Belgian law on euthanasia for children, with no age limit

Belgian law on euthanasia for children, with no age limit, will be first in world

After debate splitting professions, parliament due to pass law allowing euthanasia for terminally ill minors 'suffering unbearably'

The Guardian, Wednesday 12 February 2014 16.22 GMT

I think the debate on whether you own your own life (now you know where I stand) has reached new heights with this development: Belgium decides on euthanasia for children, under certain very restricted circumstances.


Following months of painful and divisive debate the Belgian parliament is expected to pass a law extending euthanasia – which has been possible in the country for the past 12 years – to minors.

Belgium is one of only three countries to have legalised euthanasia, the others being Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The Dutch also allow minors the right to die from the age of 12. Belgium will be the first to drop all age restrictions.


"It is not about deciding whether a child is or is not to die," said Daniel Baquelaine, an MP who backs the new law and who is also a doctor. "Death is coming quickly. It is therefore necessary to allow the child to express what he thinks of the end of life, about how to die."

A group of 160 paediatricians, opposed to giving children the right to die, said: "In practice, there is no objective method for determining whether a child is gifted with the ability of discernment and judgment. This is actually a largely subjective assessment and subject to influences."

The heated debate has split the medical, legal, and political professions, with the Catholic church staging prayer vigils in protest, and hospice and palliative care specialists stating themselves generally opposed.


What do you people think of this law? (Not law yet, but is thought to be soon.)

I haven't thought it through completely yet myself, but I can see that in a country where euthanasia is a right, it would seem unreasonable not to extent that right to terminally ill and severely suffering children.

In the Netherlands, euthanasia for minors of 12 years or older is possible. Minors between 12 and 15 need parental consent while for 16 and 17 year-olds even that consent is not required. Those in favour of the proposed Belgian law see the age of 12 as an arbitrary number. They argue that it is not about the age, but whether or not a child is able to form his/her own judgement. If that child is 8 instead of 12 and he asks for euthanasia and all the requirements are met, the age shouldn't be a factor.
I agree with those in favour.

I have no problem with euthanasia, per se, but there need to be a lot of checks and balances. For adults, of course, simple consent is all that should be needed. As thir stated, you own your own life. If you are unable to make an informed, rational decision due to illness or loss of mental capacity, your next of kin should be allowed to make that decision. A living will, naming the person able to make such decisions, should be everyone's priority. For the record, this was my mother's condition, her mind destroyed by Alzheimer's, her body failing all too slowly. My dad had the legal right to choose for her. And he did. And I supported him in it.

For children, though, we have other problems. Yes, a child over the age of about 12 is probably capable of understanding what such a decision means, and should be able to make that decision with his parents; and doctors, consent. Younger children (and I don't claim to know just how young this should be) may not truly understand the implications, but for sure their parents should. And their doctors definitely should. So a parent, knowing that the doctors can do nothing more, and that their child is in pain with no hope in sight, should be allowed to make that choice.

One thing I do know, however: they need to keep the fucking churches out of the loop! If the parents, or patient, are religious, then it is up to them whether or not to abide by the strictures of their church. If they are not religious, or reject those strictures, the churches should not be permitted to force them into not going forward. They can organize all the prayer vigils they like, since those will have no effect on reality anyway. And they can preach to their own people as much as they like, too. Those who rely on the authority of the church to make their decisions for them will likely follow suit. But the churches should not be allowed to make such decisions for the public at large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

One thing I do know, however: they need to keep the fucking churches out of the loop! If the parents, or patient, are religious, then it is up to them whether or not to abide by the strictures of their church. If they are not religious, or reject those strictures, the churches should not be permitted to force them into not going forward. They can organize all the prayer vigils they like, since those will have no effect on reality anyway. And they can preach to their own people as much as they like, too. Those who rely on the authority of the church to make their decisions for them will likely follow suit. But the churches should not be allowed to make such decisions for the public at large.

---

Here in UK they are very much the hurdle we cannot seem to get over - bishops are in the house of lords.

I think it really really - (censured -) that one body of people should dictate to others how things should be!

We had an example here in UK, where a woman with anorexia was so terribly ill that she wanted to stop trying to take nourishment. Now, in all the time she suffered from anorexia no one gave a damn, and she got no help. But when her body was finally so ruined that life was a hell for her, the courts decided that she should be force-fed. Journalists had it that the judge was afraid of the church. He did acknowledge that she was all there in her head, present and intelligent and completely knowledgeable about her situation - as indeed no one else can truly be. But he just didn't have the nerve.

Another example is the English writer Terry Pratchett who has Alzheimer. He has argued a lot for the right to end it when you think the time is right, and to do it under legal circumstances with your friends around you and help for your family, in dignity. As of now, those who have money have to go to - is it Switzerland? and do it there, and then your family or spouse has a job ahead of him or her, what with transport of body and all that, and a very long lonely way home.

It all comes down to who owns us, and if we have a democracy. As I see it, democracy means you have influence over yourself, as well as responsibility. But this isn't it, and it isn't civilized.

I doubt that any judge or lawmaker could come up with a valid reason for denying euthanasia to a mentally competent person that isn't steeped in their own religious beliefs. But the churches have had so much control over governments, historically, that getting them out of politics is a real problem, all over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inspire

In the Netherlands, euthanasia for minors of 12 years or older is possible. Minors between 12 and 15 need parental consent while for 16 and 17 year-olds even that consent is not required. Those in favour of the proposed Belgian law see the age of 12 as an arbitrary number. They argue that it is not about the age, but whether or not a child is able to form his/her own judgement. If that child is 8 instead of 12 and he asks for euthanasia and all the requirements are met, the age shouldn't be a factor.
I agree with those in favour.

---

And I agree with above, that age is not a factor in and of itself. You cannot really set an age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I doubt that any judge or lawmaker could come up with a valid reason for denying euthanasia to a mentally competent person that isn't steeped in their own religious beliefs. But the churches have had so much control over governments, historically, that getting them out of politics is a real problem, all over.

---

I have often wondered if 'life is sacred' is only thought by religious people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

I have often wondered if 'life is sacred' is only thought by religious people?

---

I wonder how anyone could consider anything "sacred" outside of a religious context. Being an atheist, and anti-religion as well, I consider life to be precious, but not sacred. And each person's life is most precious to herself. But, whether you regard it as precious or sacred, what is the benefit to anyone in keeping alive a terminally ill person? Giving them drugs to mask the pain might make them comfortable, but eventually the level of drugs required makes them no longer a person. What possible "sacred" motivation could there be for keeping them alive, especially against their own will.

Not going for sympathy here, but I think my own experiences help to illustrate this very well. In 2012 I lost both of my parents, seven months apart. As I've mentioned before, Mom had a rather nasty combination of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, along with a few other physical health issues. By the end of 2011 there was very little of my mother left in her body. She seldom recognized any of her children, and by the final weeks could no longer recognize my father, her husband of 63 years. The doctors could have kept her alive, feeding her through a tube (she could no longer feed herself). But, as my father said, "What's the point? Her mind is already gone. Let her body go, too." She had a living will, prepared well before she began to get sick, and the hospital honored that. She was gone within a week. And, as I said, her body was virtually an empty husk. There was nothing of my mother in there.

Seven months later it was dad's turn. Cancer got him, a cancer he had been ignoring so he could help my mom. It spread to his spinal column and became inoperable. He was in tremendous pain. They could have given him chemo, and radiation, and whatever else they dreamed up in a futile attempt to save him. He said no, he was ready to die. They put him in the hospital, gave him pain meds, and we watched him die. We were sad to lose him, of course, but having seen how miserable he was after losing my mother, and how much pain he was in from the cancer, there was no reason to refuse his wishes. He was 85 years old, and ready to die. We let him. And, as I've noted above, by the time he died the drugs had taken away his mind. To my mind, he died several days before his body gave in.

Now, I can understand that someone who is young, and with a long life ahead of them, potentially, should be treated differently, in most cases. But prohibiting someone from controlling their own life, or death, is no different than slavery. Doing it in the name of some imaginary being who has a fetish for torturing people doesn't make it any better. I read, or heard, someone this week who said that, when the early religions began to make the afterlife seem so pleasant, far more pleasant than the lives of most of the people, a lot of people began to take their own lives, deciding things would be better in heaven, so why wait? So the shamans had to come up with the idea that suicide was a sin, because the gods wanted you to suffer, or something. Basically, people who are dead don't give money to the priests, so keep them alive as long as possible. Nothing sacred about life, just more bodies for the pews. It's emotional and mental, and sometimes physical, slavery. With all too willing slaves.

"Now, I can understand that someone who is young, and with a long life ahead of them, potentially, should be treated differently, in most cases. But prohibiting someone from controlling their own life, or death, is no different than slavery."

I would go with the second statement. The decision belongs to the person.

As for suicide, I have often wondered when it became a sin in the eyes of the church, and if only Christianity sees it that way.

Yes, life at all costs is not a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

As for suicide, I have often wondered when it became a sin in the eyes of the church, and if only Christianity sees it that way.

---

I can't quote sources, but it's my understanding that it happened fairly early on when Church leaders realized that the idea of heaven was far more enticing than life itself for a large percentage of their followers. And dead people don't donate to the Church, nor do they have children to brainwash, so it became necessary to make suicide a mortal sin. Not surprisingly, this lead to some Christians actually "volunteering" to be martyred, since the actual persecution of Christians that we've heard about was not widespread.