Belgian senate approves euthanasia for children [CWN]

[Rau]

No, death isn’t the goal. Life is the goal, but it’s not the patient’s fault that this isn’t possible anymore, not is it the doctor’s. It’s nobody’s fault, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore the problem, which is pain and suffering.

When the decision is made to kill, we give up on the goal of life, and decide to achieve a new goal - death, for which ending suffering will be a side-effect.

 

[Tenofovir]

What we can know is that a person agreed to termination knowing that circumstances may arise in which, even if he wanted to, he could not reverse his decision.

We don’t even know that. And we don’t know if his decision was free. And we don’t know if it’s the pain, fear, loss of dignity or the loss of hope and whether this is justified or not. So we simply don’t know. You claim too much.

If we allow people to purchase hand guns, we should also allow them to purchase nuclear missiles, surely.

I don’t see the connection. One does not buy nukes because one does not in fear of a nuclear nation. Besides they’d be too expensive. And inappropriate. The distinction is objective. A depressed person suffers too.

That’s why a person who chooses death should be fully aware of the consequences.

Should. We have no proof that they are. We have no proof that it is really death they want.

I don’t know whether somebody else’s pain is bearable or unbearable, and that’s why we have laws to have that decides by the patient himself, not by doctors or anybody else.

But we don’t know if it’s a valid decision or not. We presume that depression is not valid, but other types of depression or similar brain states are? So I don’t see the distinction. It’s pretty subjective. Definitely it’s not a decision to buy nukes to protect against Soviet Union.

We have ways to assess this, but of course, we are not infallible. That’s why decisions for euthanasia are not taken overnight.

And that does not make them any less fallible. As in principle we can’t know what someone else is thinking or their motivations for it. The mind is incredibly complex and its clouded by a variety of things. We simply cannot know. We are locked within ourselves.

So all in all I say you assert too much. You’re too confident.

If we agree to euthanasia we have to stop interventions designed to prevent suicidal people from committing suicide for any reason they consider valid, no matter how irrational it seems for us. The dumped teenager’s world has really ended for those few weeks and months. Why should she persevere?

There is no reliable and objective way of knowing. We can’t know in principle because everyone has different pain thresholds and different world views. Never mind that your choice in giving people this choice will provide legitimisation of such a choice. It will be seen as person x, y, z did it, so why shouldn’t I? And never mind that physicians who disagree will be forced to refer such people and so co-operate with things they see are causing distress to their own conscience. It will become a right and an enforced right.

Doctors as killers, and those who refuse to refer will be forced resign after being humiliated and rebuked. Well done – you’re easing so much human suffering!

Never mind also now that euthanasia is a valid alternative further research into pain relief, mood improvement, and so on, will be seen as less necessary.

 

[belorg]

When the decision is made to kill, we give up on the goal of life, and decide to achieve a new goal - death, for which ending suffering will be a side-effect.

No, we don’t. The decision ‘to kill’ is made because it is seen as the only way to really end the suffering. The goal is ending the suffering, not death. That the goal of life is given up is not because of the decision by the patient, but because of his condition, which is not his fault.

 

[Tenofovir]

When the decision is made to kill, we give up on the goal of life, and decide to achieve a new goal - death, for which ending suffering will be a side-effect.

It also allows our clinicans and researchers to put other types of palliation and research in such on the back burner. After all there no longer is a crysis. People aren’t suffering from chronic pancreatitis or bony mets. They can choose a potassium chloride injection.

 

[belorg]

We don’t even know that. And we don’t know if his decision was free. And we don’t know if it’s the pain, fear, loss of dignity or the loss of hope and whether this is justified or not. So we simply don’t know. You claim too much.

We do know that, in countries where euthanasia is not allowed, the decision not to end his life is, in many cases, not free, though.

I don’t see the connection. One does not buy nukes because one does not in fear of a nuclear nation. Besides they’d be too expensive. And inappropriate. The distinction is objective. A depressed person suffers too.

The connection is that your slippery slope arguments simply don’t work, and ,as the rest of your post is just an appeal to slippery slopes, there really isn’t anything more to say.

 

[Rau]

No, we don’t. The decision ‘to kill’ is made because it is seen as the only way to really end the suffering. The goal is ending the suffering, not death. That the goal of life is given up is not because of the decision by the patient, but because of his condition, which is not his fault.

I understand the intent, but the method and the focus shifts from improving life to ending it. I don’t accept the “we’re forced into it” argument, both because there is always personal decision involved, and because palliative care is now so effective,

It is worth remembering that much of the call for euthanasia is not for pain-relief at all, but for other conditions where a quick end is preferred to a poor quality of life.

 

[Tenofovir]

We do know that, in countries where euthanasia is not allowed, the decision not to end his life is, in many cases, not free, though.

You must read what I write. We can’t know someone’s motivations. We can’t read their mind and experience what they experience and feel… “yes this amount of sadness and pain” - I couldn’t live with that. Likewise we can’t read their minds and say “yes it’s a valid reason.” We presume that it’s not by default. Or else we’d just kill suicidal people or let them kill themselves.

The connection is that your slippery slope arguments simply don’t work, and ,as the rest of your post is just an appeal to slippery slopes, there really isn’t anything more to say.

Not slippery slope at all.

Can you demonstrate that a more widespread use of euthanasia for all forms of incurable pain right now will not divert research funds from such research now to other forms of research? There is never enough money for medical research. I think you’re willing to take that chance and discount this.

The argument that clinicians will worry less comes form my personal experience and experience from colleagues. Patients who are DNR usually generate less anxiety and concern from physicians. I’ve seen this many, many times in my country.

When HIV was incurable the rates of new infections in the first world dropped. When HIV infection became treatable, the rates of new infections have increased. Risk compensation exists, not always and in varied contexts and to various effects but it does exist.

 

[Tenofovir]

I understand the intent, but the method and the focus shifts from improving life to ending it. I don’t accept the “we’re forced into it” argument, both because there is always personal decision involved, and because palliative care is now so effective,

It is worth remembering that much of the call for euthanasia is not for pain-relief at all, but for other conditions where a quick end is preferred to a poor quality of life.

I have to agree with this. Hence my point about human dignity. Now being incontinent is seen as loss of dignity and so it’s ok to die under such circumstances. But that means that anyone can die for any subjective loss of dignity. And in the beginning law and people will find this atrocious. But as was gay marriage and gay sex. Now it’s legal.

And this goes so against popular post modern culture which teaches that people are “beautiful on the inside”.

We have no right to decide who can or cannot commit suicide. In the same way we have no right to stop sex selective abortions. These are not slippery slope arguments but consequences of the same line of thinking. Sex selective abortions do exist, and some people are trying to stop just these, but they have no logical standing. If it’s a woman’s choice what she can do with her body, then no feminist can stop her from aborting a girl.

 

[Tenofovir]

We do know that, in countries where euthanasia is not allowed, the decision not to end his life is, in many cases, not free, though.

The decision to continue and preserve life is part of a doctor’s duty. It’s always been like that. This is now changing where for certain ad hoc reasons it’s now the right thing to actively kill the patient. And doctors who refuse to refer their patients for that will be hounded or even forced to provide the service. In my country, a doctor has to perform an abortion if he/she is the only doctor available to do it, and his conscience be damned. We have a very liberal constitution in SA, more so than yours. So no slippery slope there. You’re just ignorant. Have a nice day.

(It’s a reason why I never went into obstetrics and gynaecology myself.)

 

[belorg]

The decision to continue and preserve life is part of a doctor’s duty. It’s always been like that. This is now changing where for certain ad hoc reasons it’s now the right thing to actively kill the patient. And doctors who refuse to refer their patients for that will be hounded or even forced to provide the service. In my country, a doctor has to perform an abortion if he/she is the only doctor available to do it, and his conscience be damned. We have a very liberal constitution in SA, more so than yours. So no slippery slope there. You’re just ignorant. Have a nice day.

(It’s a reason why I never went into obstetrics and gynaecology myself.)

Maybe you should first take care of the situation in SA, before trying to tell the Belgians what they should do.

 

[belorg]

You must read what I write. We can’t know someone’s motivations. We can’t read their mind and experience what they experience and feel… “yes this amount of sadness and pain” - I couldn’t live with that. Likewise we can’t read their minds and say “yes it’s a valid reason.” We presume that it’s not by default. Or else we’d just kill suicidal people or let them kill themselves.

Since you can’t read their minds, you simply cannot presume that it’s not by default.

Not slippery slope at all.

Can you demonstrate that a more widespread use of euthanasia for all forms of incurable pain right now will not divert research funds from such research now to other forms of research? There is never enough money for medical research. I think you’re willing to take that chance and discount this.

I can’t demonstrate this, but neither can you demonstrate the opposite.

The argument that clinicians will worry less comes form my personal experience and experience from colleagues. Patients who are DNR usually generate less anxiety and concern from physicians. I’ve seen this many, many times in my country.

That may be so, but it has nothing to do with any law.

When HIV was incurable the rates of new infections in the first world dropped. When HIV infection became treatable, the rates of new infections have increased. Risk compensation exists, not always and in varied contexts and to various effects but it does exist.

Of course it does, but none of this has any bearing on a law that has restrictions built in for exactly the reasons you provide.

 

[belorg]

I understand the intent, but the method and the focus shifts from improving life to ending it. I don’t accept the “we’re forced into it” argument, both because there is always personal decision involved, and because palliative care is now so effective,

We are not forced into anything. we take decisions based on people’s profound wishes. And the sad truth is that palliative care is effective in many cases, but fails miserably in others.

It is worth remembering that much of the call for euthanasia is not for pain-relief at all, but for other conditions where a quick end is preferred to a poor quality of life.

And those are the cases in which palliative care isn’t effective in many cases. Because even if a patient does not feel physical pain, his or her mental pain is also to be taken into consideration. And if the patient cannot bear this mental pain, the only decent thing is to offer him/her a solution, which he is free to accept or refuse.

 

[Tenofovir]

Since you can’t read their minds, you simply cannot presume that it’s not by default.

Ok so we should not kill you by default because… you’re kidding me?

The onus is on the one taking such a drastic irreversible step.

I can’t demonstrate this, but neither can you demonstrate the opposite.

Actually since resources are limited it’s more rational to think that this will happen rather than not. And this goes beyond research but also care where resources are often so limited decisions have to be made which will impact such patients. And let’s not forget about corruption or other motives administrators may have.

That may be so, but it has nothing to do with any law.

If you allow DNR and you allow this it will follow.

Of course it does, but none of this has any bearing on a law that has restrictions built in for exactly the reasons you provide.

Of course it has. The restrictions are not fool proof nor complete. In real world settings they may not always apply or be possible to work with.

I’ve demonstrated that there are ample reasons of a secular nature to reject euthanasia.

The onus on the killers is to provide a case which is so airtight any criticism would be ridiculous. You know the way any criticism of say treating infectious diseases is ridiculous. As is, I think the pro-euthenasia camp is running on special pleading. We need to kill those who feel they’re too lonely, in too much pain, or have lost too much dignity, have lost the will to live – but not those who are depressed, have suffered from PTSD, have personality disorders, have been subject to terrible experiences etc…? That means we should kill non-parasuicide attempts and patients with such intent too. There’s so much here which is wrong.

As Rao has said, palliative care has improved drastically.

And what sort of a message does this send to our youth… “Mr Jones had himself killed because he felt his life was undignified.” Why? Because he was incontinent. A nurse had to wash him and he had to use adult diapers. I mean come on…

So we’re basically saying, if you’re not a perfectly functioning human being, you’re undignified? And if you have to rely on others you are undignified? Come on.

Mrs Smith had herself killed because she was lonely after her husband of 50 years died. Really?

 

[Tenofovir]

We are not forced into anything. we take decisions based on people’s profound wishes. And the sad truth is that palliative care is effective in many cases, but fails miserably in others.

You are out of touch with reality. You think someone who is sick can make profound decisions without them being clouded by the impact of the illness and other social factors? That’s not free choice. That’s a coerced choice.

And those are the cases in which palliative care isn’t effective in many cases. Because even if a patient does not feel physical pain, his or her mental pain is also to be taken into consideration. And if the patient cannot bear this mental pain, the only decent thing is to offer him/her a solution, which he is free to accept or refuse.

A higher dose of antidepressants. More counseling, spiritual or psychological. A better hobby. A warmer atmosphere. How much time do we give for these to work?

If you allow for ethenasia you’re basically offering this choice to the patient: Yes you can have Citalopram, cognitive behavioral therapy and other forms of counseling or you can have death. Of course the patient can then decide… “I’ll take death”. It seems to me we are enabling a choice along the traditional way of enabling patient centered medicine… But the decision that one no longer wants to live and wants to actively die, is dependent on one’s psychological state which we’re not treating because patient has selected the “death” option and not the CBT/meds. Such a person cannot make a free choice.

 

[belorg]

Ok so we should not kill you by default because… you’re kidding me?

The onus is on the one taking such a drastic irreversible step.

If I want to take that step, I should be free to take it.

Actually since resources are limited it’s more rational to think that this will happen rather than not. And this goes beyond research but also care where resources are often so limited decisions have to be made which will impact such patients. And let’s not forget about corruption or other motives administrators may have.

You don’t seem to have too much confindence in humanity.
If things are really as bas as you make it seem, then no law against euthanasia is going to make any difference.

If you allow DNR and you allow this it will follow.

So you think DNR shouldn’t be allowed either?

Of course it has. The restrictions are not fool proof nor complete. In real world settings they may not always apply or be possible to work with.

Nothing is fool proof or complete. There is always going to be abuse of every kind of law.

I’ve demonstrated that there are ample reasons of a secular nature to reject euthanasia.

No, all you have demonstrated is some dubious slippery slope arguments.

The onus on the killers is to provide a case which is so airtight any criticism would be ridiculous. You know the way any criticism of say treating infectious diseases is ridiculous. As is, I think the pro-euthenasia camp is running on special pleading. We need to kill those who feel they’re too lonely, in too much pain, or have lost too much dignity, have lost the will to live – but not those who are depressed, have suffered from PTSD, have personality disorders, have been subject to terrible experiences etc…?

We “need” to kill nobody.

That means we should kill non-parasuicide attempts and patients with such intent too. There’s so much here which is wrong.

We “should” kill nobody.

As Rao has said, palliative care has improved drastically.

It has, but in many cases it’s still insufficient.

And what sort of a message does this send to our youth… “Mr Jones had himself killed because he felt his life was undignified.” Why? Because he was incontinent. A nurse had to wash him and he had to use adult diapers. I mean come on…

The message it will send to our youth is that Mr Jones took a decision with full consent, and although we may not like it, it was Mr Jones’ choice. And we should respect it.

So we’re basically saying, if you’re not a perfectly functioning human being, you’re undignified? And if you have to rely on others you are undignified? Come on.

No, we are not saying this. I don’t decide for other people whether they should feel dignified or not. You, on the other hand, seem to want to dictate that they should feel dignified.

 

[LisaA]

No, death isn’t the goal. Life is the goal, but it’s not the patient’s fault that this isn’t possible anymore, not is it the doctor’s. It’s nobody’s fault, but that doesn’t mean we should just ignore the problem, which is pain and suffering.

Strawman alert…

No one is ignoring pain and suffering. Nor is euthanasia the only possible response. Are you a nurse or a doctor? Are you aware that there is a specialty practice related to alleviation of pain…whether or not the patient is terminal.

The Catholic Consistent Life Ethic is far superior than the relativist notion that a child who cannot get her ears pierced or use a tanning bed without parental permission is capable of deciding whether or not to die. Heroic means are not necessary nor is any extreme treatment. Pain (physical and emotional) can be mitigated with a variety of therapies.

The reality is this is simply a way to ration medical care which is the European model. They don’t want to spend the money or human resources on a case where the patient is bound to die. Better to free up the bed for the next victim of such medical “care.”

Pray for Europe, it is a place gone mad

Lisa

 

[belorg]

You are out of touch with reality. You think someone who is sick can make profound decisions without them being clouded by the impact of the illness and other social factors? That’s not free choice. That’s a coerced choice.

Most people who are sick have a fullky functioning mind, so, yes, they are able to make profound decisions.

A higher dose of antidepressants. More counseling, spiritual or psychological. A better hobby. A warmer atmosphere. How much time do we give for these to work?

Lots of time, actually.And I agree that this may reduce the number of euthanasia cases.

If you allow for ethenasia you’re basically offering this choice to the patient: Yes you can have Citalopram, cognitive behavioral therapy and other forms of counseling or you can have death. Of course the patient can then decide… “I’ll take death”.

Only if the patient is judged to be fully competent to make this choice.

It seems to me we are enabling a choice along the traditional way of enabling patient centered medicine… But the decision that one no longer wants to live and wants to actively die, is dependent on one’s psychological state which we’re not treating because patient has selected the “death” option and not the CBT/meds. Such a person cannot make a free choice.

That is simply not true. People who can’t make a free choice can’t consent to euthanasia.
The law , at least in Belgium, has restrictions built in to prevent this.

 

[belorg]

Strawman alert…

No one is ignoring pain and suffering. Nor is euthanasia the only possible response. Are you a nurse or a doctor? Are you aware that there is a specialty practice related to alleviation of pain…whether or not the patient is terminal.

Yes, I am aware of that. And no, euthanasia isn’t the only possible response, but it should be an option for people who want it.

The Catholic Consistent Life Ethic is far superior than the relativist notion that a child who cannot get her ears pierced or use a tanning bed without parental permission is capable of deciding whether or not to die. Heroic means are not necessary nor is any extreme treatment. Pain (physical and emotional) can be mitigated with a variety of therapies.

A child who cannot get her eras pierced without parental permission cannot decide whether or not to die without parental consent either.

The reality is this is simply a way to ration medical care which is the European model. They don’t want to spend the money or human resources on a case where the patient is bound to die. Better to free up the bed for the next victim of such medical “care.”

Pray for Europe, it is a place gone mad

Lisa

Strawman alert, indeed.

 

[LisaA]

Yes, I am aware of that. And no, euthanasia isn’t the only possible response, but it should be an option for people who want it.

.

Your opinion only. You probably think abortion should be available for those who want it as well. I cannot imagine how you think your argument holds any weight on a Catholic forum.

Lisa

 

[Tenofovir]

If I want to take that step, I should be free to take it.

Oh so we shouldn’t just assume it by default…

You don’t seem to have too much confindence in humanity.
If things are really as bas as you make it seem, then no law against euthanasia is going to make any difference.

I’m a realist. I work in the field.

So you think DNR shouldn’t be allowed either?

Do Not Resuscitate is not the same as withhold all treatment which is not the same as kill actively.

Nothing is fool proof or complete. There is always going to be abuse of every kind of law.

Then it’s better to not have such laws and err on the side of caution.

No, all you have demonstrated is some dubious slippery slope arguments.

These are not slippery slope arguments. Saying that a person’s disease affects their desire to live (mood, personality, etc) is not a slippery slope argument. Saying we also don’t know what a person really wants or not is also not a slippery slope. Saying doctors will be forced to do this, and go against their consciences is not a slippery slope because it is happening with abortions. And so on… Gosh you’re just grasping at straws. Your arguments suck.

No, we are not saying this. I don’t decide for other people whether they should feel dignified or not. You, on the other hand, seem to want to dictate that they should feel dignified.

When you say go ahead you’re really not dignified so kill yourself if you wish and we’ll even force doctors to do that, we’ll you’re agreeing with them.

Is it possible a person could be deluded or mistaken? Is someone who is suffering from anorexia nervosa and has a very low BMI correct to think they’re too fat?

I think you decided that you support euthanasia but haven’t fully thought it through. And you’re obviously not qualified to even have an opinion here since you don’t realise there’s a difference between not resusitating someone (intubating them and putting them on life support when their body is no longer able to support itself) and actively killing them.