Belgian senate approves euthanasia for children [CWN]

[Rau]

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%.

If the majority in Belgium is cradle Catholic, then I assume this is reflected roughly in the makeup of the members of the parliament, notwithstanding the particular party to which they may belong.

Mind you, my experience gained from living in Europe (Germany) is that while a great many people are formally Catholic, and the Church has “status” (to the point of the State collecting a special Church Tax on behalf of the Church), many people do not practice their faith.

 

[Tenofovir]

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.

The arguments are “reasonable” according to you because you bought them. Things you agree with = reasonable, things you disagree with = unreasonable. I suspect this when I see cocksure people like you.

You know how I know… because of your 100% unwavering support for this. No a trace or iota of even… “I could be wrong”. You’re 100% confident and sure. Yet you don’t even know that the death wish can be a symptom of the condition this patient has. Under such situations, that’s not autonomy you get. But I guess if the patient is not mentally retarded it’s OK because that’s the only condition which can cloud one’s desire to live and ability to make extremely serious decisions.

It’s a little like asking someone who has food poisoning about what type of breakfast he’d like to have. Such a person is already sick and can’t stand the thought of food. He has no appetite. But hey… you know we can ask such a person to discover truly which food he enjoys. You have to wait till he is well again.

 

[Rau]

Religious Rights are seen as a part of Human Rights, not the other way round.

But note that Religious Rights - the tight to practice religion, is entirely distinct from the principles and tenets of a religion. It is the latter which can be contrasted with the codified set of “human rights”.

Should the right to end one’s own life become a “human right” one day, it will stand at odds with Catholic principles.

 

[belorg]

If the majority in Belgium is cradle Catholic, then I assume this is reflected roughly in the makeup of the members of the parliament, notwithstanding the particular party to which they may belong.

That is probably true, yes. But in reality, they make up their own minds about things, regardless of what Church leaders have to say about it.

Mind you, my experience gained from living in Europe (Germany) is that while a great many people are formally Catholic, and the Church has “status” (to the point of the State collecting a special Church Tax on behalf of the Church), many people do not practice their faith.

Yes, I think that is virtually the same in Belgium, except that there is no Church Tax…

 

[Tenofovir]

But note that Religious Rights - the tight to practice religion, is entirely distinct from the principles and tenets of a religion. It is the latter which can be contrasted with the codified set of “human rights”.

Should the right to end one’s own life become a “human right” one day, it will stand at odds with Catholic principles.

Your interlocutor sees it as part of a human right. And patient autonomy in decision making over their treatment is a human right. When you legalise this you are adding that to the physicians’ armamentarium. If the patient decides he or she wants to die, then it will be required of the physician or designee or some other doctor to perform this procedure the same way a patient who agrees to appendectomy cannot be denied this unless it’s for his own good and even then there are medico-legal issues. The physician will also have to give this to the patient as a treatment option. You can have procedure 1, 2, drug 1, 2, or you can choose a KCl injection.

 

[belorg]

But note that Religious Rights - the tight to practice religion, is entirely distinct from the principles and tenets of a religion. It is the latter which can be contrasted with the codified set of “human rights”.

Should the right to end one’s own life become a “human right” one day, it will stand at odds with Catholic principles.

Yes, but if it is a Human Right, which I think it should be, then Catholic Principle will only mean that Catholics are not allowed to choose to end their lives. And I respect that, but I think you should also respect my choice if it happens to be at odds with Catholic teachings, at least in those cases in which my choice doesn’t affect yours or anybody else’s.

 

[Tenofovir]

Yes, but if it is a Human Right, which I think it should be, then Catholic Principle will only mean that Catholics are not allowed to choose to end their lives. And I respect that, but I think you should also respect my choice if it happens to be at odds with Catholic teachings, at least in those cases in which my choice doesn’t affect yours or anybody else’s.

Which is in fact against the Catholic religion. We cannot condone evil or respect your choice to perform evil. Ergo one has to give. Either the Catholic has to shut up and his religion has to be curtailed, which sets one further precedent and shows by example that the Church is subservient to Cesar, or not. This is like saying it’s ok to rape children, because it’s someone else doing it and maybe the child is hungry and by being raped will get some food to eat. No sane person would condone that even if his/her own children will never be in such a situation supposedly.

 

[Tenofovir]

Sickness coerced choice a human right. Well then I guess child prostitution in times of great poverty/hunger is a human right too. It’s the same thing. We’re relieving hunger/suffering in both cases. We’re doing something we don’t want done but it has to be done anyway to ease suffering. The choice is free in each case. The ages of the victims are now similar too. Seems good. Maybe the child molester can be instructed to be gentle too. Yep.

 

[Rau]

Yes, but if it is a Human Right, which I think it should be, then Catholic Principle will only mean that Catholics are not allowed to choose to end their lives. And I respect that, but I think you should also respect my choice if it happens to be at odds with Catholic teachings, at least in those cases in which my choice doesn’t affect yours or anybody else’s.

I understand your reasoning, and I think it is an interesting issue to discuss (though not here), viz the extent to which a faith group ought to seek to secure secular laws consistent with their faith (or oppose those which are inconsistent).

On the subject at hand, adoption of euthanasia laws do present risks to others, though this may be hard to assess in advance.

 

[Tenofovir]

On this point though, adoption of euthanasia laws do present risks to others, though this may be hard to assess in advance.

What is the lay attitude to Catholicism in Belgium? Is that taken seriously? More importantly the people who do the counseling or the consenting for euthanasia, what is their attitude in practice? So suppose a Catholic becomes a candidate for this procedure… what then? Will his religious concerns be brushed off… will a priest be on the team of counselors if he so wishes?

Despite all of that I still hold and I’m not so confident that the choice to die will be free, regardless of the faith of the patient, especially when it comes to low age and maturity.

 

[belorg]

I understand your reasoning, and I think it is an interesting issue to discuss (though not here), viz the extent to which a faith group ought to seek to secure secular laws consistent with their faith (or oppose those which are inconsistent).

On this point though, adoption of euthanasia laws do present risks to others, though this may be hard to assess in advance.

Virtually every law presents some risk to others, and I agree that we should be careful with any law. The pros and cons of every law have to be weighed against each other.

 

[Tenofovir]

Virtually every law presents some risk to others, and I agree that we should be careful with any law. The pros and cons of every law have to be weighed against each other.

But you’ve made up your mind already, you’re here advocating for this law.

IF patient NOT mental_retard then euthanasia.

It’s good to know people who advocate for laws which impact other peoples’ lives so greatly know all the issues.

 

[LisaA]

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).

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!”

Thank you for continuing to speak the truth and provide rational as opposed to idealogical arguments based only on a preconceived notion about what is right. Secular Leftism has been the source of much evil in the world. Once human theories are elevated to godlike status the result is relativism.

As you noted, it’s essential to have experience in this field and to understand the complex interaction of mind, body and emotion. As with abortion, people feel pressured to die and thus not be “a burden” to others. Our Catholic faith provides the opposite approach, to consider and respect the inherent dignity of every human being from conception to death.

The idea that children could not be manipulated into requesting death is absurd. Further the parents of the children can be manipulated by medical providers who insist that the child’s quality of life is not sufficient to provide support for its continuation even in the face of a fatal diagnosis. It is not necessary to perform heroic measures, to force the patient to breathe with machines and be fed through a tube. Pallitative care, pain relief and emotional support for the patient and family can allow a merciful and compassionate transition to death.

Lisa

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[grotto]

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

---

Your “strawman” is sure a busy guy! You say that Grandparents that lived through the years of WWII are not duped in the attempt to kill their grandchildren by this so called act of mercy - euthanasia for children. What a farce! If they have influenced their society in any way, I am sure they would not support elimination of their prodgeny. Something is fishy in Denmark and they are smelling it in Belgium! Don’t drink the Koolaid!

 

[belorg]

---

Your “strawman” is sure a busy guy! You say that Grandparents that lived through the years of WWII are not duped in the attempt to kill their grandchildren by this so called act of mercy - euthanasia for children.

No, they are not duped, because there is no attempt to kill their grandchildren.
Saying that there is an attempt to kill their grandchildren is a strawman.

What a farce! If they have influenced their society in any way, I am sure they would not support elimination of their prodgeny.

They don’t support elimination of their prodgeny, and there is no elimination of their prodgeny.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

I also red something about DNR , in The Netherlands it’s allowed by law:
government.nl/issues/euthanasia/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-and-non-resuscitation-on-request

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

I don’t understand ??

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.

Well , as a Belgian Citizen i confirm , that’s absolutely true !!

Yes, I do.

Are you living in Belgium ??

Further: My mom has been laying in palliative care for about 3 months ,
that’s about 5 years ago , and she made it with the medical care they gave her
She had problem with her liver and the medical treatment she had in the past ,
my mom didn’t want to die , and glad she made it , also with our help

Moral or …
Suppose someone is suffering from a terminal illness , and they give the person
so much medical stuff (s)he wouldn’t suffer from pain untill (s)he dies ,
and let’s say the person still live for about 6 mounths , how or what would you call that ??
The person itself knows (s)he will die , asking for euthanasia ,
but instead they give the patiënt (heavy) palliative care !!

Can i ask you all:
If you or me had kids , and one would suffer from a (painful) terminal illness ,
asking for euthanasia (permitted or not by law) , what would we do ??

 

[belorg]

Well , as a Belgian Citizen i confirm , that’s absolutely true !!

I am a Belgian citizen too, Laurent, pleased to meet you.

 

[Tenofovir]

I

Moral or …
Suppose someone is suffering from a terminal illness , and they give the person
so much medical stuff (s)he wouldn’t suffer from pain (untill (s)he dies ,
and let’s say the person still live for about 6 mounths , how or what would you call that ??
The person itself knows (s)he will die , asking for euthanasia ,
but instead they give the patiënt (heavy) palliative care !!

I’m sorry your mother had to suffer. Back to your thought experiment:

We all know we will die. You see nobody lives forever.

My problem with euthanasia, from a non-religious point of view, is that a person may want death because of reasons which are coerced or symptoms of his condition. The death wish is a symptom of his extended condition. There is no free rational decision making process going on. We have someone who is disabled, sick, depressed, anxious, afraid to be a burden, who thinks they have less dignity and so on… but these things are part and parcel of what they are because of their condition. The person cannot freely decide, “I want to die” any more so than a person who is depressed can do so or a psychotic person can do so. Some people are willing to take the chance and kill them but that’s guesswork.

Of course I also have moral objections. Even if I was an atheist, I would think it is wrong to kill someone, even someone who wishes to die. None of us has that authority. And if I was a consistent atheist who was also a materialist I would realise we cannot make such a decision. Yes we’re programmed by evolution to have empathy for others’ pain. But is this relevant? One cannot derive OUGHTs from IS’s.

Can i ask you all:
If you or me had kids , and one would suffer from a (painful) terminal illness ,
asking for euthanasia (permitted or not by law) , what would we do ??

If my kid was in pain, I’d want that pain relieved. And it is possible to do that through a variety of ways. One can also make the hospital stay more tolerable and make care more pleasant. One can reduce the intensity of pain through improvement of the psychological state too. You know the way when you’re happy, aches and pains worry you less, and when you’re unhappy even minor pain is unbearable. Euthanasia? No. And just offering that option to a child may imply that yes it’s a preferred option, and it may coerce them into doing it. It can be an example of transference.

Sick people and children are very vulnerable. Expecting them to decide on such matters is I think not reasonable. Likewise a well person deciding in advance, has no way of knowing what the experience of such a state is, first hand. With medical science and knowledge advancing I think such extreme measures are inappropriate and unnecessary. They also set a variety of precedences.

 

[LisaA]

I’m sorry your mother had to suffer. Back to your thought experiment:

We all know we will die. You see nobody lives forever.

My problem with euthanasia, from a non-religious point of view, is that a person may want death because of reasons which are coerced or symptoms of his condition. The death wish is a symptom of his extended condition. There is no free rational decision making process going on. We have someone who is disabled, sick, depressed, anxious, afraid to be a burden, who thinks they have less dignity and so on… but these things are part and parcel of what they are because of their condition. The person cannot freely decide, “I want to die” any more so than a person who is depressed can do so or a psychotic person can do so. Some people are willing to take the chance and kill them but that’s guesswork.

Of course I also have moral objections. Even if I was an atheist, I would think it is wrong to kill someone, even someone who wishes to die. None of us has that authority. And if I was a consistent atheist who was also a materialist I would realise we cannot make such a decision. Yes we’re programmed by evolution to have empathy for others’ pain. But is this relevant? One cannot derive OUGHTs from IS’s.

If my kid was in pain, I’d want that pain relieved. And it is possible to do that through a variety of ways. One can also make the hospital stay more tolerable and make care more pleasant. One can reduce the intensity of pain through improvement of the psychological state too. You know the way when you’re happy, aches and pains worry you less, and when you’re unhappy even minor pain is unbearable. Euthanasia? No. And just offering that option to a child may imply that yes it’s a preferred option, and it may coerce them into doing it. It can be an example of transference.

Sick people and children are very vulnerable. Expecting them to decide on such matters is I think not reasonable. Likewise a well person deciding in advance, has no way of knowing what the experience of such a state is, first hand. With medical science and knowledge advancing I think such extreme measures are inappropriate and unnecessary. They also set a variety of precedences.

Precisely. From a purely utilitarian point of view euthanisa is simply a cost saving measure and thus, as you said, those in physical and emotional pain can easily be manipulated into “requesting” death so as not to suffer nor to have one’s family suffer. Sick cihldren are incredibly empathic and just as the parent doesn’t want to see his child in pain, the child seeing the agony of his parents may be convinced his death will “help” the parents.

The reality is that there is no need for euthanasia. As you noted and as I see in the medical world where I work, pain, emotional anguish, anxiety and other unfortunate elements of a painful or fatal illness can be alleviated, short of killing the person more quickly. There is no compelling reason for this option to be offered OTHER THAN THE COST.

One can fluff up the argument in many ways but the reality is that since there is no need to euthanize a person, this option should not be offered in a civilized society. That it has now been extended to children who are not considered able to engage in the most casual of contracts just demonstrates how far the Left will go to justify it’s sadlyutilitarian model of society.

Lisa