First Child Dies Under Belgian Law Allowing Euthanasia of Minors

hand-n-hand-1432034-639x426-compressedBELGIUM — The first child in Belgium has been euthanized since the passage of a law removing age restrictions on when doctors may end the lives of terminally-ill patients at their request.

Sen. Jean-Jacques De Gucht, who wrote the law passed in 2014, confirmed the death of the child to reporters this week. While he did not provide many details, he said that the physician-assisted suicide took place last week after the youth requested euthanasia, and that the minor was from the Flemish region of Belgium.

The name and age of the child are not known.

De Gucht expressed thankfulness that the country’s option to die now applies to sick children.

“It’s terrible when a youngster suffers, but it gives me some comfort to know that now there is a choice out there for children in the final terminal stages,” he told the Associated Press. “It’s important that society doesn’t neglect people in such pain.”

Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002, but a provision allowing for the inclusion of minors was removed following uproar. The law consequently set the age limit at 18.

But in 2014, De Gucht proposed language that would do away with age restrictions, and was successful in his bid. The law now requires that the child be in the final stages of the terminal illness, understand the meaning of death versus life and have requested to die more than once. The parents must also provide consent, as well as two doctors, including a psychiatrist.

  • Connect with Christian News

“This can only be in cases of serious and incurable diseases, which is the same thing for adults … but for minors an additional condition is that the death must be expected in the near future,” Jacqueline Herremans, the president of Belgium’s Association for the Right to Die with Dignity, told RTBF Radio.

However, others have expressed deep concern over the development.

“Ultimately this is a triumph for out-and-out nihilism, not just Belgium’s inventive euthanasia lobby. Nihilism is a philosophical fad which seems to catching on in the world of bioethics,” wrote Michael Cook of Mercatornet. “If I’m right, euthanizing a child is not a terminus for Belgian euthanasia, but just a bus stop en route to pure nihilism. What its supporters are trying to eliminate is not just pain, but life itself. ”

“Means of alleviating pain are widespread in Belgium within present medical scope, far more so than in most other countries. No patient, no child therefore, need suffer nowadays,” the blog NoEuthanasia.org also outlined prior to the passage of the law.

“As of today we are perfectly capable of controlling physical pain, smothering or anguish in the throes of death,” it explained. “Established palliative care teams for children are fully able to relieve pain, whether in hospital or at home.”

Dutch Professor Eduard Verhagen told the NLTimes this week that he believes a similar situation will unfold in Holland, and that a child euthanasia center will not be far off for the country.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • TheBottomline4This

    Most Liberals are so into death.
    Abortions, assisted suicides, death of certain things in culture,
    They are blinded to what they really are supporting.

    Yet, they cry for gun control to “save lives”.
    Hypocrites much?

    • Jenny Ondioline

      What is your issue with euthanasia?

      • 201821208 :)

        gotquestions dot org/euthanasia dot html

        • Jenny Ondioline

          Haha, “gotquestions dot org”. I don’t think so.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Too bad you are close minded. You probably didn’t even read it, lol.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I did. I am still laughing.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Yeah that’s funny. I’ve noticed that truth does that to those who don’t like it. You silly truthphobe.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            You won’t find truth on websites like that one, I’m afraid.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Better source than the ones you read.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            No, gotquestions is roundly ridiculed.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Only by unbelievers like you. That’s not saying much.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Are you kidding, Catholics hate it too. And that’s the largest Christian group right there.

          • TheBottomline4This

            lol, catholics aren’t Christian.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            LOL, they are not just Christians, but the first ones.

          • TheBottomline4This

            LOL. What makes you think that?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            LOL because I know how to open a history book.

          • TheBottomline4This

            LOL, not a good answer.
            I know they are not Christians, but think what makes you feel best.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            If authoritative and reliable sources don’t do it for you, then I suspect nothing will.

          • TheBottomline4This

            How about first hand experience dear?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Well we both know you don’t have any of THAT, don’t we?

          • TheBottomline4This

            Yes I do ignorant one. I was a catholic for the first 28 yrs of my life. I went to parochial schools also. I do know.
            I’m not saying there are no new Christians attending catholic churches, but there are few. Once they realize what they are in, they eventually leave.

            Other than “history books” what experience do you have Jenny?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            2 minutes of being Catholic should teach you that they are Christians. If you didn’t learn it after 28 years I can’t begin to guess what’s wrong with you. Most likely you were converted by a fundamentalist.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You have got to be the most ignorant person I have interacted with online on this issue.
            Your ignorance is you bliss.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What is a “Christian?”

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I’m ignorant because I know Catholics are Christians? Using that logic, everyone you know is probably ignorant.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yeah, don’t you hate it when people don’t read your citations? By the way, did you ever get around to reading the APA’s paper on transgenderism like I asked you to?

          • TheBottomline4This

            Now Amby, you know I’ve told you that trans are mentally ill. There is no amount of reading of a biased psychology association paper that is going to change that fact. Most if not all of the psychologists don’t consider God’s design in their “research”, therefore it is flawed.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Your hypocrisy is astounding. Either read other people’s citations or don’t expect them to read yours.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I have read others citations Amby. I don’t read yours though for good reason.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, what reason?

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          That is what the bible says. Oh wait, you believe what the bible says, never mind.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You don’t believe the Bible, that is fine.
            Enjoy the heat.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Well it has been very hot here and yes enjoyed it a lot, thanks.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You know that’s not the hear I’m referring to.
            My original point bears repeating…
            Most Liberals are so into death.
            Abortions, assisted suicides, death of certain things in culture,
            They are blinded to what they really are supporting.
            Yet, they cry for gun control to “save lives”.
            Hypocrites much?

      • http://www.personaltouchmaids.org/ TammyHenson

        I can’t answer for TheBottomline but I’m guessing they believe as I, it’s not for us to say when a life ends. That is in the hands of God & last I checked, I’m not Him.

  • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    That child had no say whether it could live or die. It’s simply murder.

    • IphisIanthe

      Look up what that word means and try again.

      • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Murder: “The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.”

        The Bible addresses assisted suicide and determines it is murder. It may not be unlawful according to Belgium law, but according to God’s sight, it is.

        • IphisIanthe

          Your god. Your religion. Applies to you. No one else required to.

          • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            But it’s the nation’s healthcare system that will be affected, and we all get a say how it should be run. This affects all of us. It’s vital that we get this one right or we’ll cause a lot of unnecessary deaths.

          • IphisIanthe

            You’re arguing a slippery slope it seems. The terminally ill deserve to be able to end it on their terms.

          • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The slippery slope is real. Sadly, your post shows the flaw of the matter. What is argued now as “deserve” will soon be changed to “compelled.”

          • IphisIanthe

            Body autonomy rights prevent that. There are hoops to go through to make sure that it is the person’s will alone.

          • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            In Canada, they used to forcibly sterilize the handicapped and at least one Native American. They’ve since apologized and recoiled from that, but if they are given the right to forcibly sterilize individuals, what prevents them from abusing the system today? Nothing. In my above post, I explain how it is not the person’s will alone.

            Suppose a doctor commits malpractice with the system and the family sues and loses in court. What recourse does the family have? You are placing the system in the hands of the courts, not the patient.

          • IphisIanthe

            Body autonomy needs to be universal. Laws need to be implemented everywhere to protect it.

          • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Laws are good and fine, but if the courts disagree with the family and the law, then you have no legal recourse. This is not a system that gives freedom to the patient. This actually takes freedom away.

          • IphisIanthe

            Then fix the laws. Make it next to impossible for the patient to get screwed over.

          • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s not possible. It’s inherently part of the system.

          • IphisIanthe

            1) Reduction is possible.
            2) So the solution is to provide less compassion than we provide to livestock and pets?

          • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s not possible to ensure that the courts obey the law. As an ordinary citizen, your power is very limited.

            As for the second point, we have a different worldview on what is compassion. Animals aren’t people. We hold animals as pets, we eat them, and we play with them. If we did that with people, we would be hauled into jail for slavery, kidnapping, and cannibalism. We hold a fundamentally different relationship with people.

            Part of that is death. Once we justify killing each other for various reasons, the slippery slope starts. Since human life is so precious, we do all we can to preserve it. We’re fundamentally different from animals in that regard. I understand you oppose assisted suicide for those with psychological illnesses, but it looks like it will soon begin with or without your consent. I fear many abuses will soon start without our consent.

          • IphisIanthe

            1) There’s a huge problem when courts don’t enforce the law.
            2) But people are animals. And animals are capable of suffering. That’s why there are laws and regulations in place to prevent such.
            3) Because we are the same species. Technically one of those three isn’t illegal. Slavery, while wrong, isn’t universally illegal.
            4) I don’t understand how we can mandate humane death for other animals but not allow the dying of our own species the ability to end their own suffering on their terms.

          • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            1) There is, so why would we give them the power to kill life that did not break the law? It’s going to make separating malpractice and a patient’s wish that much harder.

            2) People are not animals. We’re created in the image of God and are specially made. Again, this goes back to our worldviews. If you believe we’re no different than animals, then you’ll think it’s OK to treat your fellow humans like one. We are much more than that. Just like it’s wrong for us to eat each other or keep each other as pets, it’s wrong for us to kill each other — even if we want it. Morally and ethically, it’s wrong.

            3) Exactly. Because we’re all human, these things are wrong for us. We treat humans differently from animals. Therefore, using animals as an argument isn’t valid.

            4) Killing a cow for food, clothing, or even pleasure doesn’t have the same moral gravity that killing a human has for any of the above reasons. We all recognize that it’s incredibly wrong to do that. When we put down an animal, we do it because we see that’s all there is to animal life, but there’s more to human life because we’re made in the image of God. It was never meant for us to kill each other. Psychologically, it’s still murder, and it will lead down the slippery slope I mentioned above.

          • IphisIanthe

            1) Put good people in power who will do right.
            2) We are animals. We evolved. I do treat others as such: with compassion.
            3) Yes. Because we are the same species. That’s the only reason.
            4) Killing one for food and clothing carries with it legal requirements to prevent or minimize their suffering. If you kill one for pleasure than you are scum. Most pet parents put them to sleep so that they don’t have to continue suffering. They have feelings, will, and deserve respect. It can’t ‘psychologically be murder’ because murder is a LEGAL TERM.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            How did it take freedom away? The patient chose to die.

          • Josey

            Who says they have that right? You? God didn’t give us that right or claim once they deserve to end their lives on their own terms, that is nothing but rebellion against the God of life. Suffering is not a pass to end your life, not according to God. I guess if you do not believe in God, then you can claim anything but one day you will meet your maker, I hope you are ready and have repented of this rebellion and made Christ your Savior.

          • james blue

            Do you think the people who jumped off the WTC buildings instead of burning to death didn’t have the right?
            That may be an extreme question, but the IMO only difference between the choice they made and one a terminally ill person makes is speed.

          • IphisIanthe

            1) The government does currently.
            2) You’re trying to apply your religious beliefs to others. Which is wrong.
            3) Your god.
            4) a. I don’t believe in YOUR god as presented by its commonly accepted character traits
            b. Not my maker. I can’t ‘rebel’ against something that I don’t worship. That’s like saying one can rebel against Steve’s parents down the street. It’s not possible.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            I have the right to do with my body, life what I want. The government gave me that right, got nothing to do with your God.

  • Nidalap

    If you allow yourself to view human life on the same level as a dog, that attitude will bleed over onto all your dealings with your fellow man…

  • IphisIanthe

    Wonderful. Another bunch who don’t understand the difference between pain and suffering. Pain can’t even be controlled to the extent that this article claims. I’m not even surprised anymore that self proclaimed Christians don’t seem to care about people suffering considering the religion preaches that people deserve to.

    • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      It is because we care about suffering that many of us take a vocal stand against this. There are many disability advocacy groups that are opposed to assisted suicide, yet they aren’t given a voice because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Let me be very honest: I don’t believe you have fully thought this through. You seem to believe that everyone lives in their own separate world and makes their own decisions with no external influence or due to other factors. That is deeply flawed.

      We all see the problem of suffering. The question now is how to deal with it. I understand exactly why people could be drawn to assisted suicide. The idea of choosing our own death and dying on our own terms sounds wonderful. But the reason it sounds nice is because of the language used. It’s not the answer. In fact, it’s horrifying when you actually consider its conclusion.

      I want to say first that death is terrible and suffering is terrible. In no way is there any way to soften it. It’s a monster, and people who are suffering need all the compassion and care that they can get. That’s why I support doing all we can to preserve life, develop further ways to manage pain, and invest far more in medical research to obtain more cures. The other side is proposing premature death, so as a matter of caring, I think Christians are far more compassionate in this area.
      As I said before, many disability groups oppose this. When’s the last time you heard that? Many oppose assisted suicide because they know that assisted suicide will lead down a slippery slope.

      The first problem is coercion. It’s impossible to remove coercion from any system that implements assisted suicide. Suppose a person in the hospital is suffering from terrible pain and they are receiving no relief from treatment. A family member tells the patient that they should consider assisted suicide. Is that a loving suggestion or coercion? Now suppose the family member tells this patient that they should consider assisted suicide multiple times over the course of a week. Is that coercion?

      Now suppose it was a medical doctor who mentions this multiple times throughout the course of the week. Coercion can never be removed from the system because it’s inherently a part of it. Even if the patient decides to choose assisted suicide without influence from family, other factors may compel them to choose it.

      Sadly, this is a mild example. I know of people who badger their relatives and tell them that they should never have been born. What if they are driven to choose assisted suicide as an option? Is that what it’s there for? Absolutely not, but the real world is messy. It doesn’t care about what sounds good on paper. Are the mentally ill able to choose assisted suicide? Are those suffering from emotional illnesses, such as depression? On and on it goes. Coercion is a very real problem.

      But there are other factors. One of the biggest is money. In Oregon, the state insurance company rejected Barbara Wagner’s request to receive experimental cancer drugs because of the cost ($4000/month). Instead, they offered to cover drugs for assisted suicide for $50. Due to public outrage, the insurance company relented and gave in. Although Wagner died a few months later, it showed a very disturbing part of the system. How many others in Wagner’s situation who were rejected by their insurance company? Did they feel compelled to choose assisted suicide? We don’t know if any were, but the possibility of being compelled to choose assisted suicide is definitely there.

      To put the cost in perspective, assisted suicide is cheaper than most drugs, wheel chairs, rehabilitation therapy, and a host of other life-saving techniques that are normally used for the elderly and sick. It’s even cheaper than one year’s worth of Meals on Wheels. Since it costs so little to choose to die and so much to choose to live, it’s easy to see how assisted suicide can become a perverse economic decision and a burden on the poor in society.

      In this case for Belgium, the frightening part of the slippery slope is that there is no age limit. At what point is a child too young to choose assisted suicide? 10? 7? 2? In Belgium, a child is considered too immature to marry, drive, drink, or vote, but apparently is old enough to choose death. There is something horribly wrong here.

      Another problem is that assisted suicide slows down healthcare for everyone else. If someone has an extremely rare disease for which there is no cure and chooses assisted suicide, then doctors will have fewer people to study the disease. With fewer people, the search for a cure will be slowed down. People who suffer with the same disease but want to live will not be able to since there will not be a cure available. That means that assisted suicide affects all of us regardless of our views of the matter. More will die from the system whether they want to or not. That tells me that there is something inherently wrong with this idea. Why would we ever want something like that?

      That is why I and many others oppose it. It will result in many unnecessary deaths including people who don’t even want it. The media has given it a great advertising campaign, free of charge, yet they tend to ignore the disabled who oppose it or the weightier questions that surround it. If only people slowed down and realized what they were getting into, but I fear we must learn it the hard way.

      There is a purpose to our suffering here on earth. Look at Job in the Bible. If any man could argue in favor of suicide, it would be him. His whole life was gone: money, children, servants, friends, and health were all taken away on the same day. Even his wife turned on him, but it didn’t end there. God turned his life around, and He can turn things around for each and every one of us.

      Even if things aren’t turned around while we are on earth, He has promised eternity with Him if we follow Him, and there is no comparison to that. God is in full control of what happens to us while we are on earth, and He can turn any situation around instantly. He promises that all events in our lives will be only for our benefit if we choose to follow Him. That’s a pretty special promise.

      What separates us is our worldview. If we believe that life has a purpose and is precious, then we will do all we can to cherish and protect it, but if we believe that life does not have a purpose other than the purpose we give it, then assisted suicide is acceptable and perhaps even preferable. In fact, anything is acceptable at that point. If life has no meaning other than the meaning we give it, then suicide for any reason is acceptable. Why wouldn’t it be? Thus, the slippery slope grows.

      • IphisIanthe

        1) I don’t understand how prolonging someone’s suffering against their will is ever considered a good thing.
        2) They’re in the wrong. The person who it actually affects is the only one who truly should have the choice to pursue it or not.
        3) I know that people can be so influenced. You act like there aren’t any hoops to go through.
        4) I disagree that it’s horrible when the conclusion is considered.
        5) Not everyone believes that death is horrible. That completely depends on the person. Suffering is, and people don’t react the same to it.
        6) No one is saying that they don’t need compassion and care. I agree with advancing medical care to treat and cure.
        7) I disagree with you that Christians are more compassionate in regards to this. You extend someone’s suffering against their will.
        8) They believe that. Not know.
        9) It’s impossible to remove fully coercion from any decisions. You have to be approved by a Psychologist. There are barriers to reduce this.
        10) There’s a difference between informing someone of options and repeatedly recommending it.
        11) Assisted Suicide is restricted to the terminally ill.
        12) Money is a separate issue that affects all medical expenses. I support universal healthcare in part because of this.

        • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          1) Before when a man was teetering on the edge of a building and wanted to jump, people would readily give reasons why he shouldn’t. Have we become so apathetic that we don’t care now? Their lives are important.
          2) Whether you believe they would be wrong or not, given how there is no system that can prevent it, any system that institutes assisted suicide will knowingly cause coercion. Countries that do not have assisted suicide have no coercion.
          3) No matter how many layers or hoops you add, coercion will be a fundamental part of the system and will affect people’s choices.
          4) I believe increased coercion and incentivizing assisted suicide are horrifying prospects. What kind of society do we want to become? Take it to its fullest extent. It would be a very hardened society.
          5) Death is a monster, and so is suffering. It’s a fundamental part of all life to desire to live as soon as it is born. Even babies struggle to breathe and move. Any society that loves death doesn’t survive for long.
          6) But when you knowingly add coercion into a healthcare system that WILL have an effect on the patient’s decision, what kind of compassion and is that? Either we are 100% for healthcare (i.e. pro-health) or we are not.
          7) I am for preserving their life and working to end their suffering. You are advocating for terminating their healthcare and giving the government the power to end innocent life.
          8) They have analyzed assisted suicide in much greater detail, and for good reason: they understand the issue because they deal with healthcare systems more frequently and see the system from the perspective of the vulnerable. They need protection, not coercion.
          9) This is unacceptable. Why knowingly and intentionally add coercion in a system where there are people at their weakest? The young, the elderly, the frail are suffering, and you believe it’s a good idea to introduce in a system that will coerce these people to choose death? That’s the opposite of healthcare.
          10) There’s an extremely thin line between informing and implicit suggestion.
          11) Sadly this may not be the case soon in Canada as it looks like the courts will insist on including psychological illnesses soon. In Belgium & the Netherlands, euthanasia laws already include those with psychological illnesses. There was even one case where doctors approved of a lethal injection for a patient suffering with depression, yet she backed out at the last hour. It’s a very slippery slope.
          www (dot) theglobeandmail (dot) com/news/politics/alberta-appeal-court-shoots-down-federal-rationale-for-assisted-death-limits/article30074138/
          12) Money is a core issue. Even in Canada where most things are covered by the system, cancer drugs can cost thousands of dollars while assisted suicide is free. Even in the most progressive countries, there are still financial incentives to commit suicide as cost for food, housing, and other expenses can be part of the decision. In other words, there’s never really a free system.

          Ultimately, we agree that there’s coercion and currently a financial incentive to choose assisted suicide. What a broken system. I can only hope that most countries pull out before future generations need to apologize for the abuses our generation commits.

          • Josey

            we used to reach out to suicidal ppl with hope no matter what the reason for their desire to end it but now ppl want to help them end it, insane!

          • james blue

            But this isn’t about a person who has a life to live, it’s about someone who is going to die soon and in lots of pain and suffering.

          • IphisIanthe

            1) There’s a high probability that they aren’t terminally ill.
            2) You don’t know that they don’t.
            3) They are there to make sure that it is the patients will alone.
            4) Then we agree on that much. No one on either side wants either of those. We just have different ways of trying to prevent it.
            5) Death is a monster to those who fear it. Suffering of the innocent is always bad.
            Of course. It’s nature.
            Extremes in general aren’t good.
            6) So we show more compassion for our pets and our food than our families?
            7) Even if it’s against their will, I know. You act like we don’t want there to be a need for this.
            8) And we’re trying to protect them while respecting their will.
            9) I believe that new laws can prevent much of what your side fears. I believe that people should have their will respected in such situations.
            10) .
            11) I disagree with that much. Those individuals most likely don’t have the mental capabilities needed to comprehend their decision.
            12) And both are covered with universal healthcare there. And those issues need to be fixed regardless. You seem to think that I support Physician Assisted Suicide for more than the terminally ill when I don’t.

          • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            1) But it still applies to your example. How do we define terminal and where do we draw the line? Also, what if doctors are wrong and think the man has a terminal illness when he doesn’t? There are many, many cases where doctors are completely wrong and people recover. There’s more to this than many realize.

            2) Let me rephrase: there should be no legally-sanctioned coercion in a country that forbids it. Legalizing it, however, opens the flood gates. Now Belgium has introduced physician assisted suicide for children with absolutely no age limits.

            3) We’ve established that there is no way to remove all coercion or influence. This means that it’s never solely the patient’s decision.

            4) I am glad we can agree on this, but there is no way to remove these things from systems that offer assisted suicide. This is why I oppose it with such vigor.

            5) Some may not fear death and even welcome it, but that is usually due to their plight here, not because death is good. Death itself is always a tragedy.

            6) No, because of the points mentioned below. We’re different as we’re made in the image of God. Our suffering can be used for a higher purpose to help us.

            7) Of course, but you agree with that position too — you would rescue that man teetering on the edge of the building even if he wanted to die due to depression. I simply take it a step further and believe all life should be preserved. Many people have been diagnosed with terminal illnesses only to survive and even thrive. I believe we should do all we can to save life.

            8) It’s not protection if there is added coercion in the system.

            9) I wish, but it’s not true. Laws are often broken and ignored. They are only as good as the people who follow them. It’s the system that will cause the slippery slope, not the quality of the laws.

            11) I am glad we can agree here. I don’t believe they are capable of creating such a decision. I only hope the Canadian courts are stopped from insisting on this.

            12) My point is this: there will never be a way to remove the financial incentive because the cost to choose assisted suicide will always be cheaper than the cost to live. When the government financially incentivizes — intentionally or unintentionally — death, it creates an economic stress on the poor. No matter how covered the people are, there will be some that fall through the cracks. That’s why it’s a dangerous policy to implement.

          • IphisIanthe

            1) Terminal (n):
            -(of a disease) predicted to lead to death, especially slowly; incurable
            2) …
            3) No decisions ever are. But people still have to make decisions.
            4) It can at least be drastically reduced.
            5) Many healthy people don’t either.
            6) Again. Your worldview accounts for your deity.
            7) And they are the exception. Not the rule.
            8) Work to reduce it as much as possible.
            9) Majority of people would enforce the laws. Keep the few who won’t away.
            11 (10?) 👍
            12 (11?) I fail to see how when healthcare is universally covered. That’s why it should only be for the terminally ill. We can only do the best that we can.

        • 1PierreMontagne1

          Universal health care is run by bureaucrats out to save dime at the patients expense. Those who live in denial do so because they do not like the economic facts of socialism.

          • IphisIanthe

            So instead of making sure that everyone has healthcare, we just be far behind the rest of the civilized world who actually show that they give a darn about their citizens?

      • Josey

        People treat those who are sick and terminal as no longer having any life worth living so they ask why let them suffer? We put animals out of their misery they say so why shouldn’t we have more compassion for humans but humans are not animals and just as you said about job, God can teach many things thru suffering. I’ve learned more through suffering and drawn closer to Father God and Christ Jesus through the tough times and I wouldn’t exchange the joy God gives me after bringing me thru the tough times for anything! Those that are suffering imo still have a life to live and gifts to give and teach us. There is sickness, trials, troubles in this world ever since the fall of adam and God never promised it would be easy but He did promise to never leave or forsake us, He promised comfort and strength. And He has raised ppl up off of death beds and suffering many times so to take a premature death over waiting on God is so sad for God never puts more on us than we can bear, He will give us the ability to bear it or He will take us Himself, no need for Euthanasia, blessed is the one who puts their trust in God. I am weak but He is strong, call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus and He will save you, He will deliver you.
        Matthew 11: 27-30 vs27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. vs28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. vs29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. vs30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

      • Jolanda Tiellemans

        Another problem is that assisted suicide slows down healthcare for everyone else. If someone has an extremely rare disease for which there is no cure and chooses assisted suicide, then doctors will have fewer people to study the disease.

        So instead of ending their suffering, use them as guinea pigs? Got it!

        My mother, uncle and aunt where never coerced, they all wanted it. My dad, my sis and I want it too, if the time ever comes. So no one is holding a gun to our heads and force us to do it.

        • John_33✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Of course don’t use them as guinea pigs. My point is that the system affects those who don’t want it. It’s not enough to say “don’t like it, don’t use it.” It will end up killing people who don’t want to die. As a philosophical and moral issue, that should cause people to wonder if there is something inherently wrong with perceiving this as “medical” treatment and not the premature end of such.

  • james blue

    17 year old

  • james blue

    I hope it never happens, but should you find yourself facing a painful terminal illness I will respect your wished, whatever you decide. Nobody should have assist, but neither should they have the right to tell you no you are not allowed to choose your own destiny.

  • ComeOnPeople!

    And who was a murderer from the beginning according to GOD’s word? The enemy of ever mans soul. Therefore who is orchestrating all the laws that have legalize killing a child in the womb , killing the elderly or the terminally ill ? Don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out. A line is being drawn and those straddling the fence are becoming fewer and fewer. Soon you will see a clear line with immorality, , perversion , wickedness and evil on one side and morality, righteousness, holiness and truth on the other. The sad thing is that those who are on the side of the right will be those who the world deems the problem and will destroy thinking they actually are doing god a favor. The blind will be leading the blind, wrong will be toted as right and right will be toted as wrong. Even now I feel the world tilting and not to far in the future it will be upside down.

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      *rolls eyes* don’t be such a drama queen

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Drama is what you sit clued behind every day of your life in the form of UNHOLYWOOD & Facebook and now you can no longer us reason or logic. Turn off the propaganda and fiction and open the words of the CREATOR and study truth then you may understand the difference between drama and truth.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          Oh looky here someone else who thinks he/she knows me. Which creator? Yours not mine.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            You were not created from nothing, nor a pool of slime but by a loving CREATOR whether you believe it or not does not make it any less true.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Whatever makes you happy. I believe in evolution, not in your creator.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            And having made your choice … enjoy your nothingness and cesspool .

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            ROFLMAO!!! Oh my, almost spilled my tea. You’re a hoot!

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Oh NO hope it didn’t make you melt or revert back to slim.

  • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

    “Ultimately this is a triumph for out-and-out nihilism, not just Belgium’s inventive euthanasia lobby. Nihilism is a philosophical fad which seems to catching on in the world of bioethics,”

    I consider this to be a triumph for ethics and empathy. Allowing anyone, against their will, to suffer great pain and psychological horror facing certain, slow, agonizing death is immoral.

    Too, it has nothing to do with nihilism. Christians have the wrong headed view that if one isn’t a Christian, and especially if one is an atheist, then he is immoral. Such a view is born from ignorance of ethical, social philosophy.

  • 1PierreMontagne1

    Europe and the world fought Hitler. One of the detestable things that Hitler had imposed was societal Euthanasia especially for those deemed hopeless by State bureaucrats.
    Now the EU under the leadership of Brussels is doing exactly what Hitler wanted.
    WWII it seems was just a waste of time.