Headline at People Magazine. Subheadline: "The child was euthanized due to severe illness and suffering, making it the first case under a 2024 law allowing euthanasia for terminally ill children under 12."
In 2024, the law was extended to allow children under the age of 12 to be euthanized if the child is “terminally ill and is suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement.” In these cases, the doctor and parents can decide together to end the child’s life. “This decision is always made in consultation with the parents and, if possible, also with the child,” the government website states.
Posts
69 comments:
Aktion T4 makes a comeback.
Aktion T4 was an involuntary euthanasia program which targeted people with disabilities and the mentally ill in Nazi Germany. The terms "T4" or "Aktion T4" were first used in post-war trials against doctors who had been involved in the killings.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4
We are learning a lot about Europeans and Canadians these days. Some of us are even paying attention.
Planned Personhood... Childhood. States's choice to delegate Choice.
I am OK with this. Who wants to have a child suffer unbearably? I am sure many commenters here will disagree, but I don’t give a flying fuck what you think. If I had a terminally ill child who was suffering unbearably I would agree to this procedure. We treat our pets more humanely than we treat each other. I have gone through the agony of putting a beloved dog down because she was suffering and the vet could do nothing to alleviate her pain, why wouldn’t I offer the same to a child?
“terminally ill and is suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement.”
Yeah, this is a tough one. The problem is we have lost trust in the people making these decisions.
I know someone who has been caring for thier daughter for 40 years now. She was born with severe CP. The seizures got worse as she got older so they tried a radical brain procedure as a last resort. If they hadn't done it the seizures would have killed her. That operation failed and she got a brain infection afterwards that left her blind. She has zero quality of life. She lives 24/7 in a bed, blind, wearing diapers. She can't speak or communicate other than to groan and whine when she's uncomfortable. Ending her life would be a merciful thing for her and her loving parents who also lost most of their quality of life taking care of her.
Embracing euthanasia, while AI is awaking, is the stuff of post-apocalyptic, dystopian universe we have become accustomed, if only via the screens.
Of course the Dutch had the child’s written permission for this “Casey abortion.”
I couldn't get to the article, but there's a not-so-fine line between stopping extraordinary measures to prolong the life (while minimizing pain with morphine or whatever) versus actively killing the patient. My understanding is that it's not so unusual to administer effectively lethal doses of morphine to dying patients who are in a lot of pain. I don't know what happened here.
Is the typo in the title - missing first letter - a Freudian slip? Turning 'Netherlands' into 'etherlands' makes me think of a killer putting an ether-soaked handkerchief over the baby's mouth and nose.
When it comes to kids in this country we go through extraordinary measures to save lives. We have charities that specialize in just trying to save sick kids. Not so in Europe.
That post-birth abortion thing they said would never happen is happening, and at all ages too. When the reckoning comes for these slippery-sloping m-effers it's going to be brutal.
Age of consent. Affirmative consent. Yes, possibly a Clancycide.
“Just a clump of cells.”
A "burden" relieved. A terminal illness. An article of faith. Social progress.
A gruesome scenario - a child not yet twelve, but having reached the age of reason, cognizant and verbal despite illness, and the doctors and parents are about to initiate "the talk".
Well, gee, I have no clue Lawnerd. I can't think of one single reason people would treat a human baby differently than a dog.
Excellent point. My mind is changed. I guess you win.
“The problem is we have lost trust in the people making these decisions.”
Original Mike nails it.
My stepfather died at home of pancreatic cancer last year. We kept giving him stronger doses of morphine mixed in with some other pain killers. At one point, my mom, at 4 in the morning, after giving him another dose asked if we were slowly killing him. I said no, we're helping relieve his pain, but I really did / do wonder. The stronger the doses will stop your heart at some point. My point is, that I think there's a fine line between that and what's being pointed out in the article.
Lawnerd said...
If I had a terminally ill child who was suffering unbearably I would agree to this procedure.
You have to be LawRetard to think that it's ONLY for those "children suffering unbearably", as opposed to teh State being tired of paying for their care
So the incurable whatever was not detectable in the womb?
It isn’t where they are today that is as bad as the slope they stand on. Soon, they’ll be like Iceland in eliminating many forms of birth defects. Maybe even more successful in eliminating birth defects that go undetected until birth.
Forward Comrades ! Progress !
Down syndrome, a genetic "defect", is detectable in the womb, and justifies planned parenthood in some jurisdictions. Potato. Potuhto. The child, not the veggie.
Now that I’m in my 80s most of my friends hav already passed on. One who hasn’t preceded me was an Ob/Gyn back in the 1990s. The expectant parents refused permission for Amniocentesis, insisting that they would not abort under any circumstances. She got that in writing, but the baby was born with Tay-Sachs, a disease that manifests itself around 3 to 6 months and kills the child slowly and extremely painfully by destroying nerve cells in the brain, spinal column, and elsewhere in the body.
Despite the signed waiver my friend was sued and the jury awarded the parents millions of dollars more than her liability insurance covered, which nearly bankrupted her. Sad all the way around.
Tay-Sachs is why my position ln abortion has evolved.
"Despite the signed waiver my friend was sued and the jury awarded the parents millions of dollars more than her liability insurance covered, which nearly bankrupted her."
Yes, but the poor, suffering parents...
Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done.
This is about muscles atrophying, joints hardening, minds deteriorating, environmental dysphoria, climate dissonance, social inconvenience, and "euthanasia" as a compassionate Choice, particularly near the beginning and presumptive end of life.
I would not want anyone I love to exist in misery with no hope for anything better. The problem is, I don't trust humans not to slide from "terminally ill and is suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement" to "has an illness or handicap and is becoming a burden to the parents".
'...My point is, that I think there's a fine line between that and what's being pointed out in the article. ...'
How fine a line, though? Surrounded by family, in the comfort of home, drifting away in a morphine haze, or in a hospital setting, cold, smelling disinfectant, a masked doctor with a clinically-detached gaze seeing if your pupils still work, then looking at the chirping monitor? Maybe not so fine.
Evil
People should be starting, and fighting, wars over this shit. It's a more noble cause than most other wars.
Just an 8th trimester abortion.
"If I had a terminally ill child who was suffering unbearably I would agree to this procedure."
"The problem is we have lost trust in the people making these decisions.”
The crux of the dilemma.
I have had two friends whose children died before 2, due to severe congenital malformations. One was severely premature, with malformations of the heart and lungs. The other had a malformed digestive track. Both babies had many surgeries, but ultimately the problems were too severe. One crushed a marriage, not from the death but from the long futile struggle, the other is remembered by an intact family with a younger sibling and devoted parents seared by pain.
Forcing a child to endure tremendous pain for the rest of its life just for the result of extending that suffering does not seem moral to me.
I can't call myself a Christian, but I doubt that Christ would endorse that either.
The parents, two doctors and a committee have to agree on killing the baby. If the child was abandoned and a ward of the state then only two doctors and a regional euthanasia committee have to agree. In over 91,000 total euthanasia cases the committee rejected less than 1% of the requests. Doesn't seem right.
Many people have advanced directives that say pull the plug on me if I reach a condition where I can't enjoy life. If it's pretty clear quality of life is similarly bleak for an infant in a similar condition - I'm not seeing the problem. Both my parents died in hospice on the morphine train, both in diapers and in hospital beds. So that's my bias -- hospital bed + diapers = poor quality of life.
Ending extreme and terminal suffering in rare cases - and done so correctly - OK. The fear I have is the potential for abuse by bad players. In the US - we know those bad players exist.
Well, I guess it's okay, as long as it's safe, legal, and rare.
Forcing a child to endure tremendous pain for the rest of its life just for the result of extending that suffering does not seem moral to me.
I can't call myself a Christian, but I doubt that Christ would endorse that either.
Noted. Everyday that we do not murder Bagoh, we are "extending the life" of a complete fucking retard.
It's funny seeing the people upset with child genital mutilation being so bizarrely cool with murdering them.
I always wonder whose pain and suffering is being treated by euthanasia. The patient's or the caregivers?
Deaf, blind, paralyzed at birth.
"I always wonder whose pain and suffering is being treated by euthanasia. The patient's or the caregivers?"
Clearly both, unless you imagine either would be just fine with it continuing.
Who is served by the continued suffering?
What other conditions would qualify for "euthanasia"? Mental anguish, social dysfunction, personal convenience, career climate change, unrequited love? Mental deterioration, atrophied muscles, hardened joints?
"Noted. Everyday that we do not murder Bagoh, we are "extending the life" of a complete fucking retard."
The foundation of your uncommon compassion is clear for all to see. An unappreciated gift to these discussions. Thank you for all you add here. It wouldn't be the same without you.
Paralyzed after stroke, can't communicate. Feeding tube. Hospital care, tv on ABC all day .
Just because you can take anything to a foolish extreme and abuse it doesn't negate the positives when it's done right. That argument can be made to discount anything good.
"It's funny seeing the people upset with child genital mutilation being so bizarrely cool with murdering them."
I'm guessing that "the people upset with child genital mutilation" are conservatives, but they don't seem to be the people "so bizarrely cool with murdering [children]". What are you trying to say?
“Who is served by the continued suffering?”
Everyone!
“• Redemptive Suffering: Catholics believe that personal pain is not wasted; when united with Jesus, it gains spiritual value and helps participate in the redemption of the world.
• Purpose: It transforms unavoidable physical, mental, or emotional distress into an active prayer of love and intercession for someone else.”
Feel better now?
Ann, you're missing out on all the fun at the jack Smith hearings...
As a newfound jock supporter, do YOU know an Atlanta Hawk from an Iowa Hawkeye?
I get it you're dealing with medical issues today, but very bloggable material there! Amusing. Amy K. showed up da boys with her sports knowledge..
"but they don't seem to be the people "so bizarrely cool with murdering [children]"
Unless you count Muslims.
Not my kid and not my country. And medical resources have never been infinite.
Seems we've come full circle of late.
Alice is as relevant as ever...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox8IPtk4mZ4
"Unless you count Muslims."
Nobody's cool with war, dipshit.
The divide seems to be between those with some 1st hand knowledge, and those without.
... as usual
The whole "well life is so painful so better to put them out of their misery" is an invalid thought. It goes back to that age old question from the book of Job: why do bad things happen? And is life worth living with pain? Even incurable pain? This whole "well, obviously too much pain means it's better to die" is a subtle claim that life is only worth living if there' no pain. But pain and struggle lead to growth. We can learn compassion and empathy by the things we suffer.
What's the difference between this and just throwing the screaming baby into the arms of the statue of Moloch and watching the child die while the parents and the doctors celebrate?
I will never understand the left's culture of death.
*why wouldn’t I offer the same to a child?*
Because a child isn't a pet, fuckhead.
“Nobody's cool with war, dipshit.”
The world’s prettiest, smartest, most amazing granddaughter lives inside the Washington Beltway with my courageous, physically handicapped son and her lovely, brilliant mother. They live there because my daughter in law is a scientist working for the federal government.
If you told me that the only way to prevent an Iranian nuke from going off in DC is to kill every man, woman, and child age 5 or older living in Iran, I’d ask why you haven’t done that already.
If you told me that we’d have to kill every Muslim anywhere in the world, I’d point out that there are only 2 billion of them and American industry can make way more ammo than that.
If you told me that people like imTay, Jaq, RCOCEAN, Mark, gadfly, Howard the Fool, D.D. Driver, Left Bank, IEE(TM) and in MM others would be upset, I’d say, in my most sarcastic tone of voice, “Gee, that’s toooo bad.”
For me, it’s personal
"Yeah, this is a tough one. The problem is we have lost trust in the people making these decisions."
Agree. You want to think that no parent or caretaker would ever euthanize a child without agonizing conflict. But human nature says you'd be wrong.
I believe there are things worse than death. I always thought believers believed that even more than I do.
"Yeah, this is a tough one. The problem is we have lost trust in the people making these decisions."
No just lost trust. There is no one you really ever could trust.
These kinds of things always grow perverse incentives. Like some cops are bullies that want authority. Some medical practitioners like having the power of life and death. You can't really have that power if you have to try to save everyone. You only have it when you get to kill some of them on purpose. You don't really have it if you can be punished if you are caught.
If you can't prevent the imminent painful death, but you can prevent the suffering on the way there, I think it's a compassionate and reasoned decision. I don't trust many to make the decision, but I would trust parents with judicial oversight to ensure it was compassion at work and nothing else. The alternative is trusting someone to sustain the suffering as long as possible, which sounds like the goal of medieval torture and execution.
Even if the child mages not to get aborted (still a common occurrence) and survives an stressful birth (still born used to be a common occurrence) they are not out of the woods by any means.
Breaking News: "Psycho South Carolina mom stabs her two kids over 50 times in unhinged attack that leaves one facing amputation: cops." (See NY Post for more)
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.