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

I think there are multiple!

That's a huge difference between 'this child is very sick, may not/unlikely to pull through, might be very disabled from it/we don't know what the future holds and condition that would equal certain death.

There are conditions that have a 100% mortality rate, those are the only ones personally that I'd be ok with child euthanasia for. Where there's hope, let's take it. But where there's none, let's choose mercy.

Your argument is that AD is feminist because it saves women from being shoved into caring roles.

This is a terrible argument. Any AD we make legal must never ever ever be to do with the needs or wishes of anyone else other than the person who will be killed. Knowing that there are people who think like this is something that makes me think any AD law is dangerous.

The unpaid care that is expected of women as a default is most definitely a feminist issue but I live in hope that we can solve this without having to kill people.

I agree with your conclusion.
But I have cared for various profoundly disabled teenagers who live a happy life, but are developmentally still like a baby. It is very tough on the mothers.

Their mothers must be helped, support for carers is really poor.

Nope.

My argument is what I actually wrote. That care labour falls disproportionately on women and that I imagine expectations of who should avail themselves of AD could too. There's a reason I didn't identify either as more feminist. Rather, a feminist approach would acknowledge both.

You're allowed to hope whatever you want, but should and is do not mean the same thing.

I'm extremely wary of the implementation of assisted dying for all the reasons that PP have mentioned, with vulnerable people being disproportionately conditioned/coerced into accepting it as the best option.

Obviously this is a different situation as we're talking about a toddler but I think there needs to be extreme care in deciding to end another person's life. I'm not quite sure who gets to decide what quality of life is good enough, and what isn't.

In this case it would seem that there was an element of doctor shopping. From what I understand, the first doctor and the parents thought euthanasia was the right option, but the independent doctor who was asked to review the case didn't agree. They concluded that "reasonable alternatives" for treatment hadn't yet been exhausted and believed that the condition could be brought under control. As the second doctor didn't agree, an opinion from another doctor was sought and they agreed with the first, so euthanasia was signed off.

I really do understand the need for compassion when we're talking about the limit of another person's suffering, but to end the life of a young child I think there needs to be absolutely no doubts and even then it makes me feel uncomfortable because as above, who gets to decide when suffering is too much? And when a doctor is giving examples of treatments that haven't yet been tried, is it OK just to ignore that because it doesn't suit when you want?

I think it's an incredibly slippery slope when we're deciding whether another person's life has value, and even more so when you're talking about a child with a non-terminal diagnosis. It's veering uncomfortably close to eugenics for me.

There is often some financial allocation for carers. But it can be almost impossible in some cases to get anyone to do the job.

I don't know why Netherlands has it this way, but I generally like their setup.

I know that in my country we have a few sharp cut offs (24 weeks for abortion for morphological issues, a grey zone around 23-26 weeks with unofficial DNR window), and I know that people who fall into them find the time-pressured decision making very difficult.

What is the responsible decision for my baby?Would I have the guts to give DNR at 24 weeks, or would I be selfish, "give it a try" and risk causing the baby long term suffering?

Some posters argue that we sometimes try too hard to prolong/save the life. I partially agree, but with premature babies and children with heavy neurological issues we just don't know enough to say who will be ok and who won't without letting it unroll.

The Netherland's way is very appealing. Allows deciding based on the real prognosis of the individual, not general statistics and parental desperation.

Its really important for these discussions that we are clear about what we are discussing as there are a lot of similar terms.

As I think a pp posted, letting someone die is withdrawal of care. Its passive.

Its very different to this case, which was euthanasia, ie active killing.

Assisted dying is also active killing, but specifically with consent/ choice of the patient.

DNAR has also been mentioned upthread - do not attempt resuscitation. This is different again, it means that treatment will be given but if they have a cardiac arrest CPR will not be given (ie no attempt to 'bring them back'). This is pretty standard in the UK for elderly or very sick people who likely wouldn't survive resuscitation or for long after/ would likely sustain injuries from it. CPR can be brutal.

Very difficult. I believe that doctors do a sort of informal triage even today.

Withdrawal of life support is not directly causing harm.

If a child is being kept alive by heroic medical effort then withdrawing support is simply letting them go.

'immediately ending the suffering' is something else. It's actively killing a child. As I said previously, it's easy to make a case that for this particular child that was a good thing to do, but what we are discussing here really is whether we should change the law in the UK and any change in the law will affect all of us.

The recent failed bill would have legalised AD for adults with capacity to consent who had less than 6 months to live. Many of us have been warning about a slippery slope of widening criteria and we are continually presented with handwavy arguments that of course there will be lots of safeguards and there's no reason to think we'll end up like Canada or the Netherlands or Belgium.

But the threads are full of people arguing for AD for people who do not have a terminal illness or who do not have capacity to consent, or people with MH issues, or people who don't want to be a burden, or people who don't want their children's inheritance eaten up by care home fees.

This thread has presented a new one to me - AD for people without capacity to consent whose relatives do not want to be carers.

The more of these arguments I read, the harder my 'No' becomes.

Did you read the post you responded to? I think your response is so tactless, so maybe you misread it. She said her child was born very early, would've died without intervention, and that he is fine. And @kxeil you said effectively "well doctors shouldn't have intervened". 🤦🏼‍♀️

I'm so glad that your son is okay @thisismeithinkorisit 💐♥️.

indeed, I wish more people think like you.

How sad.

That poor child and their family.

I cant comment on if it was right or not, but we euthanise our pets if they are in pain, have poor quality of life etc, so if feels right to be as kind to a young child.

I can completely understand that there are multiple feminist perspectives on assisted dying, but specifically GC? I can't see how this is an issue linked to being GC.

Have you witnessed someone being allowed to die?

I witnessed a horrible, prolonged and painful death of a close relative so I don't say this lightly but how do we know, how on earth can the doctors in the Netherland possibly know that this child's quality of life would never ever improve - there are clinical trials and scientific breakthroughs happening all the time. Millions if not billions worldwide are being poured into using AI to help us discover things faster from existing research. I personally think there should be a wider decision making process - possibly a European medical council or court.

I think she just wants to discuss interesting articles with feminists rather than women in general

Yes. Of course there is.

Assisted dying might be the trickiest ethical issue I can think of. When it involves children, that's a level beyond even that.

Reasonable to kill someone who can't consent?

I agree. It really has gone much too far.

Should we stop all intervention that could go wrong? That could result in pain and suffering? Because sometimes they result in that?

Lots of people are alive - and well - today solely because of invasive intervention, at any age. Not all of it was painless or complication-free at the time.

should we have guidelines that say X age, Y diagnosis, Z complications should all be assumed to have the same outcome? And no intervention needed in case they suffer?

As I've seen the point about the different opinion of the second doctor multiple times in this thread, I've checked some of the Dutch coverage. If you paste the link below in google translate, you can find more details of what the doctors did. The first set of second opinion drs. had suggested different anti epilepsy drugs, but apparently taking these caused the child more suffering due to side effects than the original drugs. The child had multiple attacks per day, in addition to its other symptoms and disabilities.
Additionally, they consulted a professor of childrens palliative care, who says in this article that both starvation and palliative sedation can fail in children, leading to increased suffering.

Comparing the Mirror article and the Dutch article from NOS/Nieuwsuur (reputable "Dutch BBC" current affairs programme), some nuances seemingly were lost in translation.

https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2630308-arts-handelde-zorgvuldig-bij-actieve-levensbeeindiging-peuter