9 votes

Belgium Approves Child Euthanasia

Parliament in Belgium has passed a bill allowing euthanasia for terminally ill children without any age limit, by 86 votes to 44, with 12 abstentions.

When, as expected, the bill is signed by the king, Belgium will become the first country in the world to remove any age limit on the practice.

It may be requested by terminally ill children who are in great pain and also have parental consent.

Opponents argue children cannot make such a difficult decision.

It is 12 years since Belgium legalised euthanasia for adults.

Read more...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26181615



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Belgium is for pedophiles...

Apparently Belgium's government is rife with pedophiles...much like the UK. No surprise there would be a law that could be leaned on to get rid of pesky whistleblowers...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Tell ya what this makes me think of....

Many, many moons ago I knew a woman (a geriatric physician) from Romania, I met her around '88. Her family had "escaped" Romania. She told our family of crazy-horrific stuff that went on in Romania like:

If an elderly/handicapped person no longer was "producing for the state" and was "costing the state money", a white wagon would appear at their home and take them away to be euthanized. She claimed "everyone knew" what it meant when that white wagon showed up at your house.

Can you imagine the horror of seeing that white wagon appearing at your front door?

This is what concerns me about euthanasia becoming "normalized"/acceptable...I mean look around at this country, there is wickedness at every turn...do we really think what happened in Romania won't happen here?

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Its a slipper slope for sure

Its a slipper slope for sure since I could see it eventually paving the way for forced euthanasia.

Nonetheless, I do believe individuals own themselves and have the right to end their lives whenever and for whatever reason.

I just would not like to see it used for nefarious purposes.

Belgium has "universal" health care

Sick kids are expensive and you know they are other peoples kids. Same way with the aduts. Whats cheaper treating someones illness or putting them to sleep when hey get to sick? I have had a few dogs and been unable to pay the vet bill, and had to put them down, thats all this is. Let them deteriorate until hey are begging for death. Over in england they are pushing for this by taking "terminal" cases off food and water, and letting them die of thirst and then turning around and saying if we could just put them down they wouldnt have to suffer.

Misrepresentation

The law isn't to save taxpayers money. If you're going to argue against Universal healthcare, use facts. This is strictly about legally assisted suicide for those who are suffering immensely and have no hope for recovery.

But that is happening now

Quickly "rights" become "duties" when money is involved. I remember story about a woman with cancer in Oregon, they would not pay for her treatment but the offered her a prescription for euthanasia drugs. I have had experience and no others with experience of having medical professionals moving rapidly to discontinue treatment, I mean like at least wait a few days in the case of coma patient to get a second opinion, They tried to kill my friends elderly dad by saying because he was terminal, he would not get antibiotics; she threw a fit, force the situation and he lived.

Vickie

Who defines terminally ill?

This is a legalistic rabbit hell-hole.

Who defines these terms?

"Freedom Is A Road Seldom Traveled By The Multitude." - Frederick Douglass

Fascism's

new face. If we make it legal they will come.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

If somebody terminally ill doesn't want to suffer anymore

That person should have the right to end their life, including a child.

It is important to remember, that is for terminally ill children, not all.

Cyril's picture

What strange times we live in.

What strange times we live in.

This obsession of the law maker for bringing death legally in so many occasions...

Bah, I guess our society REALLY NEEDS such laws... for all these EVER growing numbers of EXCEPTIONAL cases.

Makes you wonder how so many past generations of centuries ago have managed to get away without a comparable foresight in their laws - and especially in the absence of our science and technology!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

That's what my husband said--"has the world gone insane?"

but, read our fellow 'liberty lovers' below and you'll see why we have such problems. people no longer want or possess a moral compass, they just do 'what is right in their own eyes'. this is where that mindset always leads.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Lol, not sure if you see the

Lol, not sure if you see the contradiction in this claim. LIBERTY allows you to do anything you damn well please, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else but yourself. And that includes things considered immoral by others. What you are essentially arguing is that kids don't have the Liberty to decide for themselves. And people can think up all kinds of reasons why they don't have Liberty, but this is what it essentially boils down to.

And I do agree somewhat that kids have limited Liberty, but it sure as hell isn't the clearcut case you make it out to be. I'm quite aware that by believing that kids have limited Liberty, I'm essentially projecting my own values on top of somebody else, which is quite a dangerous path to take. Why is it dangerous? Because depending on these values, they become easy excuses to strip away someone's freedom. Just look at the drug laws and see how other people's values were forced on top of other people. These people BELIEVE that they are doing the right thing, just as you seem to believe. But the policy they advocate is essentially a policy that strips away freedom.

What I'm trying to say is, that I find your lack of hesitation disturbing. I would be more at ease with your beliefs had I detected a sense of hesitation in projecting your beliefs on others which is essentially a belief that strips away freedom. Perhaps there is a case to be made for limited Liberty, but by the Gods, have a moment of doubt!

When you find out your 13

When you find out your 13 year old daughter is having a sexual relationship with a 40 year old man, do you support her right to liberty? Surely a sexual relationship pales in comparison to a life and death matter.

The reason I don't hesitate is because I know 'government'

doesn't have the best interest of children or liberty at heart. There's only one alternative--they want death for innocent children.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Sorry Dude...

Killing kids is a no brainer for me. No moment of doubt for me. I can just see it, some one kills my kids and tells me "but they wanted me to kill them"

It is murder, plain and simple. Like Ron says, you can not protect liberty if you do not protect life.

The piece you're missing.

BTW, I didn't downvote you. I neither up nor downvoted you.

But the piece you are missing is this. There is a SHORT PLANK between the liberty you describe and institutionalized murder.

The LINE is morality.

I know that atheists reject that, but they are clearly wrong as you can see by the atheist murderous totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.

We are talking about CHILDREN---they cannot live alone,

they must be taken care of. And this includes their emotional and mental well-being. That's why God gave children to parents.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

I've not seen anyone

I've not seen anyone advocating throwing a kid that ate a handful of sleeping pills into the king's dungeon.

Just apalled that doctors, lawyers, and politicians are gearing up to make money on euthanising "terminally ill" children.

"Freedom Is A Road Seldom Traveled By The Multitude." - Frederick Douglass

Cyril's picture

I have a question... just curious...

I have a question... just curious... in this world,

would there be anything ELSE coming from our dear policy- and law-makers

which would NOT automatically, thoroughly imply:

self-CENSURE / -CASTRATION... (enforceable for whatever "correctness")

-OR-

being ROBBED / KILLED... ("legally" for whatever "reason")

?

...

I mean... you know... just in case...

Did I miss IT ?!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Eerie

I find this firmly RECURRENT darkness of their policies' "solutions" rather...

... EERIE.

What are the odds?!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I am for anything that is peaceful and voluntary.

That includes a child's right to commit suicide. I would want to make sure, thought, that the child understands the decision.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

self - ownership, holmes

even tragically sick children own themselves

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Ooo, goodie!

So then parenting is basically a violation of the non aggression principle? Any parent can tell you how frequently the child's will comes into conflict with the parent's, even before the child can speak. On your point of view, then, these parents are guilty of an egregious violation of the self ownership of milliards of enslaved beings. Oh, the cruelty of it all!

I am a bit surprised you hadn't stumbled onto these absurdities sooner, and disappointed that once you did, rather than retreat from them, you doubled down, rushed in and embrace them. This does not speak well for your sensibilities.

Can you not see that ideas like NAP or self ownership, if they have any validity, do so only as legal fictions used to establish a desired social order? They are not in any sense axiomatic truths, which hold in every possible circumstance. We may adopt them as principles of interaction between 'free' 'equals' - legally defined constructs. But that doesn't then extend to every living creature as an ethical imperative. It begs the question, if children have self ownership, who dares to arbitrarily refuse it to animals? Species-ism, much?

that depends

A child should have the right to become emancipated at any age, if the child can demonstrate to a court that the child is competent enough to take care of him/herself. If a child is not emancipated, then the parents have guardianship rights over the child and can exercise control over the child.

If a child wants to commit suicide because of a terminal illness against the wishes of the parents, the child would have to demonstrate understanding of the decision and become emancipated in the eyes of the court.

I find your last paragraph full of foggy concepts and ambiguous terms. NAP and self-ownership are agreed upon concepts and do not have some ideal platonic existence. If that's your point, I agree with it.

I am not opposed to granting some rights to some animals, such as the great apes. What the exact criterion for recognizing self-ownership should be has not been settled, as far as I know. Some claim a being should be recognized as having rights to the extend to which it can demand them. Others claim that a being should be recognized as having some rights if it demonstrates self-awareness. It's an interesting questions. Dismissing all claims for animal rights seems premature to me.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

A child "should" have the

A child "should" have the "right" according to Ed... to be determined by "the community" - a court - imposing its will on parents and children.... okay. Let's keep reading this should get pretty confused quick.

You say you, Ed, want to "grant" "rights" to maybe some great Apes, as if you are the arbiter and bestowed of rights upon other creatures. Rights don't seem very natural then if you and your "courts" are the ones deciding who gets them... seems an awful lot like... government and popular consent and majority rule and so on.

Presumably then your government committee, if it can deny a child or animal its rights, can also deny a grown adult. Slippery slope there, Eddy.

government committee?

Who said anything about government? You should know that whenever I say courts, I mean private courts: judges for hire.

Do parents have the right to beat their child? If no, how should such edicts be enforced?

Referencing our other discussion, assume I am not an idealist. Thus, assume for the moment that I do not believe in metaphysical rights. Rights only exist in so far as instances of a particular right exist. The question then becomes, what kind of principles do we use to recognize rights? What rights do we consider valid, and what rights are not valid? These are decisions that have to be made by some individual or group of people. Do you disagree with this?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

lol, judges for hire... by

lol, judges for hire... by who? a community/government, whether based on monopoly of a territory or power, its still a government deciding the rights of children and parents. You're a hoot.

by the plaintiff, or the plaintiff's representative

If you want to say that any court=government, then we are just playing a semantics game that involves you changing the ordinary definitions of words. I don't want to play that game.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

I accept your forfeit, while

I accept your forfeit, while denying any such game. Whether the court is a mercenary court hired by a property owner to settle disputes for the right-less serfs, or a public court endowed with power by a majority, in each case the rights bestowed upon children or apes or lizards are the arbitrary decision of power. Don't play the game on a skill level where you only lose.