A recently proposed addendum to a 2002 Belgian euthanasia
bill extending euthanasia rights to children has – not surprisingly – been
causing a lot of turmoil this winter. The tenets of the bill strive to broaden
the array of options available to children in dire straits by allowing them the
same right to die currently held by adults. The amendment to the law allows any
child enduring “constant and unbearable physical suffering” and with “capacity
for discernment” to make the decision, with parental consent, to end his life.
The basic
principles of the general controversy over euthanasia rest on considerations of
the rights of the two people involved: the patient, and the physician. Proponents
of euthanasia back the concept on the grounds that a terminally ill patient or
one enduring an inordinate amount of suffering should have the right to end their
suffering in a humane, dignified manner. Opponents of the idea emphasize the
role of the physician, particularly given a physician’s duty to extend the
patient’s life for as long as possible, and express concern over the potential
for abuse of hypothetical legislation.
Belgium is a
pioneer in euthanasia legislation amidst a host of substantially warier
neighbors. The debate over the most recent amendment has sparked the attention
and fervor of physicians, legislators, and religious leaders alike. Opposition
to the amendment is primarily structured around concern over a child’s ability
to make the decision to end his/her life. Attention has repeatedly been called
to the lack of consistency in allowing children to make the decision in
question while continuing to consider them legally incapable of making decisions
in other areas of criminal and civil law, such as marriage. Many are also leery
of how nebulously defined “capacity for discernment” is, particularly in
considering whether or not a child fully understands the implications of
choosing to end his/her life. A number of legislators and religious leaders believe
that children will inherently be vulnerable to pressure and as such, cannot be trusted
to have full autonomy of choice. Those who back the bill have been very
responsive to the opposition. Many argue that given that adults are granted the
right to die, it is unjust to thereby deprive another percentage of the
population that right. Most supporters of the bill see it as a way of giving
children compassionate options in desperate circumstances rather than forcing
them into painful or unbearable circumstances, such as enduring a great amount
of ineradicable suffering for lack of other options. Physicians, rather than
evading the claims of the opposition that “capacity to decide” is simply too
ambiguously ascertained, acknowledge the difficulty in such judgment, but claim
that experience has shown that in the face of death, children can often be seen
to develop an abnormal maturity and ability to reflect.
Thus far in the senate, there is an
overwhelming large amount of support for the bill, with only 17 of the 71
members voting against the measure.
No comments:
Post a Comment