What do you think of...? (WARNING, potentially distressing)

[ClockWatchingLady]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25651758

The possibility in Belgium of euthanasia for terminally ill children?

If you're in favour of this for adults (as I am), what do you think when it comes to children?

I think it's a very difficult issue. In Holland it's legal for over 12s, with the usual stringent requirements and I think that is about right. I am in favour of euthanasia, my gran chose that option (I am Dutch). My gut says it should not be allowed for younger than 12 though - but then what do you do with an 8yo who is dying in agony and expresses the wish for it to end? The article makes it quite plain that this will only be for children who are definitely terminal, and so my head says 'why should they suffer more and for longer just because of their age'?

I am very on the fence about it and I know that is not rational of me.

I'm against it. I think there have been too many 'grey area' cases among adults which have been adult to make me think it is okay to play with the lives of children in that way.

And, as the article points out, children generally don't express a wish to die, they want to find a way to carry on and live.

Interesting - thanks for responding, both.

I sort of think that as soon as children are old enough to make the decision in an informed manner, then it should be OK. But how on earth do we define (and determine) "in an informed manner"? And, if it's all about capacity to understand and decide, what about adults with intellectual disabilities who might sometimes have an understanding of death and dying more similar to younger people?

blameiton, even if children don't generally express this wish, what about when one does? Does the rarity of the request change anything?

pointy, how did you and your gran find the process, if you don't mind my asking? I really think that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be made possible in this country (I'm in England).

It depends on the severity of the illness. I know it's massively un-pc but I honestly think that some medical conditions leave the patient with no quality of life whatsoever, and they can be damaging to the family that has to care for them. But then I believe in an equitable society that everyone has both rights and duties towards. In my view, Do Not Resuscitate orders should be argued for by doctors in those cases where the patient will never be able to care for themselves in even a basic way.

I'm in England too these days, and I was not there when my gran passed. My aunt was, and she said it was very dignified and moving. My gran had control of the button that would give her the lethal overdose and beforehand the family gathered in her room and they more or less had the wake while she was still present - there was alcohol and music, my gran was allowed to smoke, my cousin did her nails because my gran loved having immaculate nails and at the end she just pressed the button and fell asleep and didn't wake up.

For her the alternative would have been immediate amputation of both legs below the knee following a death over days from unstoppable septicaemia - she would have been in enormous pain no matter how much morphine they gave her. When they set out what was in store, she just said no, I want out and they went through all the legal paperwork. There was no pressure and no doubt. There was also no lure of money, my gran was poor as a church mouse.

I think tightly-regulated legal euthanasia is the hallmark of a civilised society.

That does sound immensely civilised, Pointy.

This is only for terminally ill children who are in pain. It's not a decision I ever want to take but I think they've made a good job ensuring that the law can't be abused. I'm in favour of allowing people to hasten the inevitable end of life with less suffering and more dignity.

75% of Belgians support this law. There has been some discussion about extending this right to minors with mental problems which I wouldn't support.

It was, Lady. Any legislation carries the risk of abuse, but Holland and Belgium seem to be doing a good job of managing euthanasia. There is so much scaremongering about it though - I remember Mitt Romney in his Presidential campaign going on about how there were elderly people in Holland who were getting 'don't euthanise me' tattoos. Would have been laughable, only so many of the anti brigade believed it...

I sincerely hope that the UK will adopt civilised euthanasia laws in my lifetime, but DH and I are keeping savings for Switzerland just in case it does not happen.

They're discussing extending the 2002 Act to include people with mental illnesses including dementia. I can't help but think this would make the system more open to abuse. How can an Alzheimer's patient make an informed decision to end their life?

I think dementia is a difficult one - it's the old issue of fluctuating consent. Terry Pratchett has an obscure form of Alzheimers, and I don't think anyone would question his ability to consent - but for an Alzheimers' patient immediately post diagnosis it would mean accepting that they would have to end their lives while they were still able to consent to do so, i.e. earlier than they might wish and before their quality of life deteriorated greatly.

With mental illness it's if anything more difficult - fluctuating consent still applies, but with many mental illnesses there is increasing prospect of recovery. The recovery model is taking hold in MH care, it is focusing not on being no longer mentally ill but on maximising quality of life and it can be very effective. With a carrot of hope like that, it would be a very difficult decision to make for legislators. The other thing to remember is that mental illness does not automatically rule out capacity for consent - not even for people on a section. I work in MH research and the laws on consent are very, very complex indeed - but that part is clear.

I would not wish to rule it out as an option, but you would need some form of independent review body to look at individual cases on their merits.

I'm pro-euthanasia for anyone who has the capacity to understand the choice and is able to make a decision of their own free will. I don't think anyone has the right to bully Terry Pratchett, or anyone else, into remaining alive without hope or dignity.

For children it's more difficult. Being sure that it is the right thing for a child - in their eyes, not yours, because capacity means the capacity to take decisions that some people might not agree with - must be extremely hard. But Holland looks as if it might be a model, showing us how it could be done and done well.

pointy interested to hear your views on this. Makes me wonder, what's your take on the Italian-in-Britain C-section case? (Sorry, can't remember her name).

edam the thing with the Italian in Britain has been so clouded by dodgy reporting that I can't really come down on one side or another. All I know is that mental illness does not mean you are automatically unable to be a good parent - I know people who have severe mental illnesses but who have real insight have had successful pregnancies off antipsychotic drugs without major relapse and have gone on to be successful parents - the recovery model at work.

From where I stand, consent is the key to it all. To my mind that also means that it is not up to anyone not medically qualified to judge whether or not I am allowed to end my life as I wish, with or without help. The fact that we have bishops in the House of Lords in the UK is utterly offensive to me, because religion should not be brought into this at all. If someone is able to give valid informed consent to ending their life, and they have a valid medical reason to wish to do so, then that should be paramount. It is not society's life, it is not God's life, it is my life.

Of course no-one should be forced to administer euthanasia against their conscience, and I do think that if it can be proved that procedure has not been followed, the penalty should be severe, but I just do not buy into the 'slippery slope' argument.

my general feel is I am pro euthanasia but anti the fact that flawed humans decide

Pointy your tale was very very moving, and so dignified

I agree these children have a maturity beyong their years, so if properly managed, Yes

heartbreaking

"tightly-regulated legal euthanasia".

That I agree with. I don't want hasty laws with loopholes and unintended consequences, but I would approve of carefully thought through procedures to prevent anyone - especially a child - dying slowly in agony.

It's awful, but the alternative is worse.