Belgium and Euthanasia

[foszoe]

https://www.mamamia.com.au/belgian-euthanasia/amp/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

How quickly will this practice spread?

 

[Dead Duck]

I say we nominate people to go there and those with the most nominations win a paid first class trip. I'm sure they'll be better for it.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Personally, I'm only in favor of it if the individual can choose for themselves.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Personally, I'm only in favor of it if the individual can choose for themselves.

[FONT=&quot] ...there were extra conditions imposed. The child would have to understand what euthanasia meant, the parents or guardians would have to give their consent, and doctors would have to verify that the death was expected “in the near future”.[/FONT]...[FONT=&quot]The child would have to make his or her wish known in writing, and then psychiatrists would have to examine the child, to make sure that he or she was capable and not being influenced by anyone. Finally, a six-member commission would have to give approval.[/FONT]

God forbid I'm ever in the position to decide that for a child. I've had to make end of life decisions for a grandparent, and that's hard enough. Sometimes there's no good answer, just less bad ones.

 

[Tactically Fat]

God forbid I'm ever in the position to decide that for a child. I've had to make end of life decisions for a grandparent, and that's hard enough. Sometimes there's no good answer, just less bad ones.

Yes.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I’m mixed on this. From a religious standpoint I don’t believe we’re meant to take our own lives. But at the same time I totally get it for some chronically ill people, or those who know what is coming from cancer or some other incurable disease.

i’ve encountered plenty lucid people who are adamant that they want to die. Usually end-stage cancer. There’s no arguing, just facilitating a peaceful end of life. My grandmother wanted to die. She wanted to be with her God and husband again. Her body was ruined but her mind was sharp.

Enidng your life from depression is awful IMO, but there are some circumstances where it seems a valid choice. I dunno, tough situations. Best thing is we define very clearly our end of life wishes. If i’m Teetering or minimal chance for meaningful neurologic recovery i’ve Told my wife to let me go. Remarry and get the kids another dad.

 

[foszoe]

God forbid I'm ever in the position to decide that for a child. I've had to make end of life decisions for a grandparent, and that's hard enough. Sometimes there's no good answer, just less bad ones.

In Belgium, I don't THINK you would have to. Children can do it for themselves.

 

[Ark]

The conditions and controls sound sufficient to me. They're talking about children well below the age of any other legal consent, but sadly we're talking about cases where they will never reach that age. They deserve the right to decide for themselves, same as anyone else.

We commit euthanasia every time we unplug a brain dead person. You make a commitment to be euthanized when you sign a DNR order. Plan it deliberately, or wait for your brain to give out first, the end result is the same and nobody can avoid it. If you're lucky enough to be able to choose, I think you deserve the right to do so. There's also the practical question of whether you can really stop anyone from ending their own lives if they want it bad enough.

I get the morality argument but, well, not everyone subscribes to those ideas, and you don't have the right to force anyone to comply with them. If they really are buying a ticket to damnation, that's their problem, not yours. The only thing that concerns me is ensuring that consent is really consent, and not coercion. It's a little thornier in the US, where a hospital rep can sit you down and say "Okay, we might be able to help you, but it's gonna run up a million dollars in charges and we're gonna clean out your entire estate and leave your family penniless on the street when you die, or...you can avoid all that and sign your death order right now". Not really consensual when you're in a position where the only way to provide for your family is to forfeit treatment that might have saved your life, and decide to check out right now because it's cheaper.

 

[hoosierdoc]

a big part of the problem is people see parents’ assets as their inheritance rather than the means to care for them when they need expensive care. Isn’t the whole point of saving for retirement so that you can be taken care of later without being a burden on your family? Because it seems like nowadays the whole point is so your family can take your money and you can become a burden on the state

 

[BehindBlueI's]

In Belgium, I don't THINK you would have to. Children can do it for themselves.

In the article and already quoted in the thread:

there were extra conditions imposed. The child would have to understand what euthanasia meant, the parents or guardians would have to give their consent, and doctors would have to verify that the death was expected “in the near future”....The child would have to make his or her wish known in writing, and then psychiatrists would have to examine the child, to make sure that he or she was capable and not being influenced by anyone. Finally, a six-member commission would have to give approval.

 

[Fargo]

I have no wish to play God and it terrifies me how accepting of this society has become.

Intentional killing of innocents is a line that can never validly be crossed IMO.

Once it is crossed, it is just a difference of degree in who/how people get chosen to not have valid lives.

 

[Dead Duck]

So... Where did Soylent Green start again?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

It may be that freedom is distasteful to everyone in some way.


I was with someone very dear to me when that decision was made. It was an easy decision in our case; he was 77, on a ventilator, and drugs keeping his heart beating.

I can't begin to imagine what it would be like to even have to consider making that decision for one of my kids. I would hope that reasonable people would always have right to make such a personal decision for themselves if they find themselves in that unfortunate position.

 

[Fargo]

It may be that freedom is distasteful to everyone in some way.


I was with someone very dear to me when that decision was made. It was an easy decision in our case; he was 77, on a ventilator, and drugs keeping his heart beating.

I can't begin to imagine what it would be like to even have to consider making that decision for one of my kids. I would hope that reasonable people would always have right to make such a personal decision for themselves if they find themselves in that unfortunate position.

Not continuing extraordinary treatment keeping someone artificially alive is not intentionally killing an innocent IMO and is not what is being discussed in Belgium.

There is a huge difference between not pursuing artificial breathing etc. and giving someone drugs for the explicit purpose of killing them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

There is a huge difference between not pursuing artificial breathing etc. and giving someone drugs for the explicit purpose of killing them.

In the context being discussed? The line is pretty thin, IMO. This isn't "suicide as a permanent solution to a temporary problem". This is checking out on your own terms while terminally ill.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Not continuing extraordinary treatment keeping someone artificially alive is not intentionally killing an innocent IMO and is not what is being discussed in Belgium.

There is a huge difference between not pursuing artificial breathing etc. and giving someone drugs for the explicit purpose of killing them.

You are correct, and my post made it sound like I didn't know that's what the article was about.

I agree that it's a terrifying thing to think about. I also think that it might be wrong for me to impugn the choices made by others who find themselves in a terrifying situation, or to think that I could tell them which choice that they should or shouldn't make.

 

[singlesix]

I have no wish to play God and it terrifies me how accepting of this society has become.

Intentional killing of innocents is a line that can never validly be crossed IMO.

Once it is crossed, it is just a difference of degree in who/how people get chosen to not have valid lives.

If you could create life out of thin air or anything else, that would be playing "god", the rest is people being people. I shoot someone in the head is that playing god or I am just a person that shot someone. If there was a god wouldn't it limit what it's creation could do and reserve those powers to itself that were "godlike".

What is to be gained by letting someone suffer needless where there is no hope of recovery? The only decision is how soon the suffering stops.

 

[Fargo]

In the context being discussed? The line is pretty thin, IMO. This isn't "suicide as a permanent solution to a temporary problem". This is checking out on your own terms while terminally ill.

I don't see that line as thin at all. The only way it gets thin is on consequentialist grounds, and I find consequentialism to generally just be a way to argue backward from the result one desires.

1. There is dying from your sickness/injury.

2. There is dying from your sickness injury while refusing extraordinary care like a ventilator.

3. There is killing yourself.

4. There is contracting with someone to kill you.

5. There is society deciding that certain patients are too costly/useless and so killing them.

IMO the moral line ends between 2 and 3. The legal line should end between 3 and 4.

I understand that this is an issue reasonable people can disagree on, but IMO 4 and 5 both involve the state sanctioned intentional killing of an innocent and are wrong.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I don't see that line as thin at all. The only way it gets thin is on consequentialist grounds, and I find consequentialism to generally just be a way to argue backward from the result one desires.

1. There is dying from your sickness/injury.

2. There is dying from your sickness injury while refusing extraordinary care like a ventilator.

3. There is killing yourself.

4. There is contracting with someone to kill you.

5. There is society deciding that certain patients are too costly/useless and so killing them.

IMO the moral line ends between 2 and 3. The legal line should end between 3 and 4.

I understand that this is an issue reasonable people can disagree on, but IMO 4 and 5 both involve the state sanctioned intentional killing of an innocent and are wrong.

I've always thought it was an interesting thing that we, as a society, almost always recoil from #5 when it is done in a direct way, even if well-thought-out and compassionate, and yet we all-too-often seem to not be bothered so much when #5 happens through inevitable bureaucratic mechanisms.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I understand that this is an issue reasonable people can disagree on, but IMO 4 and 5 both involve the state sanctioned intentional killing of an innocent and are wrong.

Then in terms of #3, in the context of inevitable death anyway, perhaps we should let reasonable people decide for themselves. The checks and balances here seem sufficient in that a mental health professional and a panel of doctors must concur with the wishes and deem the person competent to make such a grave decision.

As to #4, I'm not entirely sure what that looks like in reality. Hiring a hitman for yourself as some insurance scheme? Regardless, not sure it's a side argument worth pursuing.

#5, I largely agree, but much of INGO has said there's no right to health care. There's even a thread specifically titled as such, IIRC. I do think there's an eventual limit, though. Where the line is drawn and by who gets sticky, but given there's no unlimited wealth but medical treatments continue to get more advanced, more expensive, and you eventually hit greatly diminished returns I'm not going to say "always".