Assisted Suicide - For Children???

[nbcrusader]

Belgium considers euthanasia for children

We're already cool with killing kids before they are born. Now, why not after??


How could we possibly say that a child could consent to this?

 

[anitram]

We're already cool with killing kids before they are born.

"Kids" and "killing" are both completely disputable in that statement. I don't see what this type of inflammatory statement contributes to the discussion of euthanasia at hand.

 

[nbcrusader]

I would suggest it is equally inflamatory to suggest that it is something else.

 

[anitram]

I would suggest it is equally inflamatory to suggest that it is something else.

Not to the medical and scientific community at large, which does not use those terms. I still don't see how it's related to euthanasia, an entirely separate issue, except to put out the image of slaughtered babies. The only thing missing is something about cloning and murder for stem cells to go full circle.

I work in the 3rd ranked pediatric facility in the world, and you see children who will die today or tomorrow, in great agony and sometimes you wonder why your dog and cat and the laboratory rat in the basement can all die quietly, without pain, while that child suffers. Do I support euthanasia for adults? Yes. For children? I am not sure if I would make a cut off age, but certainly somebody who is 18 is no better equipped at makikng that decision than someone who is 17 years and 10 months old or 17 and a half or whatever. Legally, I've not thought about it much and therefore don't really know exactly where I stand.

 

[LoveTown]

I work in the 3rd ranked pediatric facility in the world, and you see children who will die today or tomorrow, in great agony and sometimes you wonder why your dog and cat and the laboratory rat in the basement can all die quietly, without pain, while that child suffers. Do I support euthanasia for adults? Yes. For children? I am not sure if I would make a cut off age, but certainly somebody who is 18 is no better equipped at makikng that decision than someone who is 17 years and 10 months old or 17 and a half or whatever. Legally, I've not thought about it much and therefore don't really know exactly where I stand.

I support this statement fully

 

[Angela Harlem]

I would suggest it is equally inflamatory to suggest that it is something else.

If you truly believe this, then we can assume you are equally against the death penalty, manslaughter (as equalling murder in the first degree), killing in self defence and killing by complete accident?

Tell me how your argument isn't flawed. The legal system you are a part of, makes many many allowances. The law is filled with grey. There is no black and white when it comes to ending a life. Arguments for and against any of these issues are seperated by circumstance. Why is pain and suffering and terminal illness so much less acceptable than other circumstances?

We're all equal crusader.

 

[DrTeeth]

Senators Jeannine Leduc and Paul Wille said in the bill that terminally ill children and teenagers had as much right to choose when they wanted to die as anyone else.

I agree with this. The problem is at what age is a kid mature enough to fully understand his/her situation and the consequences of its decision. I think as long as the parents and doctors are involved, it is a positive step.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm not sure where a society is heading when you can have the message "your life may not be worth living".

Can you imagine a child fearing illness because their parents may decide to have them killed?

 

[Angela Harlem]

you think this topic is summed up in 2 sentences? that it is so black and white? curious.

 

[kobayashi]

I'm not sure where a society is heading when you may be inflicted with a terminal illness which will invariably leave you in great pain for a prolonged period of time...prior to the inevitable.

Can you imagine a child suffering through an illness which slowly delivers them to death and those around the child unable to do anything?

is the answer killing them? i'm not sure. but providing the euthanasia option, with appropriate oversight and provisions, seems much less harsh to me than not.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I want to ask something which I've wondered about for such a long time now. Everyone is aware of it, yet no one seems to speak of it and that is how every day in hospitals all around the world, life support machines are turned off and patients are left to leave this life quickly. No one bats an eye. No one pickets or complains. There is no media frenzy. These doctors play God and we mourn quietly.

Why?

 

[DrTeeth]

What exactly is your question, if it's morally right to practise euthanasia?

 

[kobayashi]

I think she is asking why this act (allowing those who are traumatically and suddenly injured or diseased to be removed from life supporting mechanisms, resulting in death) is not abhorrently protested?

Inherent in the question is the suggestion that these instances are somehow akin to euthanising individuals.

It is an interesting question. I think there is a distinction between the two as, at least in my mind, termination of life support usually follows a sudden onset of illness. In other words the individual is very rapidly taken from one state of consciousness to another much less functional one. Euthanasia, on the other hand, has come to mean the termination of life for those suffering from a longer term illness.

Not sure if that is described sensibly, but I can see a distinction. I guess the termination of life support involves individuals whose state was changed so suddenly and totally that others must decide their fate.

Also, this process can often be a life giving one as organ donorship can occur provided conditions are right and the individual has previously permitted such a procedure. This aspect might improve this method of willful termination of life in the minds of many.

that is all dependant on me having understood the question...

 

[Angela Harlem]

Yep, that's about it Kobe. Also whether those who are opposed to euthenasia also are against the switching off of life support machines, when this occurs so very often. And without a say from the patient.

 

[BostonAnne]

I think there is a big distinction between life support & euthenasia.

Life support is an added tool to keep someone alive. Without it, they are where they would be naturally in the progression of their illness.

Euthenasia is manipulating a person's natural state.

 

[Angela Harlem]

switching off a life support machine is essentially ending the life.
to put someone on the support initially is to prolong the inevitable in a lot of cases.
euthenasia is bringing forward and actioning another inevitable.

of course there are differences, but it is the similarity i am questioning. turning off a life support machine is as good as saying goodbye. we allow that.

 

[Salome]

I want to ask something which I've wondered about for such a long time now. Everyone is aware of it, yet no one seems to speak of it and that is how every day in hospitals all around the world, life support machines are turned off and patients are left to leave this life quickly. No one bats an eye. No one pickets or complains. There is no media frenzy. These doctors play God and we mourn quietly.

Why?

I actually think this is the main question

some people act when discussing euthanasia as if we're talking about psycho doctors killing anyone who in a state of high fever claim they don't want to live anymore or because the family who don't want to drive to the hospital anymore tell them it has been enough

the reality is that people whose only future is a couple of days of extreme pain will be spared of this (at least that's what it is over here in The Netherlands and we're well known liberal people killers) which hardly shows any difference to the decision to stop life support as mentioned in your post


my personal opinion is that I can't think of any situation I wanted my life to be ended while on the other hand I wouldn't want my loved ones suffering with me because of them seeing me in whatever state I would be
it's a difficult personal decision as far as I'm concerned


I think in the end we're already ending the life of kids (and definitely of babies) by not giving life support etc
the discussion should probably be whether we agree with this to begin with or at least discuss euthanasia on kids with this in mind

/ramble

 

[anitram]

It is an interesting question. I think there is a distinction between the two as, at least in my mind, termination of life support usually follows a sudden onset of illness.

That's actually a very inaccurate way to look at it, as I believe most cases of life support are terminally ill people whose organs begin to shut down one by one and chronically ill people who are kept alive in hopes they will make it, or because they have to get stronger for surgery or because they are trying to keep them alive long enough to get a transplant.

 

[pax]

Life support also comes into play when someone's brain has been deprived of oxygen for a long time--e.g. someone who has a heart attack alone in his or her house, and his/her spouse/child/whatever doesn't find him/her until long after the fact. Even if the heart can be started again, there's so much brain damage that the individual in question, if kept alive, would remain in a persistent vegetative state.