Belgian senate approves euthanasia for children [CWN]

[mrsjennymulhall]

Yes it has, but that’s because people’s views have evolved.
.

I’m not sure that ‘evolved’ is the word I would use, Belorg. Once a nation has legislated to legally kill her citizens, that genie cannot easily be returned to the bottle. As soulless as this sounds (excuse me) someone, somewhere is going to note the economic benefits of relatively shorter times in (expensive) Palliative care. Slowly and with subtlety, the culture with change (evolve?) to place the onus on the suffering person to ‘do the dignified thing’. People are coerced into nursing homes and bad contracts every day. Why is the process of euthanasia exempt from these wicked practices?

With the deepest of respect to Belgium, her citizens and her democratic process, I wonder where this ‘evolution’ will lead…

Jenny

Edited to add; with respect to comparisons with the Nazi regime, these are unhelpful but I can understand where the OP was coming from. I asked my Grandfather once (who fought in the war) why the German people were so evil. He said that they were not evil: just ordinary people doing what they felt was best for their families and for Germany. He said that, over time, Hitler redefined ‘the common good’ from one thing to the next so that, almost unnoticed, the ordinary families of Germany were supporting the death of their neighbours.

This was food for thought for me for many years. I refused to believe it was so at first but I am older now, and wiser. All around me I see the evidence of this thinking. I do not have the answers, Belorg but I have enjoyed discussing this topic with someone who knows the situation in Belguim, rather than who thinks they know.

Jenny

 

[Rau]

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.

The morality of the situation is perfectly clear - It is all about intent. I cannot take action to end my life, and nor can a doctor, with or without my consent. Administering a drug to manage severe pain - for that express purpose only - is perfectly permissible. I am not required to endure the pain because there is a risk that another 5ml of morphine might kill me.

 

[BiffRuffle]

It’s really quite simple - does human life have an intrinsic value? That is, does the human life have value in it’s nature, or is human life given value by an outside authority (government, etc.)?

If human life does not have value in and of itself, then no one should be upset by school shootings, ‘ethnic cleansings’ and other mass murders. After all, the human is only given value, it has no value in and of itself.

Of course, this is absurd. Human life does have value in and of itself, and it cannot be taken away by anyone, because no one has the authority to change the value of human life. So, if humanity has intrinsic value, then humans are valuable throughout the entirety of life, not valuable one moment and not the next. Euthanasia, abortion, and many other attacks on life, are all equally horrific as the holocaust, and other mass genocides through history.

 

[glendab]

Hello Belorg. Thank you for your replies. I’m sorry to hear of your losses. I’ll pray for the repose of their souls.

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

That’s why I need to say two things: Those acting as they did in your life did not nor do not speak for the Church. They spoke for themselves when they chose to do what they did.

The second thing I need to say is yes, eventually it will be “forced” on everyone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness if we begin to allow it now. A slippery slope. If we allow murder in one instance, then we will eventually allow murder other instances. The only time murder is allowed in in self-defense.

I should “respect” another’s choice when it comes to murder? And that is exactly what it is when a person deliberately injects a substance into the veins of a sick person to bring about death - murder with full knowledge and consent, only the consent is that of the person giving the injection and just because they manage to seduce those others involved in the care of the sick person as well as the sick person, doesn’t shift any of the consent of the party giving the injection away from themselves. They are murderers. Those who assist them in the killing are accomplices. No amount of legal wrangling will change that.

Sure someone can make a law that says no charges can be pressed against certain types of murderers, but they are still murderers. It ain’t rocket science.

Again, Belorg, sorry for your tragic circumstances and your pain.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Jenny, you are absolutely right.

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

What ifs: the mentally handicapped/retarded/ill cannot give a full and legal consent - someone must do it for them and all that is “needed” is a terminal illness. Who will stop the next stage of this monster called euthanasia? Who will determine when the suffering has gone on long enough for those whose care is legally given over to another person, i.e. orphans and those who get considered wards of the courts? And no one will be there to witness their ends because those around them will believe they are helping them. It isn’t that much further down that road.

Glenda

 

[belorg]

I’m not sure that ‘evolved’ is the word I would use, Belorg. Once a nation has legislated to legally kill her citizens, that genie cannot easily be returned to the bottle. As soulless as this sounds (excuse me) someone, somewhere is going to note the economic benefits of relatively shorter times in (expensive) Palliative care. Slowly and with subtlety, the culture with change (evolve?) to place the onus on the suffering person to ‘do the dignified thing’. People are coerced into nursing homes and bad contracts every day. Why is the process of euthanasia exempt from these wicked practices?

With the deepest of respect to Belgium, her citizens and her democratic process, I wonder where this ‘evolution’ will lead…

Jenny

I don’t know where this evolution will lead, and I agree we should keep an eye on it, but every legislation should be judged by its own merits

Edited to add; with respect to comparisons with the Nazi regime, these are unhelpful but I can understand where the OP was coming from. I asked my Grandfather once (who fought in the war) why the German people were so evil. He said that they were not evil: just ordinary people doing what they felt was best for their families and for Germany. He said that, over time, Hitler redefined ‘the common good’ from one thing to the next so that, almost unnoticed, the ordinary families of Germany were supporting the death of their neighbours.

Sure, but keep in mind that Belgium is not led by a dictator. What is happening in Belgium is the result of a democratic process.

This was food for thought for me for many years. I refused to believe it was so at first but I am older now, and wiser. All around me I see the evidence of this thinking. I do not have the answers, Belorg but I have enjoyed discussing this topic with someone who knows the situation in Belguim, rather than who thinks they know.

Jenny

I don’t have all the answers either. What I do know, however, is that it is not because Belgium has this law, that all of a sudden thousands of teenagers are going to request euthanasia. What happens is that a situation that has existed has now become legal.

 

[belorg]

It’s really quite simple - does human life have an intrinsic value? That is, does the human life have value in it’s nature, or is human life given value by an outside authority (government, etc.)?

If human life does not have value in and of itself, then no one should be upset by school shootings, ‘ethnic cleansings’ and other mass murders. After all, the human is only given value, it has no value in and of itself.

Of course, this is absurd. Human life does have value in and of itself, and it cannot be taken away by anyone, because no one has the authority to change the value of human life. So, if humanity has intrinsic value, then humans are valuable throughout the entirety of life, not valuable one moment and not the next. Euthanasia, abortion, and many other attacks on life, are all equally horrific as the holocaust, and other mass genocides through history.

That’s a black and white view, the reality is much more nuanced.

 

[belorg]

Hello Belorg. Thank you for your replies. I’m sorry to hear of your losses. I’ll pray for the repose of their souls.

Thank you. They were both devout Catholics, so they would have appreciated this.

That’s why I need to say two things: Those acting as they did in your life did not nor do not speak for the Church. They spoke for themselves when they chose to do what they did.

That’s correct. I have never said that they spoke for the church.

The second thing I need to say is yes, eventually it will be “forced” on everyone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness if we begin to allow it now. A slippery slope. If we allow murder in one instance, then we will eventually allow murder other instances. The only time murder is allowed in in self-defense.

Even if the slope is slippery, you don’t need to fall.
And I am not omniscient, so, I don’t know whether it will be forced or not. In any case, the law in Belgium is meant to prevent this “being forced”.

I should “respect” another’s choice when it comes to murder? And that is exactly what it is when a person deliberately injects a substance into the veins of a sick person to bring about death - murder with full knowledge and consent, only the consent is that of the person giving the injection and just because they manage to seduce those others involved in the care of the sick person as well as the sick person,

It has nothing to do with seduction of the sick person. Most doctors do not enjoy euthanasia, and neither do the patients or the families.

doesn’t shift any of the consent of the party giving the injection away from themselves. They are murderers. Those who assist them in the killing are accomplices. No amount of legal wrangling will change that.

Balck-and-white thinking about a complex matter does not solve anything, Glenda.

Sure someone can make a law that says no charges can be pressed against certain types of murderers, but they are still murderers. It ain’t rocket science.

It is because it is not rocket science that your absolute judgment is misplaced.

Again, Belorg, sorry for your tragic circumstances and your pain.

Glenda

Of course I feel pain at the loss of my father-in-law and my grandmother, but not becauseof the way they died. I am at peace with that. I’d feel a lot worse if they had had to suffer.

 

[belorg]

Jenny, you are absolutely right.

What ifs: the mentally handicapped/retarded/ill cannot give a full and legal consent - someone must do it for them and all that is “needed” is a terminal illness. Who will stop the next stage of this monster called euthanasia? Who will determine when the suffering has gone on long enough for those whose care is legally given over to another person, i.e. orphans and those who get considered wards of the courts? And no one will be there to witness their ends because those around them will believe they are helping them. It isn’t that much further down that road.

Glenda

I agree that there is a risk, but this risk is not the result of whichever law, especially not of a law that explictly stresses the consent factor, which is absent in many countries that don’t have such law.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

If DNR (do not resuscitate) orders are allowed for children (which they are in most countries) why would Belgium need to take the law any further? Or, do they have an insufficient DNR system?

In the US, a parent may have DNR orders for a critically ill or dying child, to avoid prolonged suffering. If the child is old enough, they can also decide.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

Just checked with my husband (he’s a physician). It appears that Belgium isn’t lacking for a way to allow a dying child to go to meet God. What they want is something entirely different and quite scary. I hope no one ever uses that law against a child.

 

[belorg]

Just checked with my husband (he’s a physician). It appears that Belgium isn’t lacking for a way to allow a dying child to go to meet God. What they want is something entirely different and quite scary. I hope no one ever uses that law against a child.

What do you mean by “against” a child?
The reason for this law is because in a limited number of cases the DNR regulation is not sufficient.
In reality the new law will not be applied that often, but for those who wish, the possibility exists.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

What situation do you envision that you think would call for such a thing? My husband has attended many deaths and he never saw any need to euthanize a patient. DNR orders are to help people make decisions about what measures to take in the event a patient cannot speak for themselves. For your loved ones, you should have copies of the DNR orders with every physician and one to send with the patient, should they need an ambulance.

Recently, my husband took a job with a Catholic hospital. We both carefully read the hospital organization’s regulations before he signed the contract. He had absolutely no issue with their palliative care guidance, nor anything else. You will find very few physicians that actually endorse euthanasia for adults or children. There are very good reasons for this.

 

[BiffRuffle]

That’s a black and white view, the reality is much more nuanced.

No, it’s not. Either humans have intrinsic value, or they don’t. If they do, no one and nothing can take that away from them. If they don’t, then any harm done to anyone is perfectly acceptable.

Humans, though, do have an intrinsic value. No nuance here. Because our world thinks the value of humans changes, doesn’t mean it does. We’ve ‘nuanced’ ourselves into insanity, where straight-up murder is considered ‘mercy’ or ‘compassion.’

 

[Rau]

No, it’s not. Either humans have intrinsic value, or they don’t. If they do, no one and nothing can take that away from them. If they don’t, then any harm done to anyone is perfectly acceptable.

Humans, though, do have an intrinsic value. No nuance here. Because our world thinks the value of humans changes, doesn’t mean it does. We’ve ‘nuanced’ ourselves into insanity, where straight-up murder is considered ‘mercy’ or ‘compassion.’

Others choose to view the matter as one of “rights” - the right to live (so long as you have been born), the right to die, etc. This produces quite different conclusions!

 

[BiffRuffle]

Others choose to view the matter as one of “rights” - the right to live (so long as you have been born), the right to die, etc. This produces quite different conclusions!

When you start with error, you end with error. Who gives anyone a right to live or die? And, in the case of abortion and euthanasia, those who are dying are not given a voice at all! A person in severe pain cannot make rational decisions, no matter what a doctor may say!

And, why is your so-called ‘right to live’ limited only to those who have been born? Not to get too far off-topic, but what’s the difference between the born and unborn that limits the unborn person’s right to life?

But again, who gives people the right to live or die? Do they come from the state or someone/where else?

 

[Rau]

When you start with error, you end with error. Who gives anyone a right to live or die? And, in the case of abortion and euthanasia, those who are dying are not given a voice at all! A person in severe pain cannot make rational decisions, no matter what a doctor may say!

And, why is your so-called ‘right to live’ limited only to those who have been born? Not to get too far off-topic, but what’s the difference between the born and unborn that limits the unborn person’s right to life?

But again, who gives people the right to live or die? Do they come from the state or someone/where else?

I am not on the “rights” side of the argument, just pointing out how the chosen starting point principle leads to very different conclusions. In the abortion case, my remark about the unborn was to discredit the “rights” argument.

 

[BellsMom]

No, it’s not. Either humans have intrinsic value, or they don’t. If they do, no one and nothing can take that away from them’

This isn’t what the church teaches though.

A government has the legitimate right to take away a criminals life despite it’s intrinsic value. It’s right there in church teachings.

A government has the right to conduct a “just war”, with full knowledge they will kill innocent civilians in the process. This is not considered a “sin”. It’s sad and regrettable perhaps but not a sin against god.

Do the lives of those innocent civilians and criminals have “intrinsic value”?

 

[BiffRuffle]

If you look in the Catechism, it states that capital punishment is only permitted when any and all other measures have failed to prevent further harm to the general population. Thus, capital punishment is practically unnecessary, especially in western nations where life imprisonment is quite possible and reasonable. (#2266, 2267)

And in war, the idea of self-defence comes in. As well, in the Catechism, the intent is not to kill the enemy, but to preserve your own life, or the lives of others. If the enemy is killed, that is an unfortunate and regrettable effect of self-defence. (#2263-2265)

In any case, these examples are not applicable here in a discussion of the intentional ending of another’s life. Euthanasia is the direct murder of a vulnerable individual, not an aggressor or criminal. (Also in the Catechism, #2276-2279)

 

[Laurent_LUG]

This is just too sad for words. I thought Belgium was a Catholic Country…Guess not.

General info about Belgium:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium#Religion
belgium.be/en