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 was born three months prematurely at 28 weeks in 1981, weaned off heroin and given world class NICU care with the last available bed in King's College hospital. I've been incredibly lucky to survive, and was called a "miracle of modern paediatric care " by the leading paediatric consultant at that time, Harold Gamsu.

I'm fully aware of the fsct my high frequency hearing loss from all my prematurity meant I got off lightly. That poor littld soul whose life was so hard wasn't so fortunate was perhaps spared a lifetime of suffering.

I have to say, very often, (and obviously I'm quite biased!), tiny babies deserve a fighting chance, but not at the expense of their quality of life forever. Those are things that I believe matter most.

But children are humans, not pets. We sell puppies and kittens, you can't sell a child, among other differences.

I'm not sure what I think about this- but I do think the euthanasia of a young human should not be compared to euthanising a pet.

This

To be honest I’m not sure blanket statements are helpful in this situation, my comment was on this particular case. DS was a v high risk pregnancy as I have complex health issues and lost a previous baby in labour or mc.

I remain eternally grateful for every physician who helped us and I was fortunate to be under the care of one of the countries leading obstetrics expert in my rare condition. She was and is our God, she literally made the impossible possible.

My ex’s GM commented that she didn’t think people should have babies unless it’s straightforward or words to that effect which I thought was almost evil at the time.

Individual types of cases deserve their own unique treatment or judgement I guess.

What is showing is that we offer that compassion to a suffering animal, even though we buy and sell them as property. So it makes no sense that we don't offer that same compassion to humans who have personhood. We let them have horrific but natural deaths.

Heartbreaking for the parents the child and all involved, I certainly wouldn't judge

But most medical people themselves would not like the same level of intervention. At least, the ones I know.

In many countries you can in fact sell a child. Some are sold into marriage. There are people in this country who have bought children. Surrogacy is another issue not for this thread but it is precisely selling/buying babies to order.

We discuss all sorts of things in here. Nothing is stopping anyone else coming in and joining the conversation but when FWR became the “naughty step” (ie feminists who wanted to discuss gender issues found ourselves unpopular with feminists who didn’t, so this board was hived off separately) it became a sub-community in itself. So yes, we discuss things here that possibly overlap with other sub-boards, partly because there is a feminist angle and partly because a lot of us like the nuanced discussions that happen here rather than, say, AIBU.

OP can post what she likes, there isn’t a rule which says a topic on subject X has to go in X sub-board. No one has to justify a post being here rather than anywhere else.

I know that, but my point is , at least here, that's widely understood to not be ethical...unless it's surrogacy. I agree with you about that...surrogacy should not happen, it's wrong in so many ways. However, at least paid surrogacy is illegal here.

I find it frightening, see it as the thin end of the wedge. The boundaries will change.

That poor child could surely have been kept comfortable without effort to keep alive, then died naturally. There was no need to have the little one 'put down'. What next, disabled, mentally incompetent?

I agree that she can post what she likes, but it would be helpful if @IwantToRetire adds an accompanying statement in her OP that steers the thread in the direction she wishes, rather than becoming annoyed with people who obviously take it elsewhere. This happens so often.

Why, @SpiderInMyShoe? We’re not a hive mind, a thread doesn’t need a direction assigned to it. Why isn’t it OK just to put something out there and let the discussion take its course, and posters add what they think rather than going with/against the “direction”?

Just read about a baby born at 21 weeks and wonder how far we as humans are going to push our luck keeping increasingly tiny babies alive. DS was born full term and needed oxygen, antibiotics and a feeding tube and it made me feel awful to see him upset. I couldn't imagine him being premature and all the things that go with that.

I don't know how I feel about euthanasia. It makes me uncomfortable, but so does keeping people alive when they're just going to suffer horribly.

I’m not saying other posters can’t have their own take on an issue. I’m saying that rather than the OP obliquely posting a link and then becoming upset at the direction a thread has taken, that she add some kind of statement about what she thinks at the very least.

I was replying to @NotrialNodeal

Whether to initiate, withhold, or withdraw medical treatment for critically ill or extremely premature babies is a profound ethical question that weighs the potential for survival against the risk of severe, lifelong suffering and the burden of invasive medical interventions.

There are several.

Feminism isnt a monolith. Any issue that affects women is relevant to feminism.

There's a view in the Netherlands that people can make their own decisions and if they are well and consistently argued, that decision should be respected, even if it's a controversial or mistaken one.

It leads to a far more adult society imo. There are rules for bloody everything, but peoples' rights to their own pov and decision is far more respected. Even where death is concerned.

I can't believe the belly aching about this original post being on the wrong board, not being a feminist issue, being the wrong tone, not being directional enough is still rumbling on.

Other threads are available!

The only complaints I've seen from the OP 'becoming upset about the direction it is taking' is the ones seemingly a little annoyed that she's being criticised for posting this subject, on this board. Seems a reasonable thing to be annoyed about. Women posting here don't owe anyone 'nice', 'kind' or whatever other tone policing term you want to use, or an in depth justification of why they are posting.

It all comes across as the usual tedious attempts to shut down discussion.

It makes me uncomfortable, but so does keeping people alive when they're just going to suffer horribly.

I think it's worth bearing in mind that 'no hope of recovery' does not necessarily equal 'suffer horribly'

We do have all kinds of palliative medication that can help keep dying people comfortable.

It doesn't always work though. You talk to any hospital pharmacist and they'll tell you that.

It's one of the moral dishonesties of some anti-euthanasia people. (Not all). People can have incredible amounts of painkillers and they still aren't enough.

I think we have to be very very careful here.
My nephew is severely disabled after contracting meningitis at 8 months old - now 3. He has so many challenges (brain damage, epilepsy, sight impairment) but is loved and his family are dedicated to him and giving him moments of joy amongst the hard times. That joy does shine through, tho I know they have times of feeling desperate too.

The thought of euthanasia in anything other than certain death makes me deeply uncomfortable when the person involved doesn’t have the capacity to make that choice. Quality of life is subjective and with early infant hood disabilities it is hard to know what the long term prognosis will be.

My experience is that withdrawal of support did most certainly directly cause harm. The support was not allowing the mother to see her child and staff in the hospital being told not to feed the baby. They assumed it would take a day to die. It took two weeks. Two long weeks of suffering.

If you are looking for a feminist perspective, here's one.

"I think there’s a specifically feminist issue here that gets missed when people boil it down to “compassion versus cruelty.”
Feminism has always asked us to look at power: who gets to make the decisions, whose needs get met, whose dependence is seen as worth supporting, and whose existence gets treated like an unbearable burden.
That’s why I’m really uncomfortable with euthanasia being extended to a child who can’t meaningfully consent. A two-year-old can’t say, “I want to die.” The decision has to be made by adults — the parents, the doctors and, ultimately, the legal and medical system. I’m not saying those adults are acting maliciously. If anything, they may be acting out of deep love and desperation. But good intentions don’t make the power imbalance disappear.
There’s also a gendered side to this. Women have historically been expected to do most of the unpaid caring for children and disabled family members. Feminism shouldn’t just accept a situation where the answer to impossible caring circumstances becomes, openly or not, ending the dependent person’s life.
The really uncomfortable question is: what would a genuinely feminist society give this family instead?
Would it offer enough respite care? Specialist nursing? Financial security? Suitable housing? Mental health support? Help around the clock? Proper disability services? Could the mother say, “I can’t do this anymore,” without that being turned into an argument that her child’s life itself is unbearable?
Those questions matter because there’s a massive difference between saying “this child is suffering and deserves exceptional palliative care” and saying “this child’s suffering means death is an acceptable medical solution.”
I’m also wary of the phrase “quality of life.” Disabled people have spent decades pushing back against the idea that a life with profound impairment must automatically be worth less. That doesn’t mean pretending severe suffering isn’t real — this child’s medical problems sound horrific. It just means we have to be very careful not to turn a judgement about someone’s suffering into a judgement about whether their life is worth continuing.
And you don’t have to think the parents were selfish or the doctor was cruel to have a feminist objection to the system. Feminism is partly about recognising that people can be loving and well-intentioned while still operating inside structures that protect and value some lives more than others.
For me, the strongest feminist principle here is: make it easier to care for people with profound disabilities, rather than making it easier to decide that death is the answer to the suffering around them.
That matters even more when the person at the centre of it is a child with no independent voice in the decision."
credit to co-pilot.