Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The ultimate freedom is to live. When the government can decide - sans charges of criminal behavior - that someone isn't fit to remain alive... What rights do you have? If you haven't a right to live, the right to free speech on your headstone isn't exactly a worthwhile liberty.
I agree 100% with you. But this story and this proposed law has nothing whatsoever to do with a government deciding whether or when someone is or is not fit to remain alive. In fact, it has do with the government removing itself from that decision.
According to the law, there are no age restrictions. Some Flemish christian democrats asked for a ban on euthanesia for minors under the age of 15, but this is pointless, as current Belgian laws on patient's rights already give minors under the age of 15 the right to refuse medical treatment, even in life treathening situations.
The law points out that it's the minor who should ask. That the minor's suffering needs to be unbearable and hopeless. That he/sher should be able to grasp the concept of "death". According to the law, this has to be evaluated by a physician teamed up with a psychologist/psychiatrist. The parents need to concent. If a pysician can't meet the patient's demand, due to ethical considerations (religious or otherwise), he's oblidged to transfer the patient to another physician.
Let's not be hypocrit on this: euthanesia is performed all the time, all around the world, under a veil of secrecy and hypocrisy.
The medical profession can perform miracles, but there are more then enough instances where nothing more can be done, except preventing as much as possible human suffering and misery. But even that isn't always possible.
The law has nothing to do with "death panels" nor with cost considerations. We have a system of governement-founded health care. Here, all considerations regarding treatment are a matter between physician and patient and between physician and patient only. Belgian law is very clear and very strict on that.
Remember that little girl who needed the lung transplant? Remember the hell Sebelius and the HHS put her parents through? She was just the first, and she was lucky because she was the first and there was so much attention paid to it in the MSM.
Jump ahead a couple years now...a whole lot of baby-boomers will be using up a whole lot of resources for the healthcare, and children who need lung transplants or bone-marrow transplants for childhood leukemia could well start falling through the cracks.
Her own physicians didn't want her to have the lung transplant. Had we let them decide - she would certainly not have gotten any lungs.
So . . who will decide? The physicians who are also worried about cost? The Courts who know little about medicine? Or the family?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
Euthanasia and liquidation are a major part of the Progressive platform. It always has been. Planned parenthood was started by a huge progressive for that very reason. Look for the Progs here to seek the same.
WHAT an unadulterated load of baseless self-Righteous hyperbole!
I a so tempted to say something along the lines of "Physician, heal thyself", but that would be wrong. So I won't.
Quote:
Remember that little girl who needed the lung transplant? Remember the hell Sebelius and the HHS put her parents through? She was just the first, and she was lucky because she was the first and there was so much attention paid to it in the MSM.
It was a medical panel - y'know, highly competent doctors - who laid out the guidelines for transplants. We have those guidelines because it is a hard fact that the need for donor organs is way beyond the supply. And because statistically, child recipients of adult donor lungs do not tend to do well. These are some damn cold decisions, and I do not envy those who have to make them.
The girl's doctors disagreed.
Who, apart from a government-appointed entity ruled by law, should make the decision then? Flip a coin? Auction?
As it happens, she rejected the first set of lungs and is now on her second set. We will never know if that first set of lungs could have saved a life, and we will never know the face of the patient who died for lack of those lungs.
You can hate Sebelius all you want, but those were still the facts of the case.
And it has bugger-all to do with the Belgian law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
