Child Euthanasia in Belguim

Is there a difference when evaluating the life of a child versus an adult when considering aiding in their death? Engelhardt determines that yes, there is a distinction. He convincingly notes that “the difference lies in the somewhat obvious fact that infants and young children are not able to decide about their own futures and this are not persons in the same sense that normal adults are.” (646). The rights of children are determined through the status of the parent’s rights, the obligations of adults to prevent suffering, and the potential societal effects through the allowance of death of an impaired infant.

In late February 2016, a recent debate among Canadian politicians arose on whether mature minors have the right to access doctor-assisted suicide within Canada. In Canadian Paediatric Society1 article, it explains how the government has a three-year deadline in order to create new legislation. However, the the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) believes that this three-year deadline Is not enough time to “gather adequate and appropriate information” on whether this practice should be allowed to be extended to minors under the age of 18. Currently, the CPS believes that it will be very hard to develop any data the experience of physician-assisted deaths among adults, within the next 3 years. The CPS stated that “Without that data, and a great deal of other information, it is premature to set a deadline for enacting legislation” (2016). The CBC brought up valuable points to the cause, firstly that age is ‘arbitrary’. Dr. Smith stated in the CBC article that there are some people who are 21, while there are those that are 14, and have the maturity to give consent, he went on to explain that he feels that this topic should go to even younger children. Later in the article Conservative MP Mike Cooper said that this was “illogical” and that those not old enough to vote should not have the right to choose if they live or die. The CBC went on to reiterate what the CPS article was about, saying that with such little data on the subject, and with two very distinct sides to this ethical

It sad to think that there are people who give such advice to parents of young children. Just because the parent’s happiness is suffering, does not mean that euthanasia is the answer. The rights of the child’s right to live should be considered way before the parent’s “right” to

With this paper I plan to address the topic of euthanasia. I will cover the philosophy behind why it is not a regular practice, and differentiate between multiple forms. After introducing the issue, itself I will speak briefly on the legality of the issue. This should result in the principles of myself, Peter Singer, Don Marquis, and Michael Tooley all being brought together in this discussion. Ultimately, I will lead this discussion into the direction of why I have found euthanasia to be a morally permissible action.

After reading the article, “ Should Terminally Ill Children Have the Right to Ask For Their Own Death?”, children should not have the right to choose their death. One reason is that a child 's brain isn’t much like an adults, their brains aren’t as developed. Therefore, they can’t comprehend death. The article argues, “ Minors may not have the mental capacity or vocabulary to request death”(Trianni). For example, a nurse says , “ I never had a child asking to end his life,” children indeed say , “ It’s really hard’ or “I’m fed up”(Trianni). Meaning, children aren’t tired of living their simply tired of their situation. The article also points out children may be the ones requesting death but ultimately they shouldn 't and won’t be the ones making the decisions. Children shouldn’t be the ones to decide their own death date.

There are select places in the world that have legalized euthanasia. This is an important problem because the debate between opposing views question the ethics and the constitutional and human rights of these individuals who have chosen this route.

The right to live one’s life on his or her own terms is a basic tenet in the modern world. In American society, the people are given free reign (within legal and social boundaries, of course) to choose how to live. They can choose where to go to school, what to learn, what they want to work, when they want to retire, and so on and so forth. However, when people reach the end of their lives, this right to autonomy seems to be restricted, especially in those who are terminally ill. This autonomy sees itself at the center of the debate around the practice of euthanasia, a medical procedure in which a patient with a terminal or incurable illness is permitted to die in a painless manner (“Euthanasia”). While one might think that allowing one who

Euthanasia has been a difficult controversy all over the world throughout time. Generations of people have been arguing the ethics and morality of this practice. I propose to unearth new discoveries, share issues surrounding the topic, and to explain to the reader why they should care.

But in doing so, in taking full control over the adolescents “life and health” medical decisions the parents might not knowingly know that they are causing more suffering or pain to their child. One example is B.C case a sixteen year old who would tell his parents who after realizing his health was deteriorating rapidly mentioned to them how he did not want to be placed on a ventilator, even though his parents refused to talk about the outcome of such decisions. Nonetheless after his “pulmonary tests deteriorated rapidly” even after B.Cs wishes to not be placed on a ventilator his parents still placed him on one. Because his wishes were not respected B.C was later found unconscious and unresponsive after a failed suicide attempt which then after his suicide attempt his parents then respected his wishes and when B.C was brought to the hospital his parents requested on his behalf that a do not resuscitate be performed. Because of the parents wanting to decide for B.C who is the one personally dealing with the illness and not the parents they prolonged his life but they also prolonged his suffering which then lead him to try and end his life. It is hard for a parent to hear their kid say they would like to

For Chantal, the options embedded in palliative care were not the solution to her problems. Terminally ill patients in countries such as Belgium, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands have the ability to request and be euthanized, the one option that the French court refused to provide for Chantal Sebire. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word that means “good death” or “gentle and easy death”, but the laws detail it as a crime and act of homicide. The overall goal of euthanasia, however, is to induce death in a manner that is relatively quick and physically painless. This essay will detail both sides of the euthanasia debate and include the three prominent reasons individuals are against euthanasia and the three prominent reasons individuals are for euthanasia alongside my personal beliefs. In this paper, I will argue, based on the nature of inevitable death, that individuals like Chantal Sebire, suffering from terminal illnesses, should be given the right to die with dignity and invoke euthanasia based on the acts ability to provide autonomy, beneficence, and

Firstly, one of the main arguments for euthanasia is autonomy and patients’ rights to make their own decisions.

Looking at child euthanasia from the religious aspect conflicts many people. The Belgian Catholic Church has described the law as a “Step too Far” as well as other organizations of European

Euthanasia, the ‘mercy killing’, has definitely been one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas. Euthanasia is defined “an action or an omission, aimed at and causally implicated in, the death of another for her/his own sake” (Foot, 1997, as cited in Robert, 2004, p. 145). Euthanasia differs from murder, because the action causing the death is for the sake of the person to be killed. Someone might say that the person wanted to die anyway, so why ending his or her lives can be wrong? Is active euthanasia –acting to end the life of another- ever a right moral action? It is not an easy debate whether it is right or wrong to help end someone’s life. Some people might argue that

Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions, and children should be able to execute that right. Age should not be a matter that prevents someone from having euthanasia be an option to them. The child, however, would have to be in dire circumstances in order to have such options available to them. “‘Children are not tiny humans we can boss around’ said van der Werff Ten Bosch, a pediatric oncologist who works at Brussels University Hospital and has spoken in favor of the proposed law’” (Braw). A law was passed in 2002 in Belgium that gave children their own autonomy for choosing when to die if

On March 3rd 2014, the law was changed in Belgium to abolish all age restrictions on euthanasia. This amendment allows euthanasia for terminally ill children who are exposed to “constant and unbearable suffering” (1). The act was passed in the Belgian Parliament with 86 votes in favour, and 44 against (with 12 abstentions). This amends Belgium’s previous law, “The Belgian Act on Euthanasia”, which was passed in 2002 (2), whereby euthanasia was only available to individuals over the age of eighteen or emancipated minors. There are several arguments in favour of this amendment including the belief that the rights of autonomy and justice must extend to children. Furthermore, prolonging life where the child has a loss of dignity and a reduced quality of life is seen by some as inhumane. In contrast, opponents of the amendment believe that the child’s right to life and doctor’s obligation to save life are both severely undermined. Opponents are concerned that a child does not possess the capacity to make the decision to end their own life. There is also the worry that granting paediatric euthanasia may lead to a ‘slippery slope’ whereby children could be euthanized without making a fully voluntary request. Despite the fact that public opinion was broadly in favour of the amendment (3), the question must be asked, was the amendment of this law in favour of murder or mercy?