Belgian twins choose euthenasia

[Render]

I’m able to argument my opinion, with more than screaming for unrestricted choice. If that frustrates you, you are welcome to present actual arguments that would make me change my opinion and accept utter egotism as the most logical social model.

Oh really?

I blame educational system for this awkwardness of yours, but you should be able to notice yourself it is not working.

You’re not giving up your cute pictures instead of arguments approach, huh?

Oh, well, everyone within their own limitations... could you draw me something in crayons? To soften my heart that refuses to believe in socially accepted murders?

Yes, my dear apparently over-praised child, it may set the justified euthanasia practice back, because obviously the controversy with which this case is ripe will hurt the already highly controversial issue that euthanasia is.

Yeah, a real class act you are. Maybe take a break from the forum because it's obviously all a lil bit too much for you. Get some self-insight.

You simply keep on refusing the arguments so you can carry on throwing around your insults. This thread and the twins their lives isn't about you, no one has be a martyr for you. Especially since you absolutely cannot place yourself in their shoes. You've made that very clear. The only one with a bloated self-esteem here is you.

The others are simply discussing a dire case and trying to imagine what it is really like to be in such a position.

You're lil ranting spree brings no value to this thread.

But maybe, when you're old enough, you'll find that thinking about where other ppl come from, really think about it, is important in a discussion. Because without it you have no place to judge anything.

[Helen of Annoy]

Oh really?

Yeah, a real class act you are. Maybe take a break from the forum because it's obviously all a lil bit too much for you. Get some self-insight.

You simply keep on refusing the arguments so you can carry on throwing around your insults. This thread and the twins their lives isn't about you, no one has be a martyr for you. Especially since you absolutely cannot place yourself in their shoes. You've made that very clear. The only one with a bloated self-esteem here is you.

The others are simply discussing a dire case and trying to imagine what it is really like to be in such a position.

You're lil ranting spree brings no value to this thread.

But maybe, when you're old enough, you'll find that thinking about where other ppl come from, really think about it, is important in a discussion. Because without it you have no place to judge anything.

Ya, rly.

Obviously you guys are not used to the grownup discussion.

You have to argument your demands before anyone agrees with them, it is not enough to roll on the store floor screaming until mommy buys you the candy.

I think I was more than clear in more than enough posts but I will rephrase one more time, just for you:

Euthanasia is needed practice, for people who cannot be helped by any other procedure and who are suffering the extreme pain.

If the definition of euthanasia is stretched to cover assisting any suicide, solely on suicidal person request, and legalised as such (note the difference between stretched, arbitrary and real, justified euthanasia) it will be misused out the lowest motives for the lowest purposes.

Explain why the danger of misuse is not existing, or if you agree the danger is there why it is acceptable in your opinion.

[Render]

I have already explained i believe, but i think the problem here is we are talking in parallels. I wanted to explain further but your lil attitude is very annoying and just makes me think speaking with you is completely pointless.

You just can't help it to act like everyone, who doesn't agree with you and brings multiple arguments to the able, is a 6 year old. Sad.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Render

[Rlyeh]

You've been answered more than twice and it's still you that fail to accept unjustified euthanasia is not euthanasia but murder, which is still illegal.

Belgium allows euthanasia of the non-terminally ill.

http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(03)14520-5/fulltext

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/38067870_Legal_euthanasia_in_Belgium_characteristics_of_all_reported_euthanasia_cases/file/79e4150ad3edc71fae.pdf

Since you're making the accusation. Put up or shut up.

It’s you that should provide evidence the doctors in the first hospital who refused the twin’s demand are less qualified than those who killed them.

There is no law preventing someone going to a different hospital.

[Helen of Annoy]

I have already explained i believe, but i think the problem here is we are talking in parallels. I wanted to explain further but your lil attitude is very annoying and just makes me think speaking with you is completely pointless.

You just can't help it to act like everyone, who doesn't agree with you are brings multiple arguments to the able, is a 6 year old. Sad.

OK, let’s drop the attitude. Both you and me, because it was your uncalled for sarcasm that started my **** avalanche.

So, ready?

I say that suffering individuals need help and I agree the euthanasia is needed last resort.

I insist on euthanasia being strictly controlled and last resort only.

I fear misuse in case it was taken too lightly, both by society and legislation.

Where do we agree and where do we not agree?

[Helen of Annoy]

Belgium allows euthanasia of the non-terminally ill.

http://www.lancet.co...4520-5/fulltext

http://www.researchg...ad3edc71fae.pdf

Since you're making the accusation. Put up or shut up.

There is no law preventing someone going to a different hospital.

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 January 20, 2013 by Helen of Annoy

[shadowlark]

All three definitions translate to the same, and according to them, blindness and depression don’t justify killing, except if you stretch them far beyond their original meaning.

And when you start stretching definitions, you are bound to have their meaning completely lost and the practice misused.

Already in this thread you can see one more definition of euthanasia: “Killing anyone who comes in and says they would like to die. No questions asked, it was their choice.”

It depends how you interpret the definitions. To you, blindness isn't an incurable condition that leads to suffering. To others, such as the twins in question, it does. Without knowing more specifics about these twins, I don't think we can judge if they made the right decision.

As to this definition: "“Killing anyone who comes in and says they would like to die. No questions asked, it was their choice.” I think we both agree that there has to be questions asked, mandatory counselling, etc.

People with serious problems are often even more susceptible to suggestion, so if euthanasia is not very controlled and its definition is not kept un-stretched, it’s a matter of time, short time, before old people, people with arthritis, glaucoma, Down, various curable cancers, crooked teeth, bad breath, brown eyes etc. are talked into receiving mercy.

That's why a strict definition and strict controls must be in place. If said definition/controls would have denied the twins, so be it. But the things you listed above don't necessarily lead to suffering. I don't know any one who suffers because they have crooked teeth or brown eyes. But yes, without proper controls, it could be a slippery slope.

I say that suffering individuals need help and I agree the euthanasia is needed last resort.

I insist on euthanasia being strictly controlled and last resort only.

I fear misuse in case it was taken too lightly, both by society and legislation.

I know this wasn't in response to me, but I agree 100%.