Belgian senate approves euthanasia for children [CWN]

[Tenofovir]

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

They can’t make decisions to decide to actively end their life because their illness is making them want to do that. The mind is dependent on the body. No, for decisions to end their life, they don’t have a fully functioning mind, since the physical state of the body affects the psychological which is key here. Besides as said we do try to protect non-parasuicidal people too.

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

How much is enough? And some would rightfully say any, is a violation of that person’s rights. He refuses all treatment except option C. He wants active euthenasia. Who are you to deny him this now?

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

Which is iffy at best. And then again who gets to decide? A panel of people who are not experiencing what the patient is experiencing? What right do they have?

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.

Great. So you can read their mind? Nobel Prize for you?

 

[Tenofovir]

Strawman alert, indeed.

Actually limited resources make for some painful decisions. I’ve been there many times. Of course they weren’t nearly as painful for me as for the patient/their families/friends.

You’re dangerous. Because in the name of a mental state (which is dependent on the psychological/physical state) you are happy to let people kill themselves which is obviously an irreversible action, instead of treating these psychological/physical states till the mental state becomes one no longer demanding death.

Of course I’m fully for letting people decide when they can. I’m just not convinced that someone who is ill (and illness is commonly known to affect the brain/mind in overt and subtle ways) can decide in such a state to kill themselves. Gosh how many times have I not wished I was dead, and then I snapped out of it. I snapped out of it because I’m reasonably mentally healthy. But someone who just wants to die, who finds no interest in life worth pursuing, well… I think there’s something wrong going on there. And of course that means they can’t really decide at that stage.

(BTW I am opposed to the death penalty too and abortion for these reasons too. While we can still set someone who has been imprisoned free, we cannot resurrect the dead. Only exception for the death penalty I grant is the case where a prisoner is far too dangerous and risk of to life of his/her warders is too great. )

 

[belorg]

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

Well, since lots of Catholics in Belgium share my “opinion” on euthanasia, my argument may indeed hold some weight.

 

[Tenofovir]

Well, since lots of Catholics in Belgium share my “opinion” on euthanasia, my argument may indeed hold some weight.

What she means is that many on this forum are more knowledgeable of Catholic moral philosophy. Most Catholics are pretty clueless. I’m not an expert either.

 

[belorg]

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

We should assume by default that people are capable of making their own decisions

I’m a realist. I work in the field.

Well, then no law can change this.

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

No, but you are on a slippery slope here.

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

Caution for what exactly? Do you think a law against suicide can guarantee that nobody will commit suicide anymore?

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.

In SA, not in Belgium.

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.

Who is forcing doctors to do that?

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?

Of course it’s possible that a person can be deluded.

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.

Every person is qualified to have an opinion on this.

 

[belorg]

What she means is that many on this forum are more knowledgeable of Catholic moral philosophy. Most Catholics are pretty clueless. I’m not an expert either.

This has nothing to do with Catholic moral philosophy. I am not trying to convince any Catholic here to support euthanasia laws, all I am asking is to respect the choice of people, even if you don’t agree with it.

 

[Tenofovir]

We should assume by default that people are capable of making their own decisions

When they’re healthy. But decision making depends on the brain. The brain is dependent on the health of the body. So it’s not so clear cut. Not when it comes to decision with such huge implications. When you’re sick and in despair you can’t really be expected to clearly examine everything. It’s just not possible.

Well, then no law can change this.

A law actively allowing this will make this worse.

No, but you are on a slippery slope here.

I only brought up DNR because that affects how care givers care for patients, consciously and even subconsciously. That’s not a slippery slope.

Caution for what exactly? Do you think a law against suicide can guarantee that nobody will commit suicide anymore?

Caution that we are not killing people who are being forced by a treatable condition to decide to kill themselves.

In SA, not in Belgium.

It need only happen in one location. Actually as said we have a very liberal constitution here. If anything Belgium will become more like SA, albeit a richer SA.

But if a law exists where a patient can choose death as a treatment option, a doctor will be obliged to provide that and if not will have to refer to someone who will.

Who is forcing doctors to do that?

Who is forcing doctors and pharmacists to give abortifacients even though they may agree that this is against their conscience?

Of course it’s possible that a person can be deluded.

Delusions are pretty common.

Every person is qualified to have an opinion on this.

Sure. But then if you want to convince us, you need to have more than that.

We’re going in circles. You are arguing for free choice to actively die in a milieu of disease or disability which drives mental states to do this.

 

[Tenofovir]

This has nothing to do with Catholic moral philosophy. I am not trying to convince any Catholic here to support euthanasia laws, all I am asking is to respect the choice of people, even if you don’t agree with it.

Of course it has everything to do with it. For example if you consider child rape wrong you will not respect someone else’s choice to rape a child. And wrong depends on one’s moral philosophy. Catholic moral philosophy is key here. And you brought up Belgian Catholics. Or do you think Catholics should check in their Catholic philosophy and make decisions based on feelings, like you?

 

[belorg]

Of course it has everything to do with it. For example if you consider child rape wrong you will not respect someone else’s choice to rape a child.

Because it hurts someone who didn’t ask for it.

And wrong depends on one’s moral philosophy.

So, you are a moral relativist?

 

[belorg]

When they’re healthy. But decision making depends on the brain. The brain is dependent on the health of the body. So it’s not so clear cut. Not when it comes to decision with such huge implications. When you’re sick and in despair you can’t really be expected to clearly examine everything. It’s just not possible.

Sick people are not mentally retarded. Do you think this kind of decision is ever taken lightly?

A law actively allowing this will make this worse.

I don’t think so.

I only brought up DNR because that affects how care givers care for patients, consciously and even subconsciously. That’s not a slippery slope.

It is.

Caution that we are not killing people who are being forced by a treatable condition to decide to kill themselves.

Then the law in belgium is cautious, because it is not applicable to treatable conditions.

It need only happen in one location. Actually as said we have a very liberal constitution here. If anything Belgium will become more like SA, albeit a richer SA.

There is no indication that this is true.

But if a law exists where a patient can choose death as a treatment option, a doctor will be obliged to provide that and if not will have to refer to someone who will.

The last thing may be true, the first thing isn’t.

Who is forcing doctors and pharmacists to give abortifacients even though they may agree that this is against their conscience?

I don’t know?

Delusions are pretty common.

Not as common as you seem to think.

Sure. But then if you want to convince us, you need to have more than that.

I don’t want to convince you.

We’re going in circles. You are arguing for free choice to actively die in a milieu of disease or disability which drives mental states to do this.

No, I don’t. this is you strawmanning my position.

 

[grotto]

Belgian senate approves ending children’s lives. Wow! I sure hope that news is wrong.
Perhaps this “so called approval” isn’t really a law they have passed. I am so shocked that a country that suffered so much under Nazi Germany would reach Grandparent age and allow their grandchildren to be killed. No, that can’t be right. It has become a terrible knowledge that abortion has permeated every corner of the world and people have been desperately trying to turn it around (at least in America). Pray for Belgian. (sp?)

 

[Tenofovir]

Because it hurts someone who didn’t ask for it.

That’s nice. Except that’s not the point. Point is that no matter what the underlying reason one considers it wrong (you consider doing something against ones’ will as wrong) it’s wrong and does not need to be respected. Please follow the conversation and don’t go off on tangents.

So, you are a moral relativist?

My views are not relevant. I don’t need to be a moral relativist to realise that different people consider different things to be right and wrong. You do follow that?

 

[Tenofovir]

Sick people are not mentally retarded. Do you think this kind of decision is ever taken lightly?

Do you think mental retardation is the only condition which can cloud judgement and mood? Do you think a decision to end ones’ life is not relevant to one’s mood and personality?

Taken lightly? Yes too lightly for what we can empirically prove.

I don’t think so.

A law allowing X will increase incidence of X. If need for X did not occur in the first place, law legalising X would not have been introduced.

It is.

How? (Note also that slippery slope is not always a fallacy. It’s also not a slippery slope to point out that clinicians will care differently for DNR patients and palliative patients. I know this from first hand experience. It’s common to hear even in jokes the suggestion that one should not really monitor the amount of mist morphine a cancer patient uses… if he/she uses more… maybe they’ll OD… this happens much less when approaching patients who are not palliative care patients. It’s also not uncommon for some doctors to increase these dosages and not worry about OD.) Someone who has chosen death and is admitted is bound to be treated in a similar way.

Then the law in belgium is cautious, because it is not applicable to treatable conditions.

Which conditions are not ‘treatable’? Or do you mean non-curable? We already agreed on what the definition of palliation entails.

There is no indication that this is true.

Of course there is. In England for example, people who are against gay marriage have to assist in gay marriage. Their own conscience rights are overridden. This happens in USA. It happens in SA. It happens in other countries. It also happens in Belgium. Heck it happens in the EU. Not everywhere to the same degree. There are legal moves to enforce it further:

““Member States should regulate and monitor the use of conscientious objection so as to ensure that reproductive health care is guaranteed as an individual’s right,” the report states.”
lifesitenews.com/news/eu-set-to-suppress-doctors-conscience-rights-and-proclaim-abortion-a-human

The last thing may be true, the first thing isn’t.

Of course all are true. If X is a valid form of therapy a doctor will be obliged to provide it or refer to someone who does, or else he is negligent.

I don’t know?

The authorities.

Not as common as you seem to think.

Man you’re childish.

I don’t want to convince you.

So why do you argue here…?

No, I don’t. this is you strawmanning my position.

This is exactly what you’re doing. I am not strawmanning you at all. You’re pretty ignorant too. You only think mental retardation can cloud one’s reasoning or future outlook and so on, i.e. decision to want to die or not. You haven’t fought through your opinion at all. It’s uninformed and so irrational.

 

[LisaA]

Well, since lots of Catholics in Belgium share my “opinion” on euthanasia, my argument may indeed hold some weight.

Another unsubstantiated opinion. Religious leaders of all of the great faith traditions spoke out in horror at this latest attempt to cloak saving money in the filthy garment of (at best) misguided compassion. If any Catholics in Belgium agree with your opinion, they are either ignorant or reject the most basic and important teaching regarding respect for human life.

Lisa

 

[Rau]

I believe Belgium is largely Catholic, and governed by a substantially Catholic legislature. In this environment, they chose to legalise things which Catholicism rates as gravely evil.

I believe these are facts but please correct me if I’m wrong.

If correct, the teaching authority of the Church counts for little these days.

The new great religion is “Human Rights”.

 

[belorg]

So why do you argue here…?

Because there are other people here who are less closed-minded and who are capable of seeing different sides of a coin.

The rest of your post is a repetition of you trying to throw all kinds of irrelevant things on one big heap, so I won’t be responding to you anymore.

 

[belorg]

Belgian senate approves ending children’s lives. Wow! I sure hope that news is wrong.
Perhaps this “so called approval” isn’t really a law they have passed. I am so shocked that a country that suffered so much under Nazi Germany would reach Grandparent age and allow their grandchildren to be killed. No, that can’t be right. It has become a terrible knowledge that abortion has permeated every corner of the world and people have been desperately trying to turn it around (at least in America). Pray for Belgian. (sp?)

No, it isn’t right. This is a strawman of what has really happened in Belgium.

 

[belorg]

Another unsubstantiated opinion. Religious leaders of all of the great faith traditions spoke out in horror at this latest attempt to cloak saving money in the filthy garment of (at best) misguided compassion. If any Catholics in Belgium agree with your opinion, they are either ignorant or reject the most basic and important teaching regarding respect for human life.

Lisa

Catholic leaders in Belgium spoke out in horror too, but most Belgian Catholics chose to listen to reasonable arguments instead, so, there’s no reason why the same could not happen on this forum.

The rest of your post shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[belorg]

I believe Belgium is largely Catholic, and governed by a substantially Catholic legislature.

No, that isn’t quite true. While the majority in Belgium is cradle-Catholic, the church-attendence has dropped to under 10% and Catholic baptism is rapidly decining.
The government in Belgium is a coalition of social-democrats, liberals and Christian democrats. In the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium, tghe Christian-democrats got about 18% in last elections, in the French-speaking part, this was only about 10%.

In this environment, they chose to legalise things which Catholicism rates as gravely evil.I believe these are facts but please correct me if I’m wrong.

They chose to legalise this, yes, but there was also substantial support by devout Catholics.

If correct, the teaching authority of the Church counts for little these days.

The new great religion is “Human Rights”.

I think that observation is basically correct, at least in Belgium. Religious Rights are seen as a part of Human Rights, not the other way round.

 

[Tenofovir]

Because there are other people here who are less closed-minded and who are capable of seeing different sides of a coin.

I think you want it your way. I think you’re the close minded one. You came on a Catholic forum arguing and I’ve decimated your arguments with basic secular points. Both sides of the story? Who better than someone who actually dealt with the sick and dying and works in the industry(so to say)? Who knows real world issues? You don’t because all you’re doing is handwaving and claiming informal fallacies - which are irrelevant here. (The informal is key btw).

The rest of your post is a repetition of you trying to throw all kinds of irrelevant things on one big heap, so I won’t be responding to you anymore.

Irrelevant? You are the ignorant person in this. I have actual experience and knowledge and you don’t. You are so limited and I’ve shown this already just by pointing out that “mental retardation” is not the only condition which clouds outlook and so desire to die or the ability to tolerate pain, indignity and so on. But go ahead and stay in your close minded shell. Don’t educate yourself. Make up your mind and find justification afterward. I guess it’s a straw manning to call you that… because that’s exactly what you said just now. And I guess it’s a slippery slope and irrelevant. Yeah it’s irrelevant that a person who feels undignified because of an ailment may want to die because he has given up hope because of the ailment and so cannot make any other choice. I guess it’s a free choice.

Your whole argument is just emotion. You created this moral ethic for you which says “autonomy is the only moral right”. Except sick, suffering and undignified as well as the very young have limited autonomy. Still you think that’s not a problem and others can have power of life or death over such people. Their conditions, and not just medical conditions, affect how they make choices and limit freedom. It’s quite a bit like torture or coercion. No court buys a confession obtained under duress. A human person is complex. Illness and status and perceptions of others, including whether you’re seen as a burden or not, or whether there is tacit approval by suggestion of euthanasia weigh in on such people. Someone’s death wish is more likely to be a symptom of their underlying disease than not. Do you grasp what that means? It means no free choice. In medical research and medicine these are major ethical issues too when it comes to patient
consent and assent for procedures and involvement in scientific experiments. These have not be solved at all. And when it comes to something like death you brush it off.

Have fun. You’re not here with an open mind to listen to other viewpoints but to dig in your heels and shout “I am right!”