care full time for three elderly relatives and, at times, they feel that they are burdensome. Nothing could be farther from the truth but there it is. Elder abuse; whether emotional or financial is also a concern. It is too easy to take a choice at face value when there may just be darker realities under the surface. I know the law must deal in ‘black and white’ but there is too much scope for abuse here. Surely, Palliative care is so sophisticated now as to make such barbarous decisions obsolete?

 

[belorg]

You appear to be saying that my wish to live will be ignored, or not believed, and I am likely to be killed. C’est la vie?

Maybe your wish will not be ignored, but you can never be sure, and that has nothing to do with whichever law is passed.

 

[belorg]

My own concern lies in whether the elderly or infirm do truly make that choice… I care full time for three elderly relatives and, at times, they feel that they are burdensome. Nothing could be farther from the truth but there it is. Elder abuse; whether emotional or financial is also a concern. It is too easy to take a choice at face value when there may just be darker realities under the surface. I know the law must deal in ‘black and white’ but there is too much scope for abuse here. Surely, Palliative care is so sophisticated now as to make such barbarous decisions obsolete?

These are also my concerns, but a law against euthanasia is not going to take away these concerns.
I have my doubts about your last sentence, though. Palliative care has its limits and it’s when those limits are reached that euthanasia should be an option for those who so wish.

 

[mrsjennymulhall]

Belorg,

Fair comment.

Should it ever come to question here in Ireland, I shall think long and hard about it but instinctively, I feel that it is too open to abuse; whether that abuse is outright or subtle. I am only 38 but in my lifetime I have noticed how our elderly have started to be seen as somehow ‘less useful’ members of society and their care commoditised. I have far too many concerns with these trends to embrace them, as reasonable as the arguments for may seem.

You are a reasonable person; I have enjoyed reading your comments.

Jenny

 

[oldcelt]

My own concern lies in whether the elderly or infirm do truly make that choice… I care full time for three elderly relatives and, at times, they feel that they are burdensome. Nothing could be farther from the truth but there it is. Elder abuse; whether emotional or financial is also a concern. It is too easy to take a choice at face value when there may just be darker realities under the surface. I know the law must deal in ‘black and white’ but there is too much scope for abuse here. Surely, Palliative care is so sophisticated now as to make such barbarous decisions obsolete?

I have had 14 operations in five different hospitals and can tell you that those institutions don’t even handle short-term pain well. I cannot imagine the suffering some must endure. If my state were to propose a similar law I would have no moral choice but to support it.

 

[belorg]

Belorg,

Fair comment.

Should it ever come to question here in Ireland, I shall think long and hard about it but instinctively, I feel that it is too open to abuse; whether that abuse is outright or subtle. I am only 38 but in my lifetime I have noticed how our elderly have started to be seen as somehow ‘less useful’ members of society and their care commoditised. I have far too many concerns with these trends to embrace them, as reasonable as the arguments for may seem.

You are a reasonable person; I have enjoyed reading your comments.

Jenny

Thank you for this comment.

It may be true that the elderly have started to be seen as less useful, but I don’t think a law on euthanasia will have any effect on that.
As to abuse, I don’t know how it is in other countries, but here in Belgium, I don’t know if the actual euthanasia law has ever been abused, in any case it’s a lot harder to abuse this law than it is to abuse pain relief medication.

 

[glendab]

Belorg, I don’t know any other way to discuss the issue.

That’s what I mean by a cheap emotional appeal, because I could just as esily say that one child having to endure an immense amount of suffering just because of Catholic doctrine is on too many.
But these things poison the well and make every rational debate about this matter completely impossible.

To me it is a non-issue. I’m Catholic. I have standard of ethic to keep. I measure things by mine. You measure things by yours. If you consider my responses “cheap emotional” ones, then you’ve decided on parameters for debate that must meet your standard and so there goes the open-mindedness required on both sides to “rationally” debate.

And here comes another comment I’m sure you’ll consider cheaper: Any entity that would try and convince a sickly, suffering, terminally ill child into accepting SUICIDE by DOCTOR as a way OUT of their suffering to me is purely demonic and predatory.

That is why it is a non-issue to me. You cannot justify killing except in self-defense. There is no such thing as mercy-killing and those who think the two are compatible will experience that same type of mercy when they pass from this life to their reward.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

P.S. Belorg -

That’s what I mean by a cheap emotional appeal, because I could just as esily say that one child having to endure an immense amount of suffering just because of Catholic doctrine is on too many.
But these things poison the well and make every rational debate about this matter completely impossible.

It isn’t Catholic Doctrine causing the suffering. It is disease and man’s inability to conquer death. Everyone one dies. It cannot be avoided. But medicine is called upon to ease the suffering within limits and assist the dying within reason. Then it is truly medicinal medicine. There really is no “rational” debate to be had about the matter. Murder is still murder no matter what doctrine you subscribe to.

If someone stepped into your room right now while you were typing a reply and shot you dead, they’d still be murdering you no matter that they just got your blood tests back from the lab and it says Belorg is terminally ill and will probably suffer immensely in the final stages of his disease and he doesn’t want to suffer and thinks all folks shouldn’t suffer. That person would still be murdering you whether or not you gave him or her permission. To do something to cause the death of another is still homicide. No debate about that though the lawyers might find a few words to keep a court room from ordering the murder of your murderer.

Hope this helps.

Glenda

 

[belorg]

P.S. Belorg -

It isn’t Catholic Doctrine causing the suffering. It is disease and man’s inability to conquer death. Everyone one dies. It cannot be avoided. But medicine is called upon to ease the suffering within limits and assist the dying within reason. Then it is truly medicinal medicine. There really is no “rational” debate to be had about the matter. Murder is still murder no matter what doctrine you subscribe to.

I never claimed it was Catholic doctrine causing the suffering. And you knwo as well as me that your last sentence does not apply. In times of war, killing someone is not consiered murder, cvene though it is not done with the victim’s consent.

If someone stepped into your room right now while you were typing a reply and shot you dead, they’d still be murdering you no matter that they just got your blood tests back from the lab and it says Belorg is terminally ill and will probably suffer immensely in the final stages of his disease and he doesn’t want to suffer and thinks all folks shouldn’t suffer. That person would still be murdering you whether or not you gave him or her permission.

That’s why the law on euthanasia was passed. Under certain circumstances and under the patient’s consent, it is not murder.

To do something to cause the death of another is still homicide. No debate about that though the lawyers might find a few words to keep a court room from ordering the murder of your murderer.

Hope this helps.

Glenda

If to do something to cause the death of another is homocide, then the president of the United States is a murderer because he has soldiers fighting and killing in various places in the world. Obviously, there are exceptions to thus rule.
Sometimes causing the death of another is justified, in most cases it is not.

 

[belorg]

Belorg, I don’t know any other way to discuss the issue.

To me it is a non-issue. I’m Catholic. I have standard of ethic to keep. I measure things by mine. You measure things by yours. If you consider my responses “cheap emotional” ones, then you’ve decided on parameters for debate that must meet your standard and so there goes the open-mindedness required on both sides to “rationally” debate.

Comparing the Belgian law to Action T4 is not a matter of standard, it’s downright wrong.

And here comes another comment I’m sure you’ll consider cheaper: Any entity that would try and convince a sickly, suffering, terminally ill child into accepting SUICIDE by DOCTOR as a way OUT of their suffering to me is purely demonic and predatory.

Fortunately, nobody is trying to convince a sickly, suffering,terminally ill child into accepting suicide. But there is a law that allows sickly, suffering, terminally ill children to end thier lives in a decent way, IF THEY SO WISH.

That is why it is a non-issue to me. You cannot justify killing except in self-defense. There is no such thing as mercy-killing and those who think the two are compatible will experience that same type of mercy when they pass from this life to their reward.

Glenda

For people in immense suffering, euthanasia can be considered self-defense against the attacks on thier dignity by a crule disease.

 

[mrsjennymulhall]

I hesitate to comment further on the aw in Belgium because my understanding of it is based on what I’ve ‘caught on the breeze’ of commentary and media reports but my concerns with euthanasia in general are these; once the Rubicon of legislating for death has been passed, the finer details are open to review, surely?

For example, I imagine but do not know) that the law in Belguim was originally passed in the case of an adult, sound of mind and reason, in a painful and terminal situation. On the face of it, this is a humane law. However, two healthy, albeit bling men were then allowed to end their lives, now it is children in a position to understand what they are requesting.

In the future; what of the tiny child, too young to make such a decision? It seems likely that the law might be reviewed to reflect such a dreadful case. And what of ‘quality of life’ cases? I know its pointless to argue ‘what nexts’ but the law appears to my untutored eyes to have widened quite a bit from its inception.

Jenny

 

[belorg]

I hesitate to comment further on the aw in Belgium because my understanding of it is based on what I’ve ‘caught on the breeze’ of commentary and media reports but my concerns with euthanasia in general are these; once the Rubicon of legislating for death has been passed, the finer details are open to review, surely?

For example, I imagine but do not know) that the law in Belguim was originally passed in the case of an adult, sound of mind and reason, in a painful and terminal situation. On the face of it, this is a humane law. However, two healthy, albeit bling men were then allowed to end their lives, now it is children in a position to understand what they are requesting.

Yes, that’s true in fact. But evevry law should be judged on its own merit. it is not because this law has been passed that necessarily all sorts of laws concerning euthanasia will be passed.

In the future; what of the tiny child, too young to make such a decision? It seems likely that the law might be reviewed to reflect such a dreadful case. And what of ‘quality of life’ cases? I know its pointless to argue ‘what nexts’ but the law appears to my untutored eyes to have widened quite a bit from its inception.

Jenny

Yes it has, but that’s because people’s views have evolved.
The only way to counter this, if it should be conutered, is by a rational discussion and not by comparisons to Nazi practices. The Catholic Church in Belgium e.g. is opposed to the law, but refrains from using these sort of comparisons.

 

[weller2]

From the link posted by edwest2 above:

The measure is an amended version of a 2002 law that allowed euthanasia for adults, and it extends this to those under 18. The legislation also requires that a request for euthanasia include the written consent of a parent.

Emphasis mine.

You appear to be saying that my wish to live will be ignored, or not believed, and I am likely to be killed. C’est la vie?

Much worse than that. A Catholic doctor can kill you without your consent and receive communion on the same day, but he is not allowed to do that on your explicit request. That’s because:

• Catholic moral theology does not recognize consent. It is never a factor in determining whether the action is licit, because the moral qualification is tied to the action itself, not to its circumstances.
• The double effect effectively exonerates the doctor for the consequences of his action, as long as he has a good excuse. So if you are in pain, then the doctor is allowed to give you a lethal dose of morphine with the stated purpose of alleviating your pain, but he is not allowed to give you the same dose with the stated purpose of ending your life.