Personally, I'm only in favor of it if the individual can choose for themselves.
[FONT="] ...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="]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.
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.
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.
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.
There is a huge difference between not pursuing artificial breathing etc. and giving someone drugs for the explicit purpose of killing them.
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.
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".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.
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.
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.