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

Thanks. I appreciate your post 🫂 @ReleaseTheDucksOfWar

@NotrialNodeal Thank you for sharing that. I’m glad you had the love and support to get better.

But you don't want to give them every chance for that pain to change...

I am certain because the slippery slope exists. Every country that has legalised assisted dying has expanded it to include people who aren’t anywhere near dying or death. They have also documented abuses that would normally be considered murder or an execution.

I call these victims vulnerable because they usually are vulnerable in a clinical and social sense- disabled, poor, female are the key characteristics showing up in the studies. I call these victims innocent because the only other people killed in this fashion are convicted murderers on death row in countries like the US that still have the death penalty.

In my opinion it is as inhumane as execution. We can do better at helping suffering. If we funded care for conditions that cause chronic pain and palliative care like we fund cancer research, we would not have people so afraid of pain that they are willing to shorten their lives the same way a convict is executed.

I apologise for the emotive language, but we are all using it because death, suffering, pain, are all emotive subjects.

You can’t change sex. HTH

I see it as a moral failing of society to help mentally ill people before they are actively suicidal.

There is a chronic global shortage of trained mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychiatric nurses.

I think you are now looking for offence, so I'm not going to respond to you further on this topic. I've explained the history of this forum and how it has evolved.
I'm more interested in interesting and thoughtful posts than this type of to and fro.

I think that you and I, however hard we tried unfortunately, would not be able to meet and agree on this subject and our fundamental approaches are so different that we can't 'find each other' as they say in Dutch.

Your approach gives me grave concerns, as no doubt mine does to you.

But I appreciate you answering this in good faith.

Well doh I know that and said that . Read the thread. HTH

This is discussed quite a bit in the Liverpool Care Pathway review

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-liverpool-care-pathway-for-dying-patients

Very often as someone approaches death the desire to eat and drink goes away. Giving liquid in this situation can lead to fluid on the lungs as their body can no longer process it. But sometimes people do want something to eat or drink and in those cases it should not be denied. The patient's comfort is paramount and thirst especially can be extremely distressing.

The LCP on paper recommended that staff do not continue to push food and drink when the patient does not want it and do not use assisted hydration if there is no benefit to the patient.

The LCP in practice, delivered by poorly trained, overworked and undersupported staff, became a tick box exercise and too many relatives were told 'Your Mum's on the LCP now so we've withdrawn food and drink.'

The whole report is worth reading as a cautionary tale - what was an attempt to deliver gold standard hospice-style palliative care in hospitals failed horribly for all the usual reasons - not enough staff, not enough money, not enough training, too much focus on the system (the 'pathway') instead of the patient.

If we legalised AS I see no reason why it wouldn't be at least as much of a shitshow as LCP.

I find your posts on this thread absolutely chilling.

Attitudes like this are why I'm glad the recent UK bill failed. It's a really good example of the slippery slope that lies beyond the legalisation of AS even in very restricted circumstances.

I agree that adult social care is in a terrible state. The thing to do is to fix it - restructure the way it's funded, invest in it, train more staff, pay them better, take it out of the for-profit sector ... there are loads of things we could do to improve it.

The idea that instead of doing any of that we should just offer to bump people off is disgusting. If there is no money and no care available then how is such an offer a 'choice' exactly?

If you got your way, how long before not taking up an offer of AS, preferring to live out your natural lifespan with all its attendant costs, came to be seen as a selfish thing to do? How long before the state stopped funding care altogether so a natural lifespan became a luxury only the wealthy could afford? And even wealthy people might feel guilty making that choice and watching their children's inheritance dwindle.

In an ‘ideal world’ we would have plenty of funding to look after the most vulnerable in society. Unfortunately we don’t.

I don't think the only possible scenarios are 'ideal world' or the kind of dystopia you are advocating. I can envision a not-ideal world where we pay more tax and have reasonable quality social care and nobody feels they ought to die because they don't have the money to pay for it.

Thanks so much for this answer @PencilsInSpace . It makes it clear.

I was with an old dying friend. Someone was supposed to look in every 15 minutes. They did not.

Had I not been with her to give her sponges of water to suck no one was likely to have done so. She sucked as though she was very, very thirsty. But there is no way she could have spoken, or rung a bell to ask for a drink.

I found a doctor luckily who listened when I said she was thirsty and said she could have subcutaneous hydration if a relative ( not in the same city) which luckily they did.

Anyone who has spent a night of terrible thirst might remember the nightmares this can cause.

What do people think about the monster State killing attempt in Tennessee?

This has made me curious about what the difference is between that killing method and the assisted dying one? I suppose the assisted one is in the form of a drink. I wonder why those sentenced to death are not given the option of the same? It must surely be more humane.

I agree with you and I'm very happy that the bill has failed.

On this point I can envision a not-ideal world where we pay more tax and have reasonable quality social care and nobody feels they ought to die because they don't have the money to pay for it.
I'm not sure I understand why default assumption is that state has to provide social care. What's happened with families? Most families in UK which have children have more than one. Of course there are some very lonely people and state has to take care of them. But shouldn't we reconsider our cultural norms? in many countries, I'd say the most, apart from Western Europe and US, families take care of their ill and vulnerable relatives, why are we so selfish?

On a practical level, new housing should also be designed with sustainability from the point of view of caring for old relatives, so doors are wide enough, there is an extra room and bathroom downstairs. And family who look after their relative should be helped more.

Very many families do care for their elderly and disabled relatives until they can't any more - they can no longer manage the physical load or their loved one has become agressive or they can no longer keep them safe or they're simply completely burnt out.

Often people simply can't afford to be full time carers, they need to work. Carer's allowance is £86.45 per week for 35+ hours of care.

And let's be honest, you say 'families' but we all know it's almost always women who are expected to take on this role, generally just at the point when their career is finally recovering from the break they took to have children.

Houses are now, or at least used to be after a certain year, designed for usage by a wider range of abilities. Part of the Building Standards that every house builder has to adhere to. Larger standard intermal doorways were brought in so that wheelchair users could fit through and didn't have to crawl through on hand and knee (as happened in one 70s estate I lived in, when a friend visited). Downstairs toilets, not too tiny, were mandated along with angle of stairs, handrails, depth of riser & tread etc. The idea was that people stay at home as long as possible and aren't forced into sheltered housing because their own house is fit only for a non-physically disabled adult.

That is good but stairs end up needing a stair lift so there also needs to be an extra room downstairs so an elderly/ill person can use that for sleeping in, and the rest of the family still has a sitting room, kitchen and place to eat.

@PencilsInSpace “I can envision a not-ideal world where we pay more tax and have reasonable quality social care and nobody feels they ought to die because they don't have the money to pay for it.”

There is a limit to taxing others.
The idea that the UK can endlessly fund public services by simply taxing "other people" (like high earners or corporations) faces a shrinking pool of untapped wealth.

Higher rate taxpayers are now normal workers, meaning taxes affect ordinary household budgets directly. People are already struggling with the cost of living.

Just to be clear, I’m not advocating for people to be ‘killed off’. I’m saying there is a need for assisted dying and euthanasia. That’s why people choose to go to countries like Switzerland where it’s legal

“I agree that adult social care is in a terrible state. The thing to do is to fix it”

And if it can’t be fixed (or takes decades) and keeps getting worse, what then? What happens if not enough people want to work as carers, nurses, social workers etc? We have a massive shortage already because they are very demanding jobs. It’s not just about low wages. Look at teaching.

Society often undervalues the work in caring professionals.

I'm not looking for offence. I am just saying the forum isn't for GC people. It was designed to host discussions on sex and gender. Not to give a certain perspective a cosy nest.

Do you mean “isn’t for gc people at all”?

It isn't for any perspective. It is for people to discuss sex and gender.

I think it’s incredibly selfish to have children just so you have someone to look after you in old age.

People are living much longer with more complex health problems than ever before. Adult children can be in their 60s/70s with very aged parents still alive. Caring is HARD!!

With the pension age rising and cost of living, more people are having to stay in work for longer.

Adult children are often unavailable to care for aging parents today because of geographic distance, demanding work schedules, and the pressure of balancing their own immediate families.

It’s barbaric!

Some states ethically ban doctors and nurses from participating in executions.

Corrections staff without medical training often administer lethal injections, leading to complications like failed intravenous lines and prolonged suffering.