Netherlands Plans Expansion of Child Euthanasia Policy
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:53:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Netherlands Plans Expansion of Child Euthanasia Policy
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Netherlands Plans Expansion of Child Euthanasia Policy  (Read 7259 times)
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2005, 09:02:59 AM »

Putting kids "out of their misery" with the parents' consent strikes me as a great invasion of disability rights.
Again not talking about hadicapped, but terminally ill children, that are spared weeks, perhaps months or even years of misery. Modern medicin can keep people alive for a long time, eventhough they are bound to die
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2005, 09:03:55 AM »

You don't support child euthanasia do you?
I know of cases when early born brain damaged children are kept alive for years where putting them out of their missery would be a good thing. As I say earlier in this thread, I look upon it as a very difficult thing, but I believe that most of you Americans are overreacting (FOX'ing it, if that is a valid therm)


Read this article Jens, it seems the Dutch are in good company.
Not comparable. The Nazis used force and as part of an ideology of "pureness." The Dutch legislation aquire the consent of the parents and two doctors

The first family consented to the actions of Hitler and his doctors.
Logged
DanielX
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2005, 09:05:28 AM »

I need to find a sick bag... [throws up].
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2005, 09:08:10 AM »

You don't support child euthanasia do you?
I know of cases when early born brain damaged children are kept alive for years where putting them out of their missery would be a good thing. As I say earlier in this thread, I look upon it as a very difficult thing, but I believe that most of you Americans are overreacting (FOX'ing it, if that is a valid therm)


Read this article Jens, it seems the Dutch are in good company.
Not comparable. The Nazis used force and as part of an ideology of "pureness." The Dutch legislation aquire the consent of the parents and two doctors

The first family consented to the actions of Hitler and his doctors.
Just realised that the link was to a David Irving page. I do not accept anything written by him. Please present me with another source
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2005, 09:13:38 AM »
« Edited: October 01, 2005, 10:31:47 AM by Peter Bell »

http://europeanhistory.about.com/b/a/035964.htm

Telegraph Article

History Today Article

I'm not linking anymore, way to many, but just search the name of the baby murdered.

<<Fixed urls - PB>>
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2005, 09:39:12 AM »

Putting kids "out of their misery" with the parents' consent strikes me as a great invasion of disability rights.
Again not talking about hadicapped, but terminally ill children, that are spared weeks, perhaps months or even years of misery. Modern medicin can keep people alive for a long time, eventhough they are bound to die
Aren't we all bound to die?
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2005, 09:51:28 AM »

Putting kids "out of their misery" with the parents' consent strikes me as a great invasion of disability rights.
Again not talking about hadicapped, but terminally ill children, that are spared weeks, perhaps months or even years of misery. Modern medicin can keep people alive for a long time, eventhough they are bound to die
Aren't we all bound to die?
you are deliberately misinterpreteting me. These children will never live a full life and without aids they would surely die within a short timespan
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2005, 09:54:24 AM »
« Edited: October 01, 2005, 10:33:46 AM by Peter Bell »


Thanks, it wasn't that I didn't believe you. I just don't trust anything written by David Irving

Still, the Nazi policiy and the one sugested by the Dutch are very different and the law will probably be used rarely. After all there ain't that many terminally ill children

<<Fixing urls - PB>>
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2005, 09:59:46 AM »

I fully support the right of mentally competent adults to doctor assisted suicide if they want it. But taking someone else's life without their consent is a different kettle of fish. It might be reasonable in the case of someone born with only a brain stem. In that situation the person has no chance for a meaningful life, but I have to agree that the risk for abuse is very high.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2005, 10:00:29 AM »

Putting kids "out of their misery" with the parents' consent strikes me as a great invasion of disability rights.
Again not talking about hadicapped, but terminally ill children, that are spared weeks, perhaps months or even years of misery. Modern medicin can keep people alive for a long time, eventhough they are bound to die
Aren't we all bound to die?
you are deliberately misinterpreteting me. These children will never live a full life and without aids they would surely die within a short timespan
And I still don't see the reason to kill them.  They are not old enough to consent and just because two doctors think they can decide what his quality of life will be doesn't mean that his right to life should be taken away.  This must be the American in me but I believe in the right to life, not a doctor's definition of a "full life."
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2005, 10:05:57 AM »

Putting kids "out of their misery" with the parents' consent strikes me as a great invasion of disability rights.
Again not talking about hadicapped, but terminally ill children, that are spared weeks, perhaps months or even years of misery. Modern medicin can keep people alive for a long time, eventhough they are bound to die
Aren't we all bound to die?
you are deliberately misinterpreteting me. These children will never live a full life and without aids they would surely die within a short timespan
And I still don't see the reason to kill them.  They are not old enough to consent and just because two doctors think they can decide what his quality of life will be doesn't mean that his right to life should be taken away.  This must be the American in me but I believe in the right to life, not a doctor's definition of a "full life."
Finally an argument, that I can understand. And you are probably right, it is the American in you Wink If I may elaborate, I think that euthanasia only is acceptable in a situation where the child would die anyway without mecanical or medical aids
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2005, 10:09:53 AM »

I fully support the right of mentally competent adults to doctor assisted suicide if they want it. But taking someone else's life without their consent is a different kettle of fish. It might be reasonable in the case of someone born with only a brain stem. In that situation the person has no chance for a meaningful life, but I have to agree that the risk for abuse is very high.

Wouldnt babies this bad off just die naturally anyways?
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2005, 10:26:51 AM »

Putting kids "out of their misery" with the parents' consent strikes me as a great invasion of disability rights.
Again not talking about hadicapped, but terminally ill children, that are spared weeks, perhaps months or even years of misery. Modern medicin can keep people alive for a long time, eventhough they are bound to die
Aren't we all bound to die?
you are deliberately misinterpreteting me. These children will never live a full life and without aids they would surely die within a short timespan
And I still don't see the reason to kill them.  They are not old enough to consent and just because two doctors think they can decide what his quality of life will be doesn't mean that his right to life should be taken away.  This must be the American in me but I believe in the right to life, not a doctor's definition of a "full life."
Finally an argument, that I can understand. And you are probably right, it is the American in you Wink If I may elaborate, I think that euthanasia only is acceptable in a situation where the child would die anyway without mecanical or medical aids

Well, if I may say, there is no gaurantee that they won't be able to live a decent quality life in the future - in the time they are left alive, a breakthrough could be made that could treat or even cure their ailment. Doctors should try to improve the lives of these kinds of children, not put them down.
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2005, 10:38:06 AM »

Putting kids "out of their misery" with the parents' consent strikes me as a great invasion of disability rights.
Again not talking about hadicapped, but terminally ill children, that are spared weeks, perhaps months or even years of misery. Modern medicin can keep people alive for a long time, eventhough they are bound to die
Aren't we all bound to die?
you are deliberately misinterpreteting me. These children will never live a full life and without aids they would surely die within a short timespan
And I still don't see the reason to kill them.  They are not old enough to consent and just because two doctors think they can decide what his quality of life will be doesn't mean that his right to life should be taken away.  This must be the American in me but I believe in the right to life, not a doctor's definition of a "full life."
Finally an argument, that I can understand. And you are probably right, it is the American in you Wink If I may elaborate, I think that euthanasia only is acceptable in a situation where the child would die anyway without mecanical or medical aids

Well, if I may say, there is no gaurantee that they won't be able to live a decent quality life in the future - in the time they are left alive, a breakthrough could be made that could treat or even cure their ailment. Doctors should try to improve the lives of these kinds of children, not put them down.
Well, breakthroughs don't happen over night and many of the rarer deseases are scaresly being recherced and for one major group, the early born, there are only microscopic chances that we will be able to repair a damaged brain
Logged
Max Power
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,182
Political Matrix
E: 1.84, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 01, 2005, 10:39:07 AM »

LOL!!!!
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2005, 10:55:42 AM »
« Edited: October 01, 2005, 11:05:31 AM by angus »

I support euthanasia and assisted suicide i'm afraid. So for me Holland is making a progresive choice.

I'm quite sure I don't support euthanasia.  It's possible we may be thinking of the same thing, but describing it all using very different language.  I remember my mother dying a very slow and painful death.  The sort of slow and painful death I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.  I remember when it was clear she could no longer talk to us or do anything for herself, and she'd been in a hospital bed for several months, the physician came to us and said he was fairly certain she'd not recover, but might be kept "alive" for a number of months, but that we'd probably all had our last intelligible conversation with her.  I remember it was a very sad time.  The saddest time in my life.  I remember him asking my sister and me whether we'd like for her to be given more morphine.  That it would be reported that it would ease her pain, which is true, but that in fact it would hasten her demise.  My sister agonized over the whole issue before answering.  I don't think I had as mixed feelings as her.  I was quite sure I wanted the physician to give her an overdose of morphine.  But my sister must come to that on her own.  I am absolutely certain of what my mother would have wanted.  I have no doubts about this.  The following day, and I could tell my sister was still thinking of nothing else but what to answer to the physician, I suggested to her that it was not wrong to want her mother to rest in peace, though I did not pressure her.  I chose my words delicately and patiently.  She said to me that this is what she wanted.  That was in January 1993.

I have never discussed this with my extended family.  My sister may have.  She may also have discussed it with her god, as I believe she thinks she has one.  I don't think she's a killer.  I don't think I am.  And I don't think the physician is.  And I'm quite sure this has nothing to do with congress, or the government or law.  It was a quiet and intensely personal matter between myself, my sister, my mother, and her physician.  I think similarly, if I had a child with the same affliction and in the same position, it would be an intensely personal matter for myself and my wife to discuss.  I have no idea what I'd do in that case, but I'd thank the government to stay out of it.  They certainly need not pass laws making what we did "legal" as it would lead to the killing of many people.  It would make it easy to kill people.  It would encourage insurance companies to pressure the families of terminally ill people to ease their own economic burdens.  I'll also say that the government does not need to make what we did "illegal"  In fact, it's none of the government's business, and frankly none of yours, but I bring it up as a brief history which suggests that it's possible to support the right of a family to do what we did, but to also be absolutely repelled at the notion that the government would take it upon itself to decide that it's okay to kill sick people.

This is not unlike all the "hate crimes" legislation out there, in the sense that all crimes labelled hate crimes are already prosecutable undering existing law.  If I burn down your house, I am an arson.  It doesn't matter where you come from.  But to make it a "hate crime" sets the terrible precedent of government trying to regulate my thought, a decidedly un-American thing for government to do.  Any legislation making legal or illegal the administration of pain-easing but death-inducing drugs to children is the same.  First, it's unnecessary since murder is already illegal, and if a DA wants to attempt to prosecute a family based on the fact that a mother and father were simply too lazy or too hateful to care for a special needs child, the DA only needs to make the case.  If he can't make that case, then it probably was not the situation and the child in fact was probably suffering so horribly that it was a justifiable decision.  And a jury would see that.  Maybe even a grand jury would see it before the taxpayers were forced to pay for an unnecessary trial.  In any case, the legal system for murder already exists.  And the intensely personal decisions of a family under stress needn't be part of any special legislation.  Especially when to do so would either make it easier for insurance companies to cop out of paying for services (in the case euthanasia was made "legal") or easier for District Attorneys with axes to grind or elections to win to get convictions (in the case euthanasia was specifically made "illegal").  Once we decide to formally debate this, we commit ourselves to making it illegal or legal.  One way or the other.  And either way it's a bad business.  This is best left alone.  If you think a murder is being committed, then you should attempt to prosecute it under existing law.  If you can't, then it's probably not murder.

So I am very much against the government specifically making euthanasia legal.  I am also against the government specifically making physician/family overdosing of terminally ill patients illegal.  And I know I am not alone.  I have read of many others in the same situation, and most feel the same way.  It's really not advantageous for the government to visit this issue and decide one way or the other.  I do agree that the Netherlands is making a progressive choice.  There's lots of progress out there.  The invention of plastics which take hundreds of thousands of years to decompose represents progress.  So does Nuclear weaponry.  And communism.  And high-tech cigarettes that contain more nicotine than would naturally occur in Tobacco is progress.  Logan's Run is full of progress.  Progress for the sake of progress.  You like that, do you?  That's too bad.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2005, 12:41:20 PM »

Excellent, excellent post angus.  I have nothing to add; I couldn't have said it better myself.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2005, 12:57:04 PM »

I support euthanasia and assisted suicide i'm afraid. So for me Holland is making a progresive choice.
Child euthanasia is regressive, not progressive.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 01, 2005, 01:10:58 PM »

I fully support the right of mentally competent adults to doctor assisted suicide if they want it. But taking someone else's life without their consent is a different kettle of fish. It might be reasonable in the case of someone born with only a brain stem. In that situation the person has no chance for a meaningful life, but I have to agree that the risk for abuse is very high.

Wouldnt babies this bad off just die naturally anyways?

Yes.

There is a big difference between euthanizing a baby and not providing life extending mecidal services.
Logged
freek
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 991
Netherlands


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 02, 2005, 10:59:34 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170812,00.html

[..]

The change in Dutch policy is especially significant because it will provide the model for how the country treats other cases in which patients are unable to say whether they want to live or die, such as those involving the mentally retarded or elderly people who have become demented.

Yes and no. Euthanasia is only permitted when a few conditions are fulfilled. The patient has to give consent to the doctor by himself and on paper, and he has to be in good mental health. Another condition has to be that there is no prospect of recovery and the patient has to be suffering from great physical pain. This means that Alzheimer's disease is not and will not be a reason for euthanasia, because the patients themselves do not suffer from this disease. The family suffers. Normally euthanasia is performed on people with cancer in a terminal state.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Mr Verhagen here says is the most important reason why there is such a protocol now. I am sure that in a lot of countries (including America) also euthanasia is performed on infants with severe brain damage when the parents ask about it. The difference is that in other countries it is covered up. It is easy to make up a cause of death when infants are so heavily handicapped. The protocol helps doctors to make a decision if euthanasia is permissible or not.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 02, 2005, 11:36:49 AM »

No, euthanasia is not preformed on infants here...legally that is. After all, we are a civilized nation.
Logged
freek
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 991
Netherlands


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 02, 2005, 11:39:32 AM »

No, euthanasia is not preformed on infants here...legally that is. After all, we are a civilized nation.
Exactly. But it does happen. In secret.

The question is: is it better to be open about it, or not?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 02, 2005, 11:45:25 AM »

No, euthanasia is not preformed on infants here...legally that is. After all, we are a civilized nation.
Exactly. But it does happen. In secret.

The question is: is it better to be open about it, or not?

Its better to have the police knock down the doors of doctors suspected of preforming such procedures and having them stripped of their license and brought up on manslaughter charges.
Logged
freek
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 991
Netherlands


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 02, 2005, 11:53:55 AM »


Its better to have the police knock down the doors of doctors suspected of preforming such procedures and having them stripped of their license and brought up on manslaughter charges.
Actually, that might happen to doctors who don't follow the protocol.

It has happened with doctors not following the euthanasia-for-adults law. Some have been found guilty to murder, not even manslaughter. However, because they only deviated slightly from the law (they did have consent from a terminally ill cancer patient but they forgot to consult a second doctor for example) they weren't sent to prison. However, a nurse who killed patients without their consent (like the British Doctor Death) was sentenced to life in prison.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 11 queries.