The creeping 'culture of death'

Euthanasia vote in Belgium is chilling

  • Follow Editorials

Belgium, which legalized euthanasia for adults in 2002, could soon extend that “right” to terminally ill children.

The European nation’s Senate voted recently to remove any age restrictions on the practice. If the lower house of parliament approves the legislation, Belgium would become the first nation to allow children younger than 12 to choose to die.

The Senate proposal does have some conditions:

• The child would have to be conscious of the decision and understand the meaning of euthanasia.

• The child’s parents and medical team would have to approve the decision.

• The child would have to be terminally ill and in great pain, with no treatment available to alleviate it.

In an open letter, 16 Belgian pediatricians had urged legislators to approve the practice, apparently to give themselves legal cover. One of the measure’s leading supporters said children already are being euthanized in some Belgian hospitals.

In other words, since the killing is happening, the killing should be legal.

That logic reflects “the culture of death” decried by Pope John Paul II. The jump from abortion to euthanasia, even euthanasia of children, is a short one in a world that measures people’s value by yardsticks such as quality of life (as determined by whom?) and productivity.

It is perhaps fitting that the opponents in the 50-17 vote – a disparity that reflects Western Europe’s growing secularization – were mostly conservative Christian Democrats. Outside of parliament, however, criticism crossed the lines of faith.

“We mark our opposition to this extension and express our trepidation in the face of the risk of a growing trivialization of such a grave reality,” Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders said in a statement.

As columnist Cal Thomas noted, “This is the problem when humanity does not accept an Authority higher than itself, an Authority that holds life, all life, however inconvenient, however tiresome, infinitely valuable.”

Apart from the philosophical and religious questions, there is the potential for abuse. What is to prevent parents, unable to bear the thought of seeing their child suffer, from pressuring that child to reluctantly submit? Or what about similar pressure from the medical staff, who, if the 16 pediatricians who called for the bill’s passage are to be believed, are inclined to prescribe death?

And how long will those conditions remain in effect? At what point might the medical staff be given the right to override the wishes of the parents and the child? Or when might governmental or legal authorities decide that they have the right to make that decision?

One Belgian senator, Christian Democrat Els Van Hoof, said more effort should be made to ease the children’s suffering rather than to kill them.

“We think that children don’t understand the character of death; they don’t understand the irreversibility of death,” she said during the Senate debate. “They are also influenced by authority, by their parents, by the medical team. So, to take a decision which is a huge decision about their death, we don’t think that they are capable of doing it.”

Comments (37) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
myfather15
59556
Points
myfather15 01/02/14 - 06:13 am
9
1
Progressivism!!!

This IS progressivism at it's finest. There is no stopping it, or limits to how far it will go!! When you go the way of secularism, there is no moral limits on what mankind can do, because it is MANKIND who ultimately decides!! THAT is scary!!

With the radical leaders we have today, it's scary to think that mankinds moral code is the highest authority!!

If I didn't believe in the Savior, I wouldn't have any hope at all; because I have NONE for mankind!! With the radical leaders we have today, possessing nuclear weapons; it's only a matter of time before they are used in MASS!! N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Russia!! Think of the leaders of these Countries; you think they wouldn't use them, if they were threatened with loss of power?

teaparty
11313
Points
teaparty 01/02/14 - 08:43 am
7
1
The older people will have
Unpublished

The older people will have bureaucrats, death panels, deciding when they should die or live.

David Parker
7923
Points
David Parker 01/02/14 - 09:05 am
4
0
What do you tell a child

What do you tell a child (looking them in the eye) who is begging for mercy b/c every breath they take causes excruciating pain and there is " no treatment available to alleviate it." Think in terms of blood cancer or something that just riddles the body with poison and chaos.

Just curious if the answer is based on what would benefit the conscience of someone other than the child. Mebbe it's a required suffering that we just have to endure because of the "Plan" and unfortunately, this plan included torturing a child.

dahreese
4961
Points
dahreese 01/02/14 - 10:32 am
2
5
In several ways this is a
Unpublished

In several ways this is a thoughtful topic.

However, its good discussion points are contradicted and ruined by the misguided statement, "In other words, since the killing is happening, the killing should be legal."

The topic is "euthanasia", not "killing."

There is a difference.

Certainly such a decision about 'allowing' a loved one to die (and not be 'killed') in this instance we are discussing a child, must be decided by competent, professional people and the family of the child.

Any 'minister' of any 'faith', or anyone else for that matter, who is willing to let a child suffer, or an adult suffer for that matter, because 'it is the will of god' to keep them alive, is NOT a man of god.

dahreese
4961
Points
dahreese 01/02/14 - 10:41 am
2
5
"The older people will have
Unpublished

"The older people will have bureaucrats, death panels, deciding when they should die or live."

There are cases where that might be the best thing to do.

Some other things to think about;

Are you qualified to take your loved one home with you and YOU take care of them 24/7.

Are you financially able to leave your loved one in the hospital until they die and run up unnecessary medical bills that neither you, nor they, nor anyone else in the family can't pay.

Also, suppose that hospital bed is needed for someone who is not near death, but needs medical attention. Suppose that person is you or a member of your family.

deestafford
37143
Points
deestafford 01/02/14 - 10:43 am
5
2
If euthanasia is not killing...

If euthanasia is not killing, why is not a person alive after they have been euthanized?

dahreese
4961
Points
dahreese 01/02/14 - 10:53 am
2
3
"If euthanasia is not
Unpublished

"If euthanasia is not killing, why is not a person alive after they have been euthanized?"

If I am shot and die, or I die in a car accident, have I been euthanized?

About time you used a dictionary.

allhans
25528
Points
allhans 01/02/14 - 12:05 pm
4
1
"If I am shot and die, or I

"If I am shot and die, or I die in a car accident, have I been euthanized? ....................

NO! You were killed.

Bulldog
1357
Points
Bulldog 01/02/14 - 12:29 pm
4
0
Moot point

The increasing use and knowledge of deep sedation for the terminally ill is gradually making this a moot question. The ethical issue of whether deep sedation is the equivalent of euthanasia is obviously still being debated...

teaparty
11313
Points
teaparty 01/02/14 - 03:18 pm
4
1
"There are cases where that
Unpublished

"There are cases where that might be the best thing to do."
Hopefully a bureaucrat will get to decide your fate I would rather have my family making decisions for me.

harley_52
29639
Points
harley_52 01/02/14 - 03:35 pm
4
1
I Want To Make The Decision Myself....

And if I'm incapable, I want it made by a family member.

And if there's no family member available, I want it made by a Conservative.

Before a "progressive" makes the decision, I want somebody else to shoot me.

dahreese
4961
Points
dahreese 01/02/14 - 04:13 pm
1
2
The two answers above are
Unpublished

The two answers above are prime examples of people who don't comprehend what they've read.

The article itself mentions "FAMILY."

myfather15
59556
Points
myfather15 01/02/14 - 04:23 pm
2
1
dahreese

Do you know how many people have survived diseases that doctors claimed were incurable? Do you know how many have came back from coma's AFTER many years? How many have survived traumatic brain injuries that many thought wouldn't? So which HUMAN BEING, gets to decide when that time has come, to lose any, and all hope? You? Me? Obama?

This is EXACTLY progressivism!! If we allow MANKIND to make those decisions, there is no stopping it. THEN, it would be completely possible that MANKIND could eventually decide ALL people that were worthy to live or die!! Don't believe me? Just watch a video of George Benard Shaw!! He believed society should judge ALL people and whether they were a positive to society, or a negative; whether you were "putting in more than you are taking out" and if the answer is no, then YOU could be done away with!! THIS, is the progressive society!!!

Just as we've went from abortion to partial birth abortion!! If this is considered acceptable, it would progress until other MEN could determine whether YOU are worthy of life!! That is an absolutely HORRIBLE thought!! As a conservative, you think I want a panel of liberals, deciding whether I'm worthy to live or not?

And don't say this is ridiculous; because just as you believe euthanasia is something to think about, many believe we would live in a better society if we kill people who disagree with them.

Maybe Osama Bin Laden could have decided whether YOU are worthy of life!! Maybe William Ayers could decide whether I'm worthy of life? Maybe Ward Churchhill could make that decision? Why don't we ask the "Weather Underground" who they believe is worthy of life? Since, in their own words, under THEIR system of government, 25 million people would have to be "done away with".

harley_52
29639
Points
harley_52 01/02/14 - 04:24 pm
4
1
"The article itself mentions "FAMILY."

No, it does not.

It does discuss some issues dealing with parents/children, but the word "FAMILY" is never used.

Do you comprehend what you read, or just make up what you want it to say?

One thing for sure, my parents won't be around to influence my decision one way or the other.

myfather15
59556
Points
myfather15 01/02/14 - 04:26 pm
3
2
dahreese

Yes, but PROGRESSION can go from family, to doctor's to government!!! If we do NOT adamently say there are lines we WILL NOT cross, then there is NO limit on how far we can go!! Families now, doctor's later, then politicians!! Where is the line YOU would draw? You sure have a lot of trust in mankind!!

myfather15
59556
Points
myfather15 01/02/14 - 04:32 pm
3
2
Absolutely astonishing!!

["]"The older people will have bureaucrats, death panels, deciding when they should die or live."["]

"There are cases where that might be the best thing to do."

Cases, where killing someone is the best thing to do!! This is scary beyond belief!! THIS, is the type society and mentality we are progressing towards? Wow!!! I'm so very thankful that we do have a Savior!!

dahreese, I can definately tell you're a George Benard Shaw fan!!

harley_52
29639
Points
harley_52 01/02/14 - 04:35 pm
3
1
Once The Right To Kill A Helpless Human Life....

...before it's born becomes acceptable and commonplace in a society it's not a giant leap to make it acceptable to end the life of of a helpless human being who happens to be old, or sick, not young.

It's all part of the plan. The government knows best and the government is in control.

fedex227
11192
Points
fedex227 01/02/14 - 05:03 pm
4
3
I wish you conservatives would make up your minds.
Unpublished

Do you want the government stepping in and making deeply personal decisions for you or not? You guys are making my head spin.

Bizkit
39919
Points
Bizkit 01/02/14 - 05:05 pm
3
1
This probably reflects the

This probably reflects the demise of Christianity through Europe and the region. The sanctity of life has little meaning in the world of science and humanism. I know personally as an atheist and scientist most of my life I always thought it an ignorant distinction to hold man separate from any other animal-no real difference between killing a mouse or man (both are along the same tree of life for mammals and related). I always thought the distinction was based on the lunacy of religion that human life is "special" in the image of a god no less. Late in life I realized I was wrong. This is interesting with the recent "hope" still being held for the brain dead girl after a recent surgery to remove her appendix. I'm conflicted because if my child I would still hold hope, but my other side sees this child could be an organ donor and the longer they wait her organs will start failing. I don't think a child has the maturity nor understanding to make these life and death decisions.

Bizkit
39919
Points
Bizkit 01/02/14 - 05:15 pm
2
1
Terminally ill children will

Terminally ill children will likely die-but not always. My father was a physician and if alive he could recount countless times he told someone of pending death and they survived. It depends on the illness and the individual. So statistically they will murder some children who could survive their illness. Unlike older adults, children often survive cancer and even traumatic brain injuries.

harley_52
29639
Points
harley_52 01/02/14 - 05:28 pm
2
0
"Unlike older adults, children often survive cancer....

....and even traumatic brain injuries."

Not to diminish your point, but I hope your dad didn't tell you that older adults couldn't survive "cancer and even traumatic brain injuries."

They can, and sometimes do. They never do if someone kills them first, however.

teaparty
11313
Points
teaparty 01/02/14 - 05:37 pm
3
1
What ObamaCare is Really
Unpublished

What ObamaCare is Really About

I'm a 54 year old consulting engineer and make between $60,000 and $125,000 per year, depending on how hard I work and whether or not there are work projects out there for me.

My girlfriend is 61 and makes about $18,000 per year, working as a part-time mail clerk.

For me, making $60,000 a year, under Obamacare, the cheapest, lowest grade policy I can buy, which also happens to impose a $5,000 deductible, costs $482 per month.

For my girlfriend, the same exact policy, same deductible, costs $1 per month. That's right, $1 per month. I'm not making this up.

Don't believe me? Just go to www.coveredca.gov , the ObamaCare website for California and enter the parameters I've mentioned above and see for yourself. By the way, my zip code is 93940. You'll need to enter that.

So OK, clearly ObamaCare is a scheme that involves putting the cost burden of healthcare onto the middle and upper-income wage earners. But there's a lot more to it. Stick with me.

And before I make my next points, I'd like you to think about something:

I live in Monterey County, in Central California. We have a large land mass but just 426,000 residents - about the population of Colorado Springs or the city of Omaha.

But we do have a large Hispanic population, including a large number of illegal aliens, and to serve this group we have Natividad Medical Center, a massive, Federally subsidized county medical complex that takes up an area about one-third the size of the Chrysler Corporation automobile assembly plant in Belvedere, Illinois (see Google Earth View). Natividad has state-of-the-art operating rooms, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, fully equipped, 24 hour emergency room, and much more. If you have no insurance, if you've been in a drive-by shooting or have overdosed on crack cocaine, this is where you go. And it's essentially free, because almost everyone who ends up in the ER is uninsured.

Last year, 2,735 babies were born at Natividad. 32% of these were born to out-of-wedlock teenage mothers, 93% of which were Hispanic. Less than 20% could demonstrate proof of citizenship, and 71% listed their native language as Spanish. Of these 876 births, only 40 were covered under [any kind of] private health insurance. The taxpayers paid for the other 836. And in case you were wondering about the entire population - all 2,735 births - less than 24% involved insured coverage or even partial payment on behalf of the patient to the hospital in exchange for services. Keep this in mind as we move forward.

Now consider this:

If I want to upgrade my policy to a low-deductible premium policy, such as what I had with my last employer, my cost is $886 per month. But my girlfriend can upgrade her policy to the very same level, for just $4 per month. That's right, $4 per month. $48 per year for a zero-deductible, premium healthcare policy - the kind of thing you get when you work at IBM (except of course, IBM employees pay an average of $170 per month out of pocket for their coverage).

I mean, it's bad enough that I will be forced to subsidize the ObamaCare scheme in the first place. But even if I agreed with the basic scheme, which of course I do not, I would never agree to subsidize premium policies. If I have to pay $482 a month for a budget policy, I sure as hell do not want the guy I'm subsidizing to get a better policy, for less that 1% of what I have to fork out each month for a low-end policy.

Why must I pay $482 per month for something the other guy gets for a dollar? And why should the other guy get to buy an $886 policy for $4 a month? Think about this: I have to pay $10,632 a year for the same thing that the other guy can get for $48. $10,000 of net income is 60 days of full time work as an engineer. $48 is something I could could pay for collecting aluminum cans and plastic bottles, one day a month.

Are you with me on this? Are you starting to get an idea what ObamaCare is really about?

ObamaCare is not about dealing with inequities in the healthcare system. That's just the cover story. The real story is that it is a massive, political power grab. Do you think anyone who can insure himself with a premium policy for $4 a month will vote for anyone but the political party that provides him such a deal? ObamaCare is about enabling, subsidizing, and expanding the Left's political power base, at taxpayer expense. Why would I vote for anyone but a Democrat if I can have babies for $4 a month? For that matter, why would I go to college or strive for a better job or income if it means I have to pay real money for healthcare coverage? Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlub for $20K per year and buy a new F-150 with all the money I'm saving?

And think about those $4-a-month babies - think in terms of propagation models. Think of just how many babies will be born to irresponsible, under-educated mothers. Will we get a new crop of brain surgeons and particle physicists from the dollar baby club, or will we need more cops, criminal courts and prisons? One thing you can be certain of: At $4 a month, they'll multiply, and multiply, and multiply. And not one of them will vote Republican.

ObamaCare: It's all about political power.

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 01/02/14 - 05:43 pm
0
3
editorial

"That logic reflects “the culture of death” decried by Pope John Paul II. The jump from abortion to euthanasia, even euthanasia of children, is a short one in a world that measures people’s value by yardsticks such as quality of life (as determined by whom?) and productivity"

There are many things that I don't agree with ACES, BUT this may be ranked amoung the most subjects that I don't agree with!!!! Euthanasia MUST be afforded to ANY BODY that feels that life is no longer "LIKEABLE"!! One should be afforded to die if one desires it!! Let us face it, life in this day and age is terrible to say the least!! Wars, fammen, hatred, political in-fighting ALL effect our view of life as it is today!! People say that euthanasia is the ultimate sin, because one does not have time to confess to this sin. As a person who has tried to commit suicide, perhaps more than once, I say that people should be afforded the right to end their lives in as painless of a way as possible!!!!

nocnoc
54665
Points
nocnoc 01/02/14 - 05:46 pm
4
0
Soylent Green has to come from somewhere

Was at a local sporting goods store buying some 22cal last week and got to speaking to a young salesperson. We got off guns and ammo and on to the subject of books.

I was amazed he had never read Atlas Shrugs, Soylent Green, or 1984. He had never even heard of the books. Him being 22-25 surely he must of, but Nope none of the 3.

After discussing the books we got on the subject of Nursing homes and he was very open that he had already decided to place his father when the time came in 15 to 20 years.

It dawned on me this is the "Use it & trash it" generation.
They buy something, use it, get bored with it and dispose of it and get a new one.

Why should expect him to treat life or family any different?

dahreese
4961
Points
dahreese 01/02/14 - 05:44 pm
1
2
"One thing for sure, my
Unpublished

"One thing for sure, my parents won't be around to influence my decision one way or the other."

You may not be sane enough to influence the decision, either.

Think about it.
-----------------------------------------------

My dad was the one lying on the bed in a coma, but I was the one who had to make the decision to let him die.
----------------------------------------
And for Jesus sake! this conversation is not about OBAMA !!!

harley_52
29639
Points
harley_52 01/02/14 - 05:44 pm
3
0
Teaparty....

Excellent post.

You've nailed it and you've presented data that makes it all perfectly clear. Also, your conclusions are right on target.

Here's the sad truth, however......

Most people don't care. They view you as one of the dreaded, hated "rich" who deserve to get screwed. They think you are "rich" because you got your education and your good jobs by stepping on them on the way up.

Income inequality. It's NOT FAIR for you to make more than them. You should be PUNISHED for it.

Logic and reason don't cut it with this group.

And it's all part of the plan.....

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 01/02/14 - 05:49 pm
1
3
Teaparty @ 8:43

"The older people will have bureaucrats, death panels, deciding when they should die or live"

These so-called death panels do not and will not exist under Obamacare! If people are of sound mind and body, and are suffering from mental and or physical pain, then euthanasia MUST be afforded to that person!!!!

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 01/02/14 - 05:53 pm
0
3
David Parker @ 9:05

"What do you tell a child (looking them in the eye) who is begging for mercy b/c every breath they take causes excruciating pain and there is " no treatment available to alleviate it." Think in terms of blood cancer or something that just riddles the body with poison and chaos"

I am not quite sure which side you are on, BUT I agree with this part of your comment!! Euthanasia MUST BE afforded to ALL that are tired of living in what can easily be called a hell-hole!!!!

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 01/02/14 - 05:58 pm
1
2
Dahreese @ 10:32

"Any 'minister' of any 'faith', or anyone else for that matter, who is willing to let a child suffer, or an adult suffer for that matter, because 'it is the will of god' to keep them alive, is NOT a man of god"

I DO NOT AGREE with your not capitalizing "GOD", BUT I do agree with the rest of your comment very, very much!!

harley_52
29639
Points
harley_52 01/02/14 - 06:06 pm
2
0
teaparty....One More Thing...

Your girlfriend's $1/month policy has the same deductible as yours and so do the policies of others making the same kind of money she does. Obviously, they can't afford the deductibles. So....what happens?

Do doctors refuse to treat her? Does the government step in and "subsidize" her deductibles. I'm not picking on your girlfriend, just trying to make a bigger point. In the same sense these people's premiums are "subsidized," so will be their "deductibles."

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs