It's a sad day indeed for Belgium. From the BBC News website:

 

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 who have no treatment available.

 

Opponents argue children cannot make such a difficult decision.

 

In the Netherlands, Belgium's northern neighbour, euthanasia is legal for children over the age of 12, if there is parental consent.

 

Under the Dutch conditions, a patient's request for euthanasia can be fulfilled by a doctor if the request is "voluntary and well-considered" and the patient is suffering unbearably, with no prospect of improvement.

 

Belgium passed a law decriminalising euthanasia for terminally ill people over the age of 18 in 2002.

 

Supporters of the legislation argue that in practice the law will affect an extremely small number of children, who would probably be in their teens, the BBC's Duncan Crawford reports from Brussels.

 

The law states a child will have to be terminally ill, face "unbearable physical suffering" and make repeated requests to die - before euthanasia is considered.

 

Parents, doctors and psychiatrists would have to agree before a decision is made.

 

Protesters have lobbied politicians against the changes. Church leaders argued the law is immoral.

 

Some paediatricians have warned vulnerable children could be put at risk and have questioned whether a child can really be expected to make such a difficult choice.

 

But opinion polls have suggested broad support in Belgium for the changes.

 

Horrific, horrific news. Eugenics belongs in the past, it has no rightful place in the 21st century.

 

As you can probably tell, I have very strong views on the subject. Let's try to keep the debate civil.

I agree with the point in the article - the children are far too young to make a decision like that, they may not know what is exactly happening to them, just ending their lives seems extreme.

Edited February 13, 201411 yr by Chez Wombat

It's a sad day indeed for Belgium. From the BBC News website:

Horrific, horrific news. Eugenics belongs in the past, it has no rightful place in the 21st century.

 

As you can probably tell, I have very strong views on the subject. Let's try to keep the debate civil.

Uh, what? This isn't about disabled children or eugenics - it's about terminally ill children in deep pain. That has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics (these children aren't going to be making to an age where they can reproduce) and it's totally disingenuous to make that buzzword connection with a term as loaded as that.

Even the title of this thread is stupidly biased. How you get "unfit" from "terminally ill and in unbearable pain" is beyond me.

Brett I respect your views and all of that but sometimes people really do need to be put out of pain (although I'm only ever fully comfortable of it if the person communicates that they want it to be done)

 

 

I am not really for or against it. I see the obvious problems but at the same time... children being forced to spend large amount of times in huge pain is not exactly unproblematic either.

 

 

I support it, if someone is terminally ill with no hope of recovery and no quality of life then let them go.

Unfit is such a hideously manipulative term to give the thread. I think this, and euthanasia in general, is something that should be legal but only in a situation where it;s treated with the utmost respect and dealt with on a case by case basis when every other avenue has been exhausted.

Unfit is such a hideously manipulative term to give the thread. I think this, and euthanasia in general, is something that should be legal but only in a situation where it;s treated with the utmost respect and dealt with on a case by case basis when every other avenue has been exhausted.

 

I agree, unfit is a vile title, we are not talking about kids who get out of breath because they have had too many McDonalds, these are kids most likely being kept alive by machines and incapable in many cases of the most basic of tasks

 

Not to mention the fact that talk of eugenics etc, might as well have gone all the way and spoken godwin's law :rolleyes:

"Killing" is also a very misleading term.

I have edited the title of this thread. As you can tell, I let my emotions get the better of me, and I apologise to anyone who was offended by words. Don't get me wrong, I still think this is horrific legislation, and I still consider it killing. Governments should be investing more money in effective and affordable palliative care and research into cures for terminally ill children, rather than bringing in euthanasia laws.

Short of abolishing pain, there's not really much that can be done for somebody whose life is pain in a hospital bed. What sort of existence is that? What greater end or sanctity is served by that person being forced to remain alive just for the sake of suffering?

I don't really have a problem with it in principle, but the thought of making it legal and RELATIVELY easy to get it makes me a bit uneasy. It just seems like it would be so open to abuse. I kind of agree with the argument in the article, that you can't really take a young child's opinion that they want their life to be ended at face value, because it's so possible that they would've been talked into having that opinion by their parents.

Edited February 13, 201411 yr by Danny

I don't really have a problem with it in principle, but the thought of making it legal and RELATIVELY easy to get it makes me a bit uneasy. It just seems like it would be so open to abuse. I kind of agree with the argument in the article, that you can't really take a young child's opinion that they want their life to be ended at face value, because it's so possible that they would've been talked into having that opinion by their parents.

Are you going to suggest outlawing it based on the chance that:

 

a) a parent wants their child dead

b) said parent happens to have a terminally ill child in terrible pain

 

? It's not ideal but the extremely slim chance of the above scenario happening is simply not worth casting aside the positives.