Ending Children's Suffering: Belgium Takes A Humane Stance On Kids Who Are Dying In Pain
Megan Daum writes in the Los Angeles Times:
Last week, the Belgian Parliament passed a law allowing terminally ill children to request aid in dying. Adults there have been able to do that since 2002, and a few other European countries have similar measures. But last Thursday's action, which is expected to be signed into law by King Philippe, will make Belgium the first to extend the right to minors faced with "constant and unbearable suffering."...And while the legislation is being called historic in that it's the first of its kind to cover children of any age who can prove a "capacity for discernment," it's not exactly unprecedented. For more than a decade, the Netherlands has allowed terminally ill children older than 12 to request euthanasia in special circumstances.
Contrary to paranoid visions, children in Belgium won't be able to ask for life-ending medication by merely hitting a nurse's call button. They must be suffering from pain that doctors have deemed truly unmanageable. They must get approval from their parents and their medical team, and they must be evaluated by psychologists. They must make the request several times and demonstrate that they understand what they're asking for. And, of course, they must be close to death anyway.
The Netherlands has a similarly careful process, which might explain why in the 12 years since its children's euthanasia law was passed, only five children have received aid in dying. In all but the rarest cases, pain and suffering were managed through palliative care.
To allow those children who are suffering the right to get help ending their suffering is the right thing to do.
The state should not control whether an individual lives or dies; that person, if they are sane and competent to make a decision for themselves, should make the decision.
Children do not have the minds of bunnies. Children who are "of sound minds" should have autonomy over whether they live or die and help in dying if that's what they want.
I put my 15-year-old Yorkie to sleep to end her suffering. Shouldn't a human being be allowed the same compassion?
It is long established that children have neither the full rights nor the full responsibilities of adults. When we treat children like miniature adults, we get six year old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing girls at recess or teenagers charged as sex offenders for streaking at high school football games.
During the trials for ritual satanic child abuse that almost certainly did NOT happen, we discovered that you can get some children to say pretty much anything. Many of the court appointed doctors and psychiatrists used questionable methods to get convictions. Children nearly always want to give the right answer to adults in authority. Many of the kids thought that such well meaning questions as, "Did the teacher make you lick goat blood off the naked teacher's aide?" had the correct answer of "Yes."
Now we're going to have doctors ask questions like, "Are you in terrible pain? Would you do anything to make the pain stop?" What will the children think is the correct answer?
Color me skeptical that this is a good idea.
Hubbard at February 20, 2014 3:26 AM
Can we leave the arguments on this topic to the actual law that was passed, that is a carefully controlled process for ending suffering of terminally ill patients who happen to not be 18 yet. The law does not provide for any moody teenager to just go to the pharmacy for a lethal dose of morphine, nor does it provide for parents to just hand over unwanted kids to the Monty Python "Bring out your dead" guy.
"I feel happy!"
clinky at February 20, 2014 5:19 AM
Thank you, clinky -- well-said.
And Hubbard, it is not just children but adults who can be pressed into service with "recovered memories."
Amy Alkon at February 20, 2014 5:50 AM
"Can we leave the arguments on this topic to the actual law that was passed"
Why sure, let's do that. We all know that that politicians and government bureaucrats would never ever ever disregard the actual wording of a law. Let's just look at Obamacare....works perfectly and is being followed to the letter. NO REASON AT ALL TO BELIEVE THAT THIS LAW WOULD BE ABUSED BECAUSE BELGIAN BUREAUCRATS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES HERE.
causticf at February 20, 2014 5:57 AM
causticf:
You've convinced me. We should only argue the most extreme worst-case scenario of any position. Here I go in favor of the law:
KIDS WITH CANCER MIGHT BE TAKEN FROM THEIR PARENTS AND PUT IN GOVERNMENT WAREHOUSES! DOCTORS WON'T BE ABLE TO PRESCRIBE ANY DRUGS OTHER THAN ZIT CREAM BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BE USED FOR EUTHANASIA! WE HAVE TO PASS THIS LAW BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WON'T LET US LEAVE THE HOUSE BECAUSE WE MIGHT DIE BECAUSE FREEDOM!
Yeah, we'll all learn something that way.
clinky at February 20, 2014 8:16 AM
Laws made for a tiny minority of special cases often work out badly in practice.
This is true for the two or three teens if that, in Belgium per year, and for the tiny number of people without insurance in the US who actually wanted insurance at the prices Obamacare charges.
Even those,people are finding out that their out of pocket expenses are not going down because of expensive drugs not covered by the government policy,
However, These are both just power grabs by socialist politicians. Nothing libertarian about it.
Isab at February 20, 2014 9:44 AM
Clinky--
Paying attention to things that have happened in the past seems relevant. The article itself notes:
That's why the precedent of doctors and psychologists in the bizarre courtroom saga of ritual Satanic abuse seems worth considering: it revealed that you can get children to say almost anything. Perhaps the euthanizing of very sick children will work out as its advocates hope it will. I hope so, too.
But I don't believe that it will. I hope that I'm wrong. Let's hope that my pessimism is unfounded.
Hubbard at February 20, 2014 9:59 AM
Yeah, you can make a lot of arguments against Obamacare, but one I've not yet seen made is that the law is "made for a tiny minority of special cases."
And you may disagree with allowing teens to choose to end their lives, but to call that a "power grabs by socialist politicians" seems the opposite of what's happening.
Keep in mind, there was a previously existing law that prohibited parents and their doctors from making what many would consider a humane choice. The new law gives them an additional option, other than to let the kid suffer until he turns 18. (or 21? the article doesn't say...)
clinky at February 20, 2014 10:09 AM
So, just to be a shit-stirrer, if you can trust a twelve year old to decide he wants to die, why can't you trust a twelve year old to decide he wants to sleep with that nice man from NAMBLA?
Elle at February 20, 2014 1:10 PM
Elle, you're not letting a 12-year old decide. You're letting a 12-year old, his parents, and a couple of doctors, based on strict guidelines, decide, and only in circumstances that warrant it. I cannot think of any circumstances that would warrant your NAMBLA scenario.
clinky at February 20, 2014 1:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/02/20/ending_children.html#comment-4272356">comment from clinkyclinky is correct.
Amy Alkon at February 20, 2014 1:20 PM
3 things:
1. Hubbard, there's a big difference between the brainwashing episodes you site and kids asking for assisted suicide: In the instances where kids are convinced to make false accusations, there is no down side to them. They may even think they might get rewarded for saying a certain thing with at least some adult appreciation. Were they to be convinced to ask for euthanasia, the down side would be that they would die. Which even a kid would be afraid of.
2. I'm super-excited to get two shout-outs from Amy in the same blog post! Yay!
3. Despite my arguments in favor of this law, I'm not super-excited about kids dying, by their own hand or otherwise. It's a horrible thing we're talking about, both for the kid and also for the parents.
Despite the fact that we watched Casey Anthony on TV for a year, aside from her, pretty much any parent would rather have anything else happen than their child die. So the chances that the super-rare parent who wants his child dead coincides with the also rare incidence of a child with a medically diagnosable disease is infinitesimally small. In every case where this law would apply, we're talking about a family in the most stressful, horrible, Sophie's-choicey shit-storm imaginable. So we should leave them alone to do what they need to do. It will haunt the parents for the rest of their lives, so lay off.
clinky at February 20, 2014 2:19 PM
Hey, the ancient greeks and a few amazonian tribes would tell you that not only is man-boy love a perfectly healthy expression of love, it's practically a requirement for becoming a well-rounded man. So if the parents are cool with it, and you find a few subject matter experts that say it's psychologically and physically healthy, then why not?
Elle at February 20, 2014 9:18 PM
We're going to try to ask the same people responsible for such things as the Age 21 drinking age and the War on Drugs to allow this extreme measure to be taken in the tiny handful of cases that MAY warrant this solution? Good luck with that.
And if we're successful, this administration is no doubt riddled with the "duty to die" types who might try to press this extreme solution on all chronically ill children.
For this thing to really work right, we first need to shrink government down to a size where I can stuff it in the heel of my left shoe.
mpetrie98 at February 20, 2014 10:00 PM
Clinky, I look at worst case scenarios because of experience. No, I don't trust that this law wouldn't be expanded in horrible ways that you obviously don't want to consider. So yes, FREEDOM.
causticf at February 21, 2014 7:21 AM
So, CausticF, what you foresee happening is this:
This law is passed in Belgium. In a couple of years, health care costs rise, and a despotic Belgian leader decrees that any child whose health care costs go above 7500 Euros gets decapitated. The people, of course, are outraged, but he points to this law and says "Sorry, we have this law, so there's nothing you can do about it..."
Really?
I get that we live in a world where you are justified in your concern for government officials who don't respect the laws. But if they don't respect the laws, if they're going to do what they want to do regardless, then it doesn't matter regardless.
clinky at February 21, 2014 9:28 AM
No, what I foresee happening is the law being changed from parents, doctors, and the suffering child making a decision based on compassion to it being some faceless bureaucrat in an office completely removed from the situation making decisions to put down those are who just too much trouble and are deemed not a benefit to society.
It is not a road I want to travel down. You go ahead.
causticf at February 21, 2014 10:01 AM
Of course. We should not pass any law, because they might change it into something completely different.
clinky at February 21, 2014 10:48 AM
The fewer laws the better. On top of that, the laws that are passed should be uncomplicated with as little room for interpretation as possible. I'm sorry but I don't see the necessity to codify the approved killing of children for "extreme worst-case scenarios" to use your own language and to open doors best left closed.
causticf at February 21, 2014 11:11 AM
Well, there you go, that's a legitimate argument. If you say that you don't think that there should be any law that allows for the killing of children, that's the valid other side to this argument. I may not agree, but I can respect that point of view. The same as when you say that it's by necessity very complicated to frame a law that allows what needs to be done without allowing loopholes for abuse. Even if I disagree, I would allow that there is another side to the story.
There's no need to go to the extreme and claim exaggerated consequences that don't logically follow from the original claim. That was the point of my original response, that this is a complicated enough question without dragging Obamacare and NAMBLA into it.
clinky at February 21, 2014 2:41 PM
"If you say that you don't think that there should be any law that allows for the killing of children, that's the valid other side to this argument. I may not agree, but I can respect that point of view."
I find that comment chilling. I know that your intention is good and you believe that the "killing of children" would be limited but I have a hard time understanding how anyone would simply dismiss the possibility or, as I believe, probability of this being abused.
causticf at February 22, 2014 8:16 AM
Leave a comment