Doctors at the first hospital -
They refused the twins because they, far more qualified than me and you, didn’t see the twins are satisfying the criteria needed for euthanasia.
Allowing euthanasia of non-terminally ill makes sense in cases where extreme pain can last for years, it was not meant (I hope so) to create a hole in the law but to make sure euthanasia is applied right there where it is most needed: when someone suffers extreme pain but cannot die yet.
In the spirit of calming the tensions, I invite you to tone it down.
Different hospital -
True, I’m also huge fan of second, third and if needed be, fourth opinion.
People should seek second opinion whenever possible.
My point was that it’s very indicative that you (not only you personally, it’s a figure of speech, the humanity in general) have equally qualified professionals working in the same practice, reviewing the same case and yet the final professional opinions were different.
It indicates – in my opinion – that the law was written too vague and thus left too much room for misinterpretations. Deliberate or accidental.
I think that artificially ending lives cannot be left to the vague definitions and laws, because that is simply too dangerous.
Edited by Helen of Annoy, 20 January 2013 - 12:03 PM.