Belgian senate approves euthanasia for children [CWN]

[EmperorNapoleon]

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)

There is a very clear difference between murder and assisted suicide.

 

[BiffRuffle]

There is a very clear difference between murder and assisted suicide.

What’s the difference? It’s the intentional ending of an innocent person’s life. Because the patient allegedly ‘consents’ to it, doesn’t mean it’s not murder. The patient is not an aggressor, but someone in dire need of our care and support. Killing is not ‘medical care.’

 

[Rau]

What’s the difference? It’s the intentional ending of an innocent person’s life. Because the patient allegedly ‘consents’ to it, doesn’t mean it’s not murder. The patient is not an aggressor, but someone in dire need of our care and support. Killing is not ‘medical care.’

The catechism on Euthanasia and Suicide:

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

Suicide

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

 

[josie_L]

Maybe it is, and maybe that’s the problem.

The problem is that Belgium is no longer “Catholic” if it can support such a law, i.e., the CC is against euthanasia.

 

[belorg]

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.

Actually, I know lost of physicians who endorse euthanasia. E.g. In Belgium, one of the main proponents of euthanasia is Dr Wim Distelmans, a physician.

 

[josie_L]

Actually, I know lost of physicians who endorse euthanasia. E.g. In Belgium, one of the main proponents of euthanasia is Dr Wim Distelmans, a physician.

Not true, most physicians are against Euthanasia (here in Quebec, which is very secularized, physicians are not happy with the government trying to push through a Euthanasia bill).

 

[belorg]

Not true, most physicians are against Euthanasia (here in Quebec, which is very secularized, physicians are not happy with the government trying to push through a Euthanasia bill).

I did not say “most”, I said “lots” (although I misspelled it). And I have no idea of the situation in Quebec, I am talking about the situation in Belgium.
It seems that the Belgian law has attracted more attention in the rest of the world than it has in Belgium. It also seems like the rest of the world is seriousy misinformed about this law.

 

[josie_L]

I did not say “most”, I said “lots” (although I misspelled it). And I have no idea of the situation in Quebec, I am talking about the situation in Belgium.
It seems that the Belgian law has attracted more attention in the rest of the world than it has in Belgium. It also seems like the rest of the world is seriousy misinformed about this law.

No, Belgium is misinformed about what is morally justifiable, i.e., no surprise that the rest of the world is up in arms over this new ruling on euthanasia.

P.S. Could you provide me with the percentage of doctors in Belgium who support Euthanasia? I can hardly believe that a profession whose purpose is to restore and heal, would opt to deal death instead!

 

[belorg]

No, Belgium is misinformed about what is morally justifiable, i.e., no surprise that the rest of the world is up in arms over this new ruling on euthanasia.

That’s your opinion, and you are of course entitled to it;

P.S. Could you provide me with the percentage of doctors in Belgium who support Euthanasia? I can hardly believe that a profession whose purpose is to restore and heal, would opt to deal death instead!

I don’t think there has been a thorough survey on this in Belgium, but in the Netherlands the percentage is well over 80%

 

[josie_L]

That’s your opinion, and you are of course entitled to it;

Of course, I’m entitled to my opinion, but opinion should be based on facts, and the fact is, is that this new law is grossly immoral (hence the reaction of the rest of the world). Children should not be euthanized (no one should), i.e., we should be expending our resources on creating better palliative care and/or finding cures, i.e., not killing our young.

don’t think there has been a thorough survey on this in Belgium, but in the Netherlands the percentage is well over 80%

I couldn’t find the percentage that you refer to (although I assume it’s somewhat high), but here’s what I did find:

:black_medium_small_square:1,040 people (an average of 3 per day) died from involuntary euthanasia, meaning that doctors actively killed these patients without the patients’ knowledge or consent.(9) :black_medium_small_square:14% of these patients were fully competent. (10)

:black_medium_small_square:72% had never given any indication that they would want their lives terminated. (11)

:black_medium_small_square:In 8% of the cases, doctors performed involuntary euthanasia despite the fact that they believed alternative options were still possible. (12)

:black_medium_small_square:In addition, 8,100 patients died as a result of doctors deliberately giving them overdoses of pain medication, not for the primary purpose of controlling pain, but to hasten the patient’s death. (13) In 61% of these cases (4,941 patients), the intentional overdose was given without the patient’s consent.(14)

:black_medium_small_square:According to the Remmelink Report, Dutch physicians deliberately and intentionally ended the lives of 11,840 people by lethal overdoses or injections–a figure which accounts for 9.1% of the annual overall death rate of 130,000 per year. The majority of all euthanasia deaths in Holland are involuntary deaths.

patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland-background/

I would be very afraid of going to a hospital in the Netherlands with these kinds of statistics.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

btw: I’m born & raised , and living in Belgium

I did not say “most”, I said “lots” (although I misspelled it). And I have no idea of the situation in Quebec, I am talking about the situation in Belgium.
It seems that the Belgian law has attracted more attention in the rest of the world than it has in Belgium. It also seems like the rest of the world is seriousy misinformed about this law.

True

I think so , yes !!

Although , about ending life is based on what ??
What’s the difference between euthanasia & palliative care ??

 

[Rau]

What’s the difference between euthanasia & palliative care ??

Euthanasia is killing, usually in order to end suffering.

Palliative care is medical treatment to ease / eliminate suffering. The intent, means and focus are entirely different.

 

[belorg]

Of course, I’m entitled to my opinion, but opinion should be based on facts, and the fact is, is that this new law is grossly immoral (hence the reaction of the rest of the world). Children should not be euthanized (no one should), i.e., we should be expending our resources on creating better palliative care and/or finding cures, i.e., not killing our young.

No, Josie, that is an opinion. I agree with your last statement, that we should be spending resources on palliative care or finding cures, but that doesn’t contradict the fact that for some people, palliative care is not enough.
FYI, Dr Wim Distelmans is the head of a palliative day care centre as well as a proponent of euthasia.

I couldn’t find the percentage that you refer to (although I assume it’s somewhat high), but here’s what I did find:

Maybe it’s somewhat high, but at least in the Netherlands, the majority of physiciians support euthanasia.

I would be very afraid of going to a hospital in the Netherlands with these kinds of statistics.

I think you should be afraid of going to any hospital because what you are describing are illegal practices, which have nothing to do with whatever law.
The law in Belgium tries to counter those practices.

 

[BiffRuffle]

The ‘opinion’ that euthanasia is wrong is not an opinion, it’s solid moral fact. Now, one has a choice to conform to reality, or reject it. Calling a wristwatch a pepperoni pizza doesn’t make it a pepperoni pizza, and calling euthanasia ‘health care’ doesn’t make it so, either.

I can choose to like ice cream over cake for dessert - it’s my opinion, my preference, and there’s no moral right or wrong there. But, euthanasia does not open itself up for preference - either it’s the killing of a member of the human community, or it’s not. There’s no neutrality there - either one is for murdering the sick and vulnerable, or one is for caring for the sick and vulnerable. But, one of those choices is objectively wrong. You can choose it, but that doesn’t make it right.

So, you, and everyone else, can accept and conform to reality, or you can reject reality. And what do we call people who do not accept reality? Insane. We are in an insane world, where murder of the most vulnerable members of our community is elevated to so-called ‘law.’

 

[Lion_IRC]

I find it sickening that Belgian law makers have conferred on children the ability to give legal informed consent.

What next?

 

[belorg]

The ‘opinion’ that euthanasia is wrong is not an opinion, it’s solid moral fact. Now, one has a choice to conform to reality, or reject it. Calling a wristwatch a pepperoni pizza doesn’t make it a pepperoni pizza, and calling euthanasia ‘health care’ doesn’t make it so, either.

I can choose to like ice cream over cake for dessert - it’s my opinion, my preference, and there’s no moral right or wrong there. But, euthanasia does not open itself up for preference - either it’s the killing of a member of the human community, or it’s not. There’s no neutrality there - either one is for murdering the sick and vulnerable, or one is for caring for the sick and vulnerable. But, one of those choices is objectively wrong. You can choose it, but that doesn’t make it right.

So, you, and everyone else, can accept and conform to reality, or you can reject reality. And what do we call people who do not accept reality? Insane. We are in an insane world, where murder of the most vulnerable members of our community is elevated to so-called ‘law.’

This whole post is your opinion, BiffRuffle, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[belorg]

I find it sickening that Belgian law makers have conferred on children the ability to give legal informed consent.

What next?

You don’t know the Belgian situation, Lion.

 

[glendab]

Hello Belorg.

No, Josie, that is an opinion. I agree with your last statement, that we should be spending resources on palliative care or finding cures, but that doesn’t contradict the fact that for some people, palliative care is not enough.
FYI, Dr Wim Distelmans is the head of a palliative day care centre as well as a proponent of euthasia.

Maybe it’s somewhat high, but at least in the Netherlands, the majority of physiciians support euthanasia.

I think you should be afraid of going to any hospital because what you are describing are illegal practices, which have nothing to do with whatever law.
The law in Belgium tries to counter those practices.

I know you are atheist and that you’ve got a slightly different world view than perhaps most Catholics because of your religious indifference. But I’ve also noticed in your comments a reliance on law to determine your ethic. I’d like to ask if it has ever occurred to you that legal doesn’t mean right, just or ethical. It simply means legal. Many laws have been made by men that weren’t ethical, just or plain ole right, fair. Many more will be made that are the same. We have to live by whatever laws are in our country. But we don’t have to agree with the ethic behind those same laws.

Christian are supposed to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God those things that are God’s. So we may obey the laws in general but when they ask us to do things against our Christianity, we will not comply. Our loyalties are with God and His Kingdom, not the ways of the world. You haven’t made this choice for yourself, so how can you NOT respect our viewpoint? You ask us to respect yours which we do, but that doesn’t mean we’ll silence ourselves about what we see as wrong. That isn’t respect. That’s oppression.

Glenda

 

[belorg]

Hello Belorg.

I know you are atheist and that you’ve got a slightly different world view than perhaps most Catholics because of your religious indifference. But I’ve also noticed in your comments a reliance on law to determine your ethic. I’d like to ask if it has ever occurred to you that legal doesn’t mean right, just or ethical. It simply means legal. Many laws have been made by men that weren’t ethical, just or plain ole right, fair. Many more will be made that are the same. We have to live by whatever laws are in our country. But we don’t have to agree with the ethic behind those same laws.

I don’t rely on the law to determine my ethic. My ethic is based on my concern for human beings.
For your infornation. my father, who was a devout Catholic, compeletly agreed with me on this matter. So, it’s not a question of atheists versus Christians.

Christian are supposed to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God those things that are God’s. So we may obey the laws in general but when they ask us to do things against our Christianity, we will not comply. Our loyalties are with God and His Kingdom, not the ways of the world. You haven’t made this choice for yourself, so how can you NOT respect our viewpoint? You ask us to respect yours which we do, but that doesn’t mean we’ll silence ourselves about what we see as wrong. That isn’t respect. That’s oppression.

Glenda

Since nobody is asking you to do anything against Christianity, I do not see how anybody is not respecting you.
I don’t recall ever telling you to silence yourself either. I don’t even want to forbid you to use the comparison with Action T4.
What I do find somewhat disturbing is that, while nothing I say or do prevents you from living the way you want, what you are proposing does prevent me from living the way I want. Because if you had a say in it, you would deny me the right I now have as a Belgian citizen. And that’s not what I call respect.

 

[jediliz]

what Belgium has done is basically legalize the execution of children - for being ill. I don’t care if mom and dad have to “consent”…its still morally wrong and anyone with a brain can see that. Anyone with a heart can see that.

What is to stop them from using this against children with Downs or Cerebral Palsy? What if they say the child won’t have a “good life”?