[Flipside]

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

This is likely to be a heated one, so lets keep it civil

Basically, Belgium have voted through a law which, once ratified, will allow parents with terminally ill children who are constantly in pain to consider Euthanasia. This is a real minefield to my eyes, considering the aspects of both defining whether the childs' wish is from themselves or imposed by their parents, of deciding whether it is really the child in pain that is the problem and not the parent's inability to cope with the situation and needing support.

Basically, so many variables here....

[Grizzly]

Euthenasia, even without the age limit, is still a very complicated juricidal and medical process. Even if there is the slightest chance of the statements you made above being true, the euthenasia will not be carried out.
The variables are hte hard part, but this is true at any age.

[Flipside]

To be honest, I'm still digesting the idea and haven't formed a positive or negative opinion on it, whilst I've always been for a choice regarding the end of life, that's always been assumed that the person has had a reasonable span of life to end, as it were. I've never really thought about it regarding minors, and its such a complex issue that I think I'd need to think about it for a few days before coming to a conclusion.

That said, this wasn't an easy bill to pass for Belgium, legally or morally, so I don't doubt there is a huge emphasis on erring on the side of caution in these situations.

[MP-Ryan]

There are major safeguards built into the Belgian law.  Really, the law is more about protecting medical professionals and family members that choose to end life support more than anything else.

The BBC article fails to discuss the specific circumstances in which euthenasia is accessible; I can't remember where I saw it previously, but the list is quite large and stringent.  I don't have time to dig it up for you, but perhaps someone can exercise their Google-fu.

[Grizzly]

Hmm, the article does mention some things, but I looked at gezondheid.be instead.

First of all, the patiënt must be fully aware of what he is doing, his mind has to be his own when he reqeusts euthenasia.
This request must be done voluntarily, without any outside pressure.
The patiënt must have been made fully aware of the possibiliites of his treatment. He must be fully aware of his disease, he must be fully aware of any alternatives.
The patient must have reqeusted the euthenasia several times, over several days.
The patient must state his request in writing. If the patiënt is incabaple of doing so, an adult who has been chosen by the patient and has no material interests in the patient's death may assist the patiënt.

Furthermore, the patient's condition must be one of insufferable physical or psychical pain with no chance of any cure. However, what constitues as insufferable pain and chance of any improvement is determined mainly by the patient. If, for example, the patients pain can be alliavated using severe drugs, but the patient considers these drugs to be even worse, euthenasia may still be considered. One should read "No chance of any improvement via methods acceptable to the patiënt". Furthermore, the patient's view of what is considered "insufferable" should be considered. Often it is not the pain itself which is the worse, but rather the state of constant, inevetable degrading capabilities of the patient (who is fully aware of it happening).

The final decision on wheter or not the suffering is endless without any chance of cure is made by two doctors. The first doctor is the patien'ts doctor. The other doctor is independent of both the doctor and the patiënt, who will review the patiënts case seperately. In special circumstances (mostly if the disease is not terminal), a third doctor will be called, who also has to be independent of everyone else. This doctor is often a psychiatric specialist or a specialist in the specific ailment. The last two doctors will also gauge the insufferableness of the disease. Every doctor will write a report.

Note that the doctor may at any time refuse to commit euthenasia. The patient's doctor will be the one commiting euthenasia.

---

I personally have simply no opinion on euthenasia, and I hope I shall never have to form one.

[StarSlayer]

...and suddenly that roller coaster design isn't so dumb.

[Fury]

What Joshua wrote seems very logical and sensible. Except this doesn't seem to cover patients whose minds have more or less left them or are in coma. I still wonder how could euthanasia be applied to such patients, where the patients clearly suffer but can't do anything about it themselves.

But personally I view this as a good thing, because everyone should have the choice to end their life if that life is no longer worth living. Mere depression is not good enough because you can get over depression. You can't get over a terminal sickness or missing limbs or paralyzation. Heck, these days people live to be really old and many they require constant care, their physical and psychological condition may not be one worth living with either. Old people with clearly and significantly diminished quality of life should also have the option for euthanasia.

If it wasn't clear by now, I strongly support euthanasia as long as it is not misused and there should be clear, logical and sensible safeguards to ensure that. Forcing people who have clearly and significantly diminished quality of life to keep on living with no hope of it ever getting better is worse than death. If I ever end up in a situation like that, I certainly hope my suffering will be ended quickly.

[Grizzly]

What Joshua wrote seems very logical and sensible. Except this doesn't seem to cover patients whose minds have more or less left them or are in coma. I still wonder how could euthanasia be applied to such patients, where the patients clearly suffer but can't do anything about it themselves.

In case of dementia, no euthenasia will ever be applied. There is currently discussion going on to change this.

A patient can write an "Decleration of will", which states that, if the patient should be subjected to an situation where euthenasia is sanctionable whilst in an irreversible coma, the euthenasia may still be aplied. This decleration must be written in the presence of two eyewitnesses, and at least one of those eyewitnesses must not have any material benefits from the death of the patient.

Aditionnaly, persons of trust may be assigned, who inform the doctor of the patient's will should the circumstances be met.
The decleration has to be signed by the patiënt, the eyewitnesses, and the persons of trust.

Should the patient not be capable of writing, another person of trust may be choosen. Adittionally, the declaration must clearly state that it was not written by the patient, and provide medical explenation why.

The decleration of trust is valid for 5 years, after which it has to be rewritten.

[Luis Dias]

Well by definition, someone in coma is not suffering "insufferable pain". I'm guessing that was the main reason for this law to come about.

[Grizzly]

Well by definition, someone in coma is not suffering "insufferable pain". I'm guessing that was the main reason for this law to come about.

The "Decleration of will" part of the law was there long before this law.
Also, pain does not nessecisarly have to be physical (as explained), but psychical. If the patiënt considers coma until death to be an insufferable psychical situation, it is enough of a reason to start the procedure.

[666maslo666]

I support right to euthanasia strongly and I believe this is something that should have been standard law everywhere long ago. Also including children or those with diminished mental capability, they dont feel pain any less.

Sure, there may be some ways this gets misused but in the end the wishes of the patient are paramount and we absolutely must not just let people suffer with no other option. Thousands per year already choose euthanasia where it is legal so this is something patients do want. Heck, I can see myself choosing euthanasia if I had some terminal condition. We need to get over this mindset that length of life is always more important than quality of life..

[MP-Ryan]

I think it's only a matter of time until most democracies recognize people's right to determine the end of their lives on their own terms.  As it stands, medical professionals regularly end up skirting laws against assisted suicide, which is frankly ridiculous.

[karajorma]

In case of dementia, no euthenasia will ever be applied.

Ironically one of the cases where I'd really want it. If my mind has gone, then I'm already dead as far as I'm concerned.

[Grizzly]

I always found that to be a very puzzling thing. Even though my mind is gone, would the part that remains be unhappy? In pain? Or would it simply be blisfully ignorant?

[Mongoose]

I think it's only a matter of time until most democracies recognize people's right to determine the end of their lives on their own terms.  As it stands, medical professionals regularly end up skirting laws against assisted suicide, which is frankly ridiculous.

I respectfully disagree.  There doesn't seem to be any greater violation of "First do no harm" than deliberately ending a patient's life.

And really, the idea that a patient who's at an age where they're considered incapable of making any number of personal decisions from a legal standpoint, and indeed several years from full mental development in terms of applying long-term consequences to decision-making, should be entrusted with the legal ability to make the ultimate decision, is extremely hard to swallow.

[General Battuta]

That kind of depends on whether you see '

I think it's only a matter of time until most democracies recognize people's right to determine the end of their lives on their own terms.  As it stands, medical professionals regularly end up skirting laws against assisted suicide, which is frankly ridiculous.

I respectfully disagree.  There doesn't seem to be any greater violation of "First do no harm" than deliberately ending a patient's life.

I think there are a lot of situations where it's actually exactly the opposite.

[MP-Ryan]

That kind of depends on whether you see '

I think it's only a matter of time until most democracies recognize people's right to determine the end of their lives on their own terms.  As it stands, medical professionals regularly end up skirting laws against assisted suicide, which is frankly ridiculous.

I respectfully disagree.  There doesn't seem to be any greater violation of "First do no harm" than deliberately ending a patient's life.

I think there are a lot of situations where it's actually exactly the opposite.

Indeed.  Frankly, anyone actually has the right to die on their own terms, and whether or not suicide is legal or not is typically irrelevant to that decision.

What euthenasia laws do is enable patients who are mentally sound and willing to end their lives - instead of enduring further pain, suffering, and hopelessness - but physically unable to do so themselves the ability to receive that in the form of medical treatment.

Euthenasia is about giving people who are mentally fit and make the decision under a strict protective legislative framework the ability to die with dignity, on their own terms.  Age is utterly irrelevant to the discussion; it's mental fitness that's important.  There is absolutely no reason anyone should be forced to endure pain and suffering until medical science can no longer keep them alive if they are able to make to legally decide they no longer wish to be.

In Canada, the highest profile euthenasia court cases surround ALS patients.  ALS is a great example of a case where modern medicine does a great deal of harm when euthenasia is not permitted.