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 for the thread @IwantToRetire good to see it on FWR - interesting so far.

The pet analogy sounds compelling because both situations involve suffering and compassion, but it smuggles in the conclusion it is supposed to prove. We euthanise animals because humans have to make decisions on their behalf and because, in veterinary ethics, euthanasia can be considered an appropriate response to otherwise unmanageable suffering.
But that doesn't establish that a human child's death is in their interests. A child isn't merely an animal whose suffering we can eliminate; they are a person with interests and rights, and the people making the decision have to justify why death, rather than palliation and comfort, is in that child's interests. “There is no chance of recovery” establishes that treatment may be futile; it does not establish that the person's life has become futile. And “ending suffering” is not synonymous with “ending the sufferer."

THIS

There have been no threads about euthanising a two year old and that is way more important imo than the feminist only viewpoint on it.

I too thought you'd posted in the wrong forum by mistake. If you wanted the feminist viewpoint on it you should have explained that in your first post instead of picking arguments with perfectly reasonable posters.

How wonderful of your parents. How wonderful you are alive and well. Thank you for coming on to this thread to let people know your own experience. It is not derailing.

Assisted dying means the person has given consent and wants to die but cant do it themselves, or doesnt want to and the law allows for them to be assisted to die. This doesnt apply here.

Picking arguments? How so?

Jesus, well I hope the criteria for killing a child don't get stretched the way the ones for killing an adult have.

Poor little bugger, what a life modern medicine gave him.

Can you enlighten the rest of us with the lore?

Google Lens tells me this when I put a screenshot of your question into it - see attached (It also tells me that @NullaEffugium 's response to your question a few posts later is a misinterpretation of specific, narrow subsets of data to make a sweeping generalization)

I don't think it's right to call it 'assisted dying' for such a young child, or for anyone without capacity to consent'

• This.

I definitely also read that another doctor said palliative care could have helped, or possibly it was another treatment, I need to check.

This.

Personally I find the pet analogy wrong in that context. I did a thread on this earlier.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5579309-to-think-people-should-not-use-we-put-pets-to-sleep-as-an-argument-to-allow-assisted-dying

What exactly would the difference be though, I thought palliative care was end of life comfort.

I see one thing which is worse than signing euthanazia request for a 2 yo. That is being under artificial time-based pressure to decide before the baby turns 1 (as was in Netherlands before) or decide immediately when the premature baby is born (DNR choice).

Some babies born at 26 weeks will survive, catch up and lead a healthy life. Giving the baby and parents a chance and decide a bit later depending on how it goes sounds like the kindest option. And, in a sense, the most pro-life. I wouldn't dare to become pregnant if I didn't have a guarantee that medical intervention (abortion) is available in case of a significant risk to me (ectopic) or significantly damaged baby (morfological damage at 20w scan).

Similarly, being able to terminate the effort later is the best base for giving a heavily premature baby a chance.

It definitely makes me feel uneasy as the mother of a disabled child who likely wouldn't have survived as late as the 70's/80's. He has surpassed the majority of expectations and has a good life.

My main concern would be misuse such as complex disabled children can cost the state a lot of money and also as I said, doctors don't always get it right when it comes to the future of a disabled child.

Imagine you have an ill dog. You could leave it in its bed. It may have stopped eating. You don’t try to feed it. You don’t try to get it to drink. You might give it some dog pain relief. Over a monthsl
to six weeks, it will eventually die. That is palliative care.

Now, imagine the alternative: you take the dog to the vet who that same day gives it a huge injection of some sort of drug that stops its heart beating. In a few minutes it is dead. That is euthanasia.

That is being under artificial time-based pressure to decide before the baby turns 1 (as was in Netherlands before) or decide immediately when the premature baby is born (DNR choice)

Thanks for explaining that. I dont this this point was made in the article.

But maybe does explain how the decision was reached, ie it is an extension of an existing practice(?).

Yes, this reminds me of what my grandmother's said about her long term next door neighbours. Their son was born with a condition which meant he had intellectual disabilities and limited walking ability, the doctors told his parents it would be better to abort. She didn't want to, and although he had health problems and couldn't live independently, he found happiness collecting rock records and playing the drums and was close to his parents and siblings. Sadly he only lived into his mid-40s but that doesn't mean the life he did have wasn't worth living.

Presumably the doctor thought his prognosis was much worse, but like pp's anecdote, it shows how these things can't always be predicted. I'm a carer for a 94yo relative who last year the doctors predicted was 'in the last phase of life' and put on palliative care when she began refusing food and drink during a UTI. It took some time to clear up but she's now better and happy, fortunately.

'That is being under artificial time-based pressure to decide before the baby turns 1 (as was in Netherlands before) or decide immediately when the premature baby is born (DNR choice).'

Why did the Netherlands have these rules? What were the underlying ideas behind them, and does it link to why they've adopted legal euthanasia?

I suppose there is because the ones who care for babies, children and the sick and disabled are much more likely to be women. Whether that’s in the home or in caring professions like medicine, nursing, social care and SEND education. So if society is or isn’t offering assisted dying hugely affects women more than men.

How very distressing. I imagine the poor child was chronically ill and in pain with no quality of life. How dreadful to have to make this decision though.

the parents of the baby who go on to survive and live happy lives would likely disagree. you don't stop texting all babies with X or born at X because some don't survive or do well.

I couldn’t agree with you more.
Im sick of hearing people begging ‘save mum, I can’t live without her’ when mum hasn’t recognised anyone for two years, doesn’t know where or when she is and is doubly incontinent.
Why would you want somone you love to live like that?? Why? It’s so so selfish.
There’s also a huge financial burden on the state keeping people alive who should have just been allowed to slip away.
And, as you say, it’s at both ends.
I’ve been personally involved at both ends and I firmly believe in euthanasia.
It should be a human right to be able to choose the time and place of your own death.
I am pleased the parents of the little Dutch girl made that choice for her.They did the hardest, kindest thing possible.
Her soul can now fly free.

There are fewer than you think who go on to lead ‘happy lives’.
Many will die, many will have limited lives, many will have terrible disabilities .

I don’t think this is a feminist issue if you look at it from the perspective of a child with no chance of any quality of life with a definite death prognosis anyway. It’s a human kindness, mercy issue only.