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

A tranche of 'Intersectionalist feminists' complained that they didn't want to be subject to continual discussion of this issue in the way that most wanted to discuss it, and requested MN split it off from the main Feminist chat board. However, most women were coming here for this discussion and to follow court cases etc - so the other 'general chat' board has a lot of tumbleweed blowing through it.

Of course there is no issue with the ideal. The problem is that it can’t be put into practice without murdering or traumatising a lot of innocent, vulnerable people.

That's not really an argument for assisted dying. You've basically said, “There is no objective morality, therefore you can't objectively call this wrong.” Fine—but that doesn't make it right.

If you're defending assisted dying, you still need to defend the underlying principles. Why should someone's consent make intentionally ending their life morally permissible? Why does a doctor's agreement settle the issue? What happens when autonomy conflicts with protection from coercion, vulnerability, or mistakes in judgment?

“Morality is subjective” doesn't magically resolve those problems. At most, it means you have to argue for the moral framework under which assisted dying is acceptable. So what is that argument?

I think you're mistaking "you can argue your point here" or "you can wear any shirt here" with "this view is the default" or "this pub is for Spurs fans".

I agree many places wouldn't even let you argue your GC points. This place does allow you to argue your GC points. It doesn't mean the sex and gender board is GC. It isnt anything. It is for people to debate and discuss their views on S+G. That's if I understand the staff correctly.

So again, i think youve mistaken "share your opinions" with "this is your safe space where everyone who isnt intruding will agree".

@Shortshriftandlethal Thank you. Some articles that look to be analytical there that Ill follow up, though Julie Bindel's article is highly slanted in a way.

Goodness, how certain you are. Very sentimental language you're using there, 'innocent vulnerable'.

Do you usually disempower people who clearly state their own wishes like this?

Reminds me very much of the days when non-disabled people made decisions for disabled people "because the vulnerable can't be trusted to know their own minds".

Iin fact, you remind me exactly of the sort of people who make decisions for others "in their best interests" because they can't be trusted to make them for themselves. Just like the people who refused to allow people with cerebral palsy take O levels or who shut disabled people away in institutions "because they couldn't cope with the real world, it was for their own benefit and wellbeing".

Direct line to paternalistic disempowerment.

I have heard that some ill people in certain countries have been told that their health insurance will not cover X treatment but it will cover assisted dying.

I would say such people are vulnerable; and though the offered path is not directly murder, it does not seem to leave much choice for life.

edited for typo

I don't know if this has been touched on but it seems to be ok for doctors to change the sex of a person based on that person's thoughts but it's not ok for a doctor to end someone's life based on that person's thoughts PLUS an identifiable disease. The latter has been described as not moral on here but what about the first ? No doubt I will be told I'm in the wrong pub but to me it's certainly relevant. I'm not looking to muddy the waters.

I think they are both morally unacceptable.

Also no matter how hard a doctor tries, they cannot change a person's sex.

Interesting:

That is your opinion which you are entitled to but opinions are like a holes. We all have them hence why these things are so difficult.

Agree.

Agree

How long is it you've been viewing and posting here?

I've explained the origins and the history of this forum. Though it is, of course, an open forum and anyone can contribute or post providing they respect the posting rules.

Out of curiosity, do you think unassisted suicide is morally unacceptable?

I do. Having been suicidal myself and attempted it, I still hold that opinion.

Thank you for your honesty.

I think this needs looking into further. It could be as it seems on the surface. It could also be that the treatments are cutting edge, high risk with low success rate and therefore not generally covered.

In this case, surely it's not a case of 'we won't fund this but we'll fund your assisted dying instead' but 'we won't fund this but will fund palliative care until you die'. (If it is the former, it'd be absolutely appalling but surely that would have hit the news - no health company would get away with not funding palliative treatment?)

In the situation where absolute miracles can be achieved, sometimes, but at a gigantic cost, not all treatments are affordable without making everyone's premiums unaffordable.

Would you happen to know any more?

One of the most difficult things about this debate is that some people, and sometimes the ones who shout loudest, will cherrypick the facts or downright lie.

On the BBC some years ago in a debate on this the anti-assisted dying side fielded a man who claimed that the Dutch sent vans round estates advertising for assisted-death business. This was just an outright lie.

Equally it's false to claim that no one would ever be pressured, ever, into taking that step, or that there is no danger of creep.

But very few of the anti-euthanasia movement will honestly acknowledge the suffering that their stance allows to go on.

I feel very strongly about euthanasia for many reasons, not least because I have been in a place where I didn't want to be alive anymore.

I know what it is like for pain to become so overwhelming that you cannot imagine feeling differently. At the time, it can feel as though nothing will ever change and that death is the only way for the suffering to end. But I also know something now that I couldn't see then: feelings can change. Circumstances can change. Pain can ease. Hope can return.

I am incredibly grateful that my darkest moments did not become an irreversible decision. If they had, I would never have experienced the life, relationships, love, and moments that came afterwards.
That is partly why I struggle with the idea of euthanasia. I understand that people facing terminal or unbearable illness can experience suffering that is very different from what I went through, and I don't judge anyone for the complexity of those circumstances. But my own experience makes me believe passionately that when someone is suffering and wants to die, we should do everything we can to understand their pain, surround them with compassion, and give them every possible opportunity for that pain to change. I am here today because my worst moment wasn't my last moment.

"Since then it gained notoerity and started to be targeted by trans activists, 'allies' and disruptors - who sought to report posts and get women banned."

You mean members of the public joined the forum to also talk about S+G and those members may have had a range of views, some of which oppose GC views.

As people repeat many times, nobody can really get anyone banned. If you report a post and it is against the site's rules of conduct, then it will be deleted and you may have further reprimands.

"the moderation eased up"

Do you mean they changed guidelines so some things were now not against the rules and so fewer people who said those things were moderated?

"and now we have quite a few people, such as yourself, who come here to argue in favour of 'genderism'"

Or do you mean that some people have views that aren't at one end of the extreme or the other and you label all of those people as "genderists" or "TRAs"? Because I'm fairly sure I've made my views clear several times on where I stand on say whether TWAW and I didn't say they are.

Yet you still call me a genderist. So it seems like unless anyone nods emphatically at all your opinions, you assume they must be One Of Them and then you categorise them with these terms.

"People who don't want to have discussions about the negative impact of trans ideology tend not to post here;"

I think that is more about what happens when they do. I suspect things are changing though in the sense that moderators are starting to become aware of the tactics that create an echo chamber.

"and those that do know that and post anyway know they will be in a minority."

That can change any time. If an influx of "genderist" posters come in who respect site policy and overwhelm the GC posters in number, then they will be the majority.

This is what I mean about it not being any sort of protected space for GC people. If they are outnumbered and therefore have the minority opinion in these threads, then that will be fine with staff here. As long as you get to comment your thoughts. That's my impression of what they want to work towards if they aren't there already.

I think other religions and cultures are better at doing that acknowledgement. Buddhists for example.

I think in this part of the world, people can be loathe to admit or simply ignorant of how much the Abrahamaic religions influence their values and beliefs. The idea that handling our suffering down here with grace somehow makes us more righteous through either hard work or paying back for sins or whatever. There is a mix of that kind of thought in the major 3.

@NotrialNodeal The circumstances or events that led you to that darkest of places must have been severe, and clearly they went on for some time. I'm glad that you received the support, and the love of people around you, that kept you going long enough for the darkness to fade and for your life to become worthwhile for yourself again.

It can't have been easy to write that or post it.