Two-year-old euthanised in Netherlands in first assisted dying case of its kind

[IwantToRetire]

I'm not going to select any part of the article but just post the link for those who want to read
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/netherlands-infant-2-euthanised-assisted-37709218

@NullaEffugium perhaps you think that CBT and hydrotherapy would have helped that poor little two year old?

Hydrotherapy is one of the things that helps my son. It's physio to help get him stronger but it also acts as a pain reliever too, he has permanent nerve damage which can confuse his body at times and at one point, just touching him would cause him pain. With physio, hydrotherapy, OT and medication, it is much improved now.

He's also awaiting surgery.

Again that’s not what I said or my attitude. Please do not use quotations when you’re not quoting someone.

You have demonstrated most aptly just how much you know and it’s not enough to ethically advocate for euthanasia of patients with chronic pain who are not terminal or dying. To be clear, euthanasia is when a doctor or relative decides someone else needs to die for their own good.

I don’t know enough to comment on the toddler and whether there was anything that could help. You have the same conflicting doctor opinions I have. I am responding to yours and others uninformed generalisations.

And you think this is ok?

Thank you for adding to this conversation. It’s shameful that some think hydrotherapy for chronic pain is laughably naive. Your son is lucky to have you.

@NullaEffugium “her husband got tired of caring for her and put in an emergency request for MAiD on the basis of ‘carer fatigue’”

Her husband was very elderly. He did not receive support or professional caregiving relief because local healthcare authorities explicitly denied requests for hospice and palliative care.

Obviously she shouldn’t have died against her express wishes.

Euthanasia when applied to humans in 99.9999% of cases is self-chosen. Ive known 4 people who chose euthanasia and I am eligible for it myself.

Try to get your facts right eh?

Ok, if you want to be nitpicky, euthanasia as it is legislated for in the current countries where it is legal.

Yes there is the 0.00001%, which you home in on while ignoring the vastly greater majority of self-chosen deaths.

Thanks.

It's not easy but it's also a pleasure supporting my son to continue to prove medical professionals wrong.

"shameful" is your dishonesty.

Who are you to say that there is hope? Just because there is hope for you and you want to keep living, doesn’t mean other people feel the same way.

Well yes, of course. I didn't say they were?

However, statistics tend to only be provided for 3 categories: sub 28 weeks, 28-32 weeks and 33-37 weeks.

28 weeks is not the same as 32 weeks, either. But that's the information that is available.

Feel free to provide more detail if you like.

PPs have argued for not treating preterm babies because some babies don't have good outcomes and they might suffer. No further suggestions have been made for how this might apply in practice.

I do not subscribe to this viewpoint and was attempting to provide a bit more detail and nuance to flesh out my argument, including the number of babies this might actually apply to. Its difficult to form reasonable arguments in the absence of information.

When treatment for prem babies is given, the best interests of the individual child is always considered, its not a blanket blunt rule of 'we do x at 25 weeks but we don't at 24'. Individual babies of the same gestation vary in weight, development and illnesses.

And as we found out during the 3 1/2 months my son spent in special care, doctors rarely agree with each other. Its never clear cut.

💐
I have been there. Its fucking dreadful.

I understand the dilemma but think that doctors should not be the assassins!

For me, the doctors role should end at the diagnostics in these cases, The moral shift in the medical profession is too great, where they can now kill as well as diagnose/treat/cure, and crucially, do no harm.

As a consenting adult, no one is going to kill you against your will.

Are we sure about that? I mean the horror stories coming out of Canada indicate that it is exactly people like the poster who are now getting targeted, as in - you are too expensive to treat over the long term - how about this solution?

I find this a very hard case to comment on. I’m against assisted dying as I don’t think it’s possible to put in sufficient safeguards that people would never be coerced into agreeing.

But my heart goes out to this poor child and their parents and how heart breaking it must have been to see their child in great pain. I don’t think I could have made that same decision if I’d been in their place and I would have preferred not to have had the option but I can’t judge someone who made that decision.

This is the problem I have with that poster. They think that because they have an answer for them, it ought to apply to everyone else.

Euthanasia is a very difficult topic, and there are things to weigh on each side. Canada has mishandled euthanasia. The Netherlands (so far) has not. Other countries have mostly not.

It's a dangerous and heavy thing to take responsibility for ending someone's life. If you do it, you've ended someone's life - for the best of reasons, in most cases. If you don't allow euthanasia, you condone the extreme pain and distress that a notable number of people live with, sometimes for decades, and reach the end of their life with. The fact that euthanasia involves someone taking action to end a life does to my mind make a difference, as opposed to passively allowing immense suffering (like that poster) There are no easy answers.

But it is dishonest to pretend that all suffering can be erased with medicine, it is cruel to pretend that hope exists in all cases and it is selfish and self-centred in the extreme to take the view that "because I can live with intense pain, so should everyone".

People will consent to being killed. In this case the child’s parents would’ve consented.

‘Do not harm’ can often mean the opposite.

That's not the definition of euthanasia, but involuntary euthanasia.

Where a person has capacity (even limited) it's obvious that euthanasia against their will is completely wrong.

Whether in the case of someone who lacks capacity (such as a toddler), someone else should make that decision for them is different. If allowed, then it needs to have the strictest conditions and safeguards possible to ensure that power is never abused.

For example, perhaps allowed if:

• the person's projected lifespan is less than 3 months and there is no hope for survival. Agreed by 3 separate doctors
• they are suffering physical or psychological distress which cannot be alleviated in any other way. Agreed by 3 separate doctors
• they lack capacity to make the decision. Agreed by 3 separate doctors.
• (in the case of those who lose capacity such as those who become ill or elderly), they have expressed a wish for euthanasia should this situation arise. Obviously doesn't apply to young children.
• approval needed from a judge

Do those facts about her husband matter though?

They don't change the facts that he asked doctors to euthanise his wife against her wishes, and 2 of them agreed and did it! It actually makes me feel physically sick that this could happen, and I don't think their sexes are irrelevant either.

Are you arguing that his extenuating circumstances made it ok for him to effectively take her life?

Where do you draw the line? And crucially, who is doing the drawing?

I am very uncomfortable with other people making that decision on another individuals behalf. Especially for their own benefit.

Have you been following the UK assisted dying Bill in the news?

Some similar safeguards were proposed but the details didn't really work.

Its really difficult for doctors to predict how long someone has left and they frequently get it wrong.

Judges do not have any specialist knowledge in this area. In areas where they have no specialist knowledge they defer to experts (eg family courts and CAFCASS). Therefore the judge would just be rubber stamping the doctors decision. Many judges are unlikely to be happy at having to make decisions about ending someone'slife - that's outwith their current job spec. UK courts are in crisis with delays of months even years. This would add to that burden and likely lead to a delay of many months.

Why 3 months (6 months was proposed in the uk Bill)? That's not much time to get all the admin and checks in place for the procedure to take place, and not enough time to get the decision in front of a judge. Hardly seems worth it?

The proposal for ensuring the person is not being coerced was basically someone asking 'are you being coerced?' (tell me you know nothing about coercive control without telling me?)

I agree with the need for tight safeguards but pinning down exactly what they should be so that they are workable is going to be very difficult.

But you argued against yourself here - "people will consent to be killed" followed by the "in this case the child's parents would've consented" means that the child could not have given consent.

Pleas let me be clear though - I cannot imagine the pain of this family, I truly can't. I do not judge them at all.

But - the idea of euthanasia and the practice or implementation of it are very different things. It is rife with problems.

I can understand how the husband could have reached that point. I said in my post that the woman shouldn’t have died against her express wishes.

Absolutely I've been following the bill.

I think you're being unfair when assuming judges would rubber stamp this. Yes their decision will be based on evidence in the form of reports, but that's no different from other decisions judges will make. Judges make decisions on which they're not experts all the time, that's the entire point as an impartial judge.

Bear in mind that it's our judges who currently decide on disputes on treatment for those without capacity, including children, often for life and death decisions. It's not much of a stretch for a judge with experience in analyzing medical evidence as to whether a child's life support should be withdrawn, to whether a terminally ill young child should be euthanized. It's effectively the same decision albeit under a different legal framework.