Belgium minor first to be granted euthanasia

Perun

His name struck fear into hearts of men
Staff member
Not sure where to put this, and I didn't feel like bumping a seven-year old thread we had that was vaguely related, so here goes...

Belgium minor first to be granted euthanasia

A terminally-ill 17-year-old has become the first minor to be helped to die in Belgium since age restrictions on euthanasia requests were removed two years ago, officials say.


The head of the federal euthanasia commission said the teenager was "suffering unbearable physical pain".

Belgium is the only country that allows minors of any age to choose euthanasia.

They must have rational decision-making capacity and be in the final stages of a terminal illness.

The parents of the under-18 year olds must also give their consent.

Euthanasia commission head Wim Distelmans said the teenager was "nearly 18". He said doctors used "palliative sedation", which involves bringing patients into an induced coma, as part of the process,


(More in the link)

The moral implications here are, of course, mind-blowing, and I'd be curious to see what everyone's take on this is. What I would be most interested in is, what exactly are the arguments against euthanasia in the case of a terminally ill person who only has a limited time of suffering left? And what's the difference if it is made before or after their 18th birthday?
 
It's a tough topic to discuss, especially since I'm sure all of us hope never to be in a position to have to decide on that.

In general, I fully support euthanasia. It goes without saying that it needs to be regulated extremely tightly, etc, etc. But people who are terminally ill should be granted the right to decide for themselves how long they could bear the suffering and pain.

As for your question about the 18th birthday, I guess the difference is the same as to whether a person is capable of driving, drinking, casting a vote and so on after they turn 18 - it's a legal formality. But I'll tell you one thing - as a parent, I know that if parents have made the decision to terminate the suffering of their child, I would be certain that they have already tried and failed in every other possibility, repeatedly.

Finally, the arguments against euthanasia. The only one I could think of is the old cliche about God being the only one to decide who lives and who dies. I don't think this should be taken seriously at all; it's too hollow, especially if a loved one is suffering.
 
Famous Canadian author WP Kinsella just availed himself of euthanasia options as well. I think it's important that people can choose when to die, regulated, yes. But still...
 
Suffering is suffering, the process to end it should be a careful one.

Slightly off topic:
In my country there is another discussion going on about ending life. Life without the suffering that is present in usual euthanesia cases. Apparently there are people who want to make it possible to end life legally, with some kind of pill, "just" because they have finished enjoying it. Death-on-request. They strive to have this as a human right with rules and rights.

So this not about terrible suffering or mental illness. It's "just" a personal choice, one no one else should have a say about. While I can't explain it well, I feel against the ending of life if there's no urgent (urgent as suffering) reason. Even if it's not my business, even if it's someone else's life.
 
Ariana, not really. Although, perhaps it can be seen as a mix of euthanasia and suicide.
I think the point to is to come up with something that makes suicide easier and make it legal.
Yes, more or less.

It's about people who wish to end their lives because they feel their life is complete. "Complete life euthanasia". They are not incurably ill.

Physically they can decline, be dependent of others and might have to be confronted with loss of direction over life, losing social network, losing goal and meaning. In combination these factors can lead to world-weariness. If someone finds life fulfilled (complete), that's a personal consideration.

In current euthanasia law these people do not meet the criteria. The consequence is that some of them step out of life themselves as alternative (then it's suicide). They often do it in secret, leaving relatives behind in shock. Because it is illegal and they don't want others to be mixed up in it (make them co-responsible).
 
Don't want to be pedant, but the reason it doesn't "meet the criteria" is because legally and semantically (in most European countries) what you're describing is probably not euthanasia. I know the word has deep historical roots & it's meaning has changed & shifted, but as I understand it, you're not referring to euthanasia. Are you not referring to suicide &/or assisted suicide? I'm not saying they're not incredibly closely linked or not related to this discussion, but the differences are important.
 
I'm in favour of euthanasia being available legally. The ultimate argument against, I imagine, is still about ascertaining that the person's decision isn't a symptom of mental health issues such as severe depression. It's difficult to get around that argument, because a person close to death or who has been suffering pain for a long period is very likely to be at risk of depression, or sustained low mood at the very least, and there will always be some who question if the person would still want to end their life if the symptoms of depression alleviated.

Going slightly back to what Foro said, I've known two people who were very much in favour of euthanasia being legal for people who feel their quality of life has permanently diminished, and they are satisfied they've done all they ever wanted to do in life. One, who died earlier this year, had lived a good life, but poor health (not a terminal illness nor officially recognised as disability) meant it was near impossible for him to find work and he couldn't really support himself any more. This situation had gone on for years. I don't know if his inquest will record the verdict as suicide because he withheld self-care rather than ended his life suddenly.

The other is autistic and has had a reasonably successful career, but is no longer able to work, and doesn't meet the criteria for full disability support. When her pets die she sees no reason to continue. She's been planning for a long time to go to a Swiss euthanasia clinic.

Re the age of consent argument, that's a tricky one in several areas of law, because everyone matures at a different rate. Eighteen is just a catch-all age by which the 'average' person is expected to reach maturity. There are 13 year olds who are incredibly streetwise. Fourteen used to be a common age to leave school and start work in this country, and I believe the age of sexual consent in the Netherlands, for one, is something like 14. I imagine one way around it would be to have a slightly flexible threshold of the age of 18 for choosing voluntary euthanasia, but with a special court hearing called to consider all circumstances for anyone under that age. It would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
 
I agree with most of that, Brigs.

Your first example isn't euthanasia though. Patients have the right to refuse life-saving interventions by medical staff e.g. resuscitation. This is not euthanasia. And stopping "self-care" has nothing to do with medical intervention at all. That's just letting yourself die i.e. suicide.

Consent is legally complicated, but I don't think, in this case, 17 years of age was too young. I don't believe they should have required the consent of their parents.
 
Going slightly back to what Foro said, I've known two people who were very much in favour of euthanasia being legal for people who feel their quality of life has permanently diminished, and they are satisfied they've done all they ever wanted to do in life. One, who died earlier this year, had lived a good life, but poor health (not a terminal illness nor officially recognised as disability) meant it was near impossible for him to find work and he couldn't really support himself any more. This situation had gone on for years.
That's it. Cried solely focuses on the outcome, not on the context and the wish of the procedure. Too simplistic. Sorry to sound pedantic.
 
In current euthanasia law these people do not meet the criteria. The consequence is that some of them step out of life themselves as alternative (then it's suicide). They often do it in secret, leaving relatives behind in shock. Because it is illegal and they don't want others to be mixed up in it (make them co-responsible).
But suicide is not illegal per se in the vast majority of countries. Is it illegal in Holland? Assisted suicide, on the other hand, is a completely different matter and it could be a fair point in this discussion.

Going slightly back to what Foro said, I've known two people who were very much in favour of euthanasia being legal for people who feel their quality of life has permanently diminished, and they are satisfied they've done all they ever wanted to do in life.
This is something that I have a problem grasping. If they want to put an end to their lives, why involve other people? I think it would be fair to take the responsibility for their actions.
 
That's it. Cried solely focuses on the outcome, not on the context and the wish of the procedure. Too simplistic. Sorry to sound pedantic.
That's not entirely fair; I've barely given my actual views here. I'm just asking you to be careful of your use of language in this discussion as the terminology can be ambiguous. For one, we're on an international forum here. Ariana's points, above, again highlights your vagueness & loose use of language here.

Your highlighted text above seems to be you arguing for people to broadly have the right to die. Would this be correct? If so, then euthanasia (as opposed to suicide or assisted suicide) is a difficult & legally problematic avenue in which to do this; as euthanasia (by its most common definition) implies the involvement of someone else. This is someone else (as opposed to yourself) killing you. Legally & morally most people would argue that this would have to be done for a more specific reason that simply "quality of life has permanently diminished" (open for wide interpretation) and "they've done all they wanted to do in life" (again, open to huge interpretation).

Would you be able to give an example of how this would work in practise?
 
Language is a barrier for me in this discussion. I wish I had an English language article to express more clearly what I want to say. It could clear up why the term euthanasia is used in this context. It's more about "life ending" than "life murder" or "self murder". We use zelfmoord for suicide. It literally means self murder. The term is hardly used in these matters. Only as a "forced" alternative.

Ending a life with family/friends can be a better ending than doing it all alone. Some people even wish to decide and do it without interference of a doctor. But even if they prefer the presence of a doctor, that's not legal in these cases.

Suicide itself is indeed not illegal but ending life with help of someone else (without doctor) is. At the moment, by law, it's probably called assisted suicide.

Here are 5 different examples of people we're talking about.
http://www.uitvrijewil.nu/index.php?id=1002

I could translate the first since it's the shortest.
- - - - - - -
Example 1

A 85 year old who has always been very active (volunteer work, friends, community committee) has become more and more in need of help. This independent and proud woman is becoming more and more dependent of help by others. She lost direction (control?) over her life and is lived by others. It is al very rectangular(?) on the way she lived her life. She suffers dayly from her feelings of futility and alienating and experiences a permanent detachment. Looking back on life with satisfaction does not give her enough comfort and grip to go on with her life. She talks more often and more strong about her death wish. She asks the doctor about advice on how to end her life. This doctor tells her that he can't do anything for her because her weariness of life cannot be perceived as unbearable and hopeless suffering as a consequence of a medical classified disease/ailment/illness. For this reason this is not euthanasia.
- - - - - - -

So the solution is not euthanasia, by the current law that is. (Assisted) suicide is the current alternative (or staying alive for that matter ;) ), but that's not what the woman prefers.

Stervenshulp, that's word this is about. Legal "dying help", "help for dying", "dying with assistence". Perhaps the woman's wish is not wanting to do it all alone, but with help of someone else. That's not per se suicide. I guess that -if it ever comes this far- a change needs to be made in the euthanasia law (here we are again), and that's probably why that word is used in this context. Lots of the procedure would look a lot like it.
 
I agree with most of that, Brigs.

Your first example isn't euthanasia though. Patients have the right to refuse life-saving interventions by medical staff e.g. resuscitation. This is not euthanasia. And stopping "self-care" has nothing to do with medical intervention at all. That's just letting yourself die i.e. suicide.
.

This is where it gets into semantics and the changing definitions of euthanasia and suicide. Intervention, medical or otherwise, isn't the defining factor, as that can still be classed as assisted suicide. There are those who do advocate for a peaceful right to die in cases of long-term personal suffering, and would much rather end their life comfortably in a clinic than resort to something that does break the law, or risks backfiring and causing worse suffering. Such advocates believe that ending long term intense suffering is a valid reason to go to a euthanasia clinic, not just being terminally ill. Equally, one of the arguments against euthanasia in general is a concern that it's too akin to assisted suicide, or even homicide. A person may be in pain and dying, but their decision to choose euthanasia could be a symptom of depression, not a reasoned wish to end one's life. Gauging intent isn't clear cut even within the definitions of what we currently understand as euthanasia.

There was a controversial case in the Netherlands of a woman with severe tinnitus who opted for euthanasia. She was highly unlikely to have died of the condition but living with it was unbearable. How do you define what suffering is unbearable when that's a personal experience?

A major difference between the two people I mentioned earlier is that the man couldn't afford to go to a euthanasia clinic abroad. The woman can. Whether it would be legal in either case is a different matter. Both talked about it for years, suggesting it's not a spur of the moment decision or a passing phase of depression.

A suicide verdict carries a social stigma which often transfers to family members, and can have legal implications in terms of inheritance and insurance. This, I think, is one reason why coroners opt for narrative verdicts rather than classify a death as suicide.
 
This is where it gets into semantics and the changing definitions of euthanasia and suicide. Intervention, medical or otherwise, isn't the defining factor, as that can still be classed as assisted suicide.
The definitions aren't that fluid. In euthanasia someone else kills you. This is pretty well defined. In assisted suicide someone facilitates you taking your own life e.g. by supplying the drugs or giving advise about lethal drugs, etc. Assisted suicide is still suicide; you kill yourself.
Equally, one of the arguments against euthanasia in general is a concern that it's too akin to assisted suicide, or even homicide.
If you read the legality around it, euthanasia is homicide. It's just not illegal & therefore isn't subject to criminal proceedings. There are other such exemptions e.g. for army personnel, or (I'd guess) for those administering lethal injections in capital punishment.
There was a controversial case in the Netherlands of a woman with severe tinnitus who opted for euthanasia. She was highly unlikely to have died of the condition but living with it was unbearable. How do you define what suffering is unbearable when that's a personal experience?
No idea. I haven't really said anything about why people seek death.
A suicide verdict carries a social stigma which often transfers to family members, and can have legal implications in terms of inheritance and insurance. This, I think, is one reason why coroners opt for narrative verdicts rather than classify a death as suicide.
As I said, suicide isn't illegal in Scotland. I didn't know it had implications in respect to inheritance, etc. Interesting.

@Forostar
Apologies, didn't intend to ignore your lengthy post...
What I was trying to say was, let's make sure we're all using the same words & language to describe what we're referring to then get on to why people seek control of their own death. I didn't want to come across as uncaring, but personally I'm genuinely not that interested in discussing why people want to die. I'm more interested in the law & ethics of how society handles this. The central part of this, in my view, is the involvement of other people in this act. Doing it all on your own, fine; start asking others to help or actually kill you, different game entirely. This crosses the boundary of just being a freedom of choice issue & starts to impinge on the rights of others.
 
Last edited:
Before I gained better insight into mental illness I used to think suicide was the ultimate expression of selfishness - dropping a bomb into the lives of those in your circle while voiding all opportunity for them to understand or heal.

I now think those who oppose assisted suicide/euthanasia are practicing their own form of selfishness.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RTC
The definitions aren't that fluid. In euthanasia someone else kills you. This is pretty well defined. In assisted suicide someone facilitates you taking your own life e.g. by supplying the drugs or giving advise about lethal drugs, etc. Assisted suicide is still suicide; you kill yourself.

The point I was making overall wasn't about debating the current definitions of types of deaths, but rather stressing the significance above all of determining the individual circumstances and state of mind of the person who is seeking euthanasia, before it can be ethically carried out. A decision must be made on whether a person has sufficient mental capacity to make an informed choice (eg whether the minor discussed in the original post could make that choice), and where the line is drawn between what might be labelled common or garden suicidal intent as opposed to being deemed a rational and well-considered wish to die a dignified death.

It's easily possible that an adult who superficially meets criteria for euthanasia, such as an estimated life expectancy of six months, has had a sudden and temporary dip in mood, and that their wish to die now is triggered by this alone. Clinics in countries where active euthanasia is legal then, presumably, need to determine that the candidate has made an informed choice, not an emotional or psychological reaction that they may otherwise have changed their mind about 24 hours later. Meanwhile, there are people who have carefully considered for many years that a dignified death would be preferable to going on living for much longer, but aren't expected to die imminently, and who may be suffering, but aren't judged to be suffering unbearably. They would likely be labelled as suicidal, not seen as a reasonable candidate for euthanasia who has made an informed decision.

There was controversy about the woman with severe tinnitus, plus a charming article in the Daily Mail (who else!) who claimed death had become a lifestyle choice in the Netherlands.

The death of the guy I mentioned earlier will most likely be classed as suicide or misadventure. But my point was: he had long considered himself suitable as a candidate for euthanasia, if that was legally available, not suicidal in the usual sense. He didn't have access to a euthanasia clinic.
 
In general, I fully support euthanasia. It goes without saying that it needs to be regulated extremely tightly, etc, etc. But people who are terminally ill should be granted the right to decide for themselves how long they could bear the suffering and pain.
I agree, I'm all for it. If we have a sickly animal that is in pain we often feel it is the compassionate thing to do, to releive it of pain and misery.
The benefit with the humans is that they can tell us themselves that this is what they want. They can make the decision for themselves.
I don't think it should be limited to physically terminal cases. Some people have had such a hard and traumatic life that I think emotional and mental are also valid reasons.
I don't think it is govt place to decide, it is the person and their own support people.
Finally, the arguments against euthanasia. The only one I could think of is the old cliche about God being the only one to decide who lives and who dies. I don't think this should be taken seriously at all; it's too hollow, especially if a loved one is suffering.
Possibly, IDK.
If it is for religious reasons, then those people themselves can choose to endure suffering, that is their own decision.
But it makes no sense to force that onto others. Other people have their own beliefs or lack of and its their own decisions, not for one religion to force it onto others that don't belong to their religious group.
It makes sense to support euthanasia rather than to say, well they can suicide anyway, becasue euthanasia means that they are supported, can say their farewells, can get medical support and perform it in a pain free and risk free fashion and perhaps leave it to a time after when they lose the ability of being able to do it themselves. This may actually allow them to live longer.
 
Back
Top