Should children have a say in ending their own life?

[momhappy]

Much easier to say you would do it than to actually have to do it.

Disagree.
Been there...

I don't hold the market on loss.

I just ask that you respect responses..

I didn't respond to agree..

I shared what is my experience.

I don't believe that the comment by AprilBaby was meant to be disrespectful. I think she was just pointing out that this choice, like many choices in life, is one of things that you can't possibly know how you might respond unless you are actually put in the position to make the decision. I have children and I have absolutely no idea how I would respond in a situation where we were dealing with a terminal illness. It's one thing to say how you think you might handle, but it's another thing entirely to actually be in that position.

 

[dk168]

I voted "Other" as I believe the ability of the child to understand his/her circumstances needs to be taken into consideration, and not just the age alone.

DK

 

[arkieb1]

I think it depends on the age of the child, the emotional maturity of the child and a whole heap of other things in the context of a terminal situation. A three year old, even one wise beyond their years doesn't automatically have the mental ability to understand the finality of death for example. I am not making a judgement call on it being right or wrong having witnessed two family members die very slowly in a lot of pain, I am merely pointing out that not all children are wise beyond their years and some may not have the mental ability to make that type of decision.

 

[packrat]

When my Uncle lay there dying, my gramma, his step mom, had a horrible time dealing with it. Horrible. Part of her suffering was the fact that at those stages, what else is there to do but stand around and stare at someone and watch them die, wait for them to die? There is no grace, no dignity, no respect, no privacy, no control, no logic, no *nothing*. He had no control over his bowels and bladder. Is that how I want my kids to die? Writhing around w/no control over motor functions, then suddenly still so that there is a rush to see if he's gone that fast. Then during the quiet moments holding his hand, talking about memories, then just as suddenly the writhing starts so that the family has to rush to help get your hand out of his insanely strong grip before your fingers are crushed. Your aunt staring in disbelief and chanting "this isn't him this isn't my husband why is this happening" and my gramma shaking her head and saying in her quivery voice "it shouldn't be this way it shouldn't end this way this isn't right he deserves better than this we love him more than this he's a person not an object"

No. I love my children. I would go to the ends of the earth for them. And they deserve to have the end of their lives handled with love.

When my grampa Doc died, he knew, somehow. He gave gramma a hug, said I love you, and fell over from a heart attack. I was 13 and a grampa's girl, utterly devastated that I didn't get to say goodbye. When my cousin's grampa was dying, it took months, and it was slow and it was devastating and heart rending for her family in a way I'd never seen before. And that's how it was for my Uncle. When my grampa died, it was a shock to the system and there was sadness, but the laughter that follows, the good memories, came fast. When my uncle died, there was more relief, all the sadness had been pounded on the hospital walls and screamed at the staff in weak moments, the family was completely wrung out, emotionally and mentally. There was a quietness and a relief, after. Everyone standing around like...oh..sooo...well let's make arrangements...like nobody knew what to do now that we weren't standing around his bed anymore, waiting for it to happen. It took a while for the laughter and good memories to come..they had to push past the horrors or watching a loved one die.

I don't want my kids to be remembered that way. And I don't want them to suffer the indignities that are foisted upon the dying. I want them to go on their terms.

 

[aljdewey]

I have to believe that anyone who has received imminently terminal diagnosis--adult or child--understands finality much more than any of us can. For us, it's an abstract concept; for them, it's an impending certainty.

Whether or not a young child perceives death in the same way a mature adult does is kind of immaterial at that point. There is nothing more final than death - it is coming. The choice we're talking about giving them isn't about whether to live or die; they are going to die. It's strictly about how much letting them choose how much pain they'll endure (or not) before it happens.

 

[anne_h]

I feel that the right to die is the mark of a progressive and civilized society.

Anne

 

[Dandi]

I said yes, but like everyone else don't even want to think about being in the position to end my child's life.

I've worked in paediatric oncology and have seen children as young as five, beg and plead their parents to take them home and cease treatment, in cases where last ditch efforts at remission would be long and painful. End of life involves cessation of treatment, and not necessarily active euthanasia. Those kids have, in most cases I've seen, gone home to their families, their own toys and own rooms, and with the assistance of analgesia, have spent days or weeks in relative comfort, just as they asked... often passing in their sleep unattached to monitors or other interventions.

I couldn't ever maintain a career in paed oncology, it is far too sad, but I'm glad I've seen so many instances where kids' wishes have been respected, and I am forever astounded at how sound of mind and mature such small children can be.

 

[hippi_pixi]

According to the newspaper article: "The law states a child would have to be terminally ill, face 'unbearable physical suffering' and make repeated requests to die - before euthanasia is considered. Parents, doctors and psychiatrists would have to agree before a decision is made."

Under these criterion, I am in favor of the legislation. It is a fact that not all pain can be managed or made bearable by medication.

I voted yes. I think being such a divisive topic makes people forget that these arn't happy slightly unhealthy kids that just need a higher dose of pain meds to enjoy more time with family, or just need to tough it out a bit longer to get healthy. It's not parents choosing to euthanise unhealthy kids because they don't love them enough.

These are children in 'unbearable physical suffering' despite what medicine has to offer them who have absolutely no chance of improvement. If they want to suffer on because they want more time and arn't ready then make them as comfortable and happy as possible but when they can't take any more suffering it would be a kindness to allow them peace

 

[Christina...]

I could never take the life of my child who was sick. I would see that they were not in constant pain because there is medication for that, and I would do everything in my power to make them as comfortable as possible and surround them with love every waking moment. Young children most certainly do not comprehend death and could not possibly make that kind of decision. That is one of the most horrible things I have ever heard. The old people there should be fearful because next they may decide that people over 75 are a burden to society and don't have a quality of life worth extending. Dangerous thinking, because once human life is devalued, you just don't know where it will lead.

I agree 100% with you. It's heading down a scary and dangerous path. I was so appalled when I heard this. No child, no matter how "mature" people think they are understand the finality. Human life is already devalued enough.

I'm not sure how to answer the original question but DS's mention of a dangerous path brought this article to mind. Deaf twins going blind were given enough permission in Belgium to be euthanized.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/14/deaf-belgian-twins-going-blind-euthanized/1834199/

 

[pregcurious]

It's a individual decision for each family to make. I feel very strongly about that.

By the way, pain is not always controllable unless you add sedation. I am for sedation over assisted death, but again, that's a personal decision.

 

[marymm]

I could never take the life of my child who was sick. I would see that they were not in constant pain because there is medication for that, and I would do everything in my power to make them as comfortable as possible and surround them with love every waking moment. Young children most certainly do not comprehend death and could not possibly make that kind of decision. That is one of the most horrible things I have ever heard. The old people there should be fearful because next they may decide that people over 75 are a burden to society and don't have a quality of life worth extending. Dangerous thinking, because once human life is devalued, you just don't know where it will lead.

I agree 100% with you. It's heading down a scary and dangerous path. I was so appalled when I heard this. No child, no matter how "mature" people think they are understand the finality. Human life is already devalued enough.

I'm not sure how to answer the original question but DS's mention of a dangerous path brought this article to mind. Deaf twins going blind were given enough permission in Belgium to be euthanized.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/14/deaf-belgian-twins-going-blind-euthanized/1834199/

I am not sure how this relates to a dangerous path - these were 45-year-old adult men of sound mind, born deaf, now going completely blind, making their own decision, backed by their family, and with medical assistance. Many, many adults rationally fear being both deaf and blind and the resultant loss of independence and control over one's life.

 

[dragonfly411]

I voted yes. If a child understands that they are not going to live much longer, and they express pain and sadness and express the desire to let go, that is their right as a human being. I would never want to prolong my child's life if they were in physical turmoil that could not be reversed.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

The question here is should children have a say in ending their own life. Perhaps a teenager who understands they are terminally ill could have a say, but certainly not the ability to choose on their own. If pain is going to be intolorable, and can't be controlled, all parties, Drs. and parents and older child can make the decision together. I would not ever consider a 3-11 yr old able to make such a decision. Yes, terminally ill children are very brave and appear to accept their illness better than adults under the same conditions. But, I would not agree this is because they are more mature, but only that they know no other life but being sick.

I think parents who would tell a young child they are terminal deprives the child of any semblence of a normal outlook on life. I would never do it. A teenager understands what is going on around them, so they end up knowing.

It is a slippery slope, and we must be vigilant not to go to far. Celebral palsy, Muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and cancers that are awful diseases to have, and can be extrememly difficult for the children who have them. IMO, we ought not to decide who should live and who should die. I have a different opinion on those that are brain dead and live on life support.


Annette

 

[Maria D]

From the article:

"The law states a child would have to be terminally ill, face "unbearable physical suffering" and make repeated requests to die - before euthanasia is considered.

Parents, doctors and psychiatrists would have to agree before a decision is made."

A suffering terminally child in Belgium isn't making this decision on his own by a long shot.

Of course, if one doesn't believe that euthanasia should be legal under these circumstances in the first place (which seems to be an undercurrent of opinion here) then one wouldn't want to extend the option to children.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I could never take the life of my child who was sick. I would see that they were not in constant pain because there is medication for that, and I would do everything in my power to make them as comfortable as possible and surround them with love every waking moment. Young children most certainly do not comprehend death and could not possibly make that kind of decision. That is one of the most horrible things I have ever heard. The old people there should be fearful because next they may decide that people over 75 are a burden to society and don't have a quality of life worth extending. Dangerous thinking, because once human life is devalued, you just don't know where it will lead.

I agree 100% with you. It's heading down a scary and dangerous path. I was so appalled when I heard this. No child, no matter how "mature" people think they are understand the finality. Human life is already devalued enough.

I'm not sure how to answer the original question but DS's mention of a dangerous path brought this article to mind. Deaf twins going blind were given enough permission in Belgium to be euthanized.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/14/deaf-belgian-twins-going-blind-euthanized/1834199/

The way that was worded I thought "How awful! Euthanized for being deaf and blind?!"

I'm glad that instead it is two grown men capable of making their own decisions. Who decided to end a life of suffering and total dependence. What kind of quality of life would it be to wake up each morning to silence and darkness? Now instead of relying on people in ways I'm sure would be invasive and humiliating, they can exit on their own terms, with dignity and control.

 

[kenny]

Be alert to word choice.
As with the abortion debate words are cleverly selected to pull you to the author's side.
One side would use endearing terms like unborn baby or child, whereas the other side would use clinical words like embryo, blastula, or fetus which don't pull on your heart strings.
Even Pro life vs. Pro choice ... using the word Pro makes both sound so right even though they are opposite sides.

Euthanasia has such a cold sound, like something Nazis used during the Holocaust.
Death with dignity, right to die, declining life-prolonging treatment sound so merciful, even loving.
Yet, both are the same thing.

Reader beware.

 

[Christina...]

I could never take the life of my child who was sick. I would see that they were not in constant pain because there is medication for that, and I would do everything in my power to make them as comfortable as possible and surround them with love every waking moment. Young children most certainly do not comprehend death and could not possibly make that kind of decision. That is one of the most horrible things I have ever heard. The old people there should be fearful because next they may decide that people over 75 are a burden to society and don't have a quality of life worth extending. Dangerous thinking, because once human life is devalued, you just don't know where it will lead.

I agree 100% with you. It's heading down a scary and dangerous path. I was so appalled when I heard this. No child, no matter how "mature" people think they are understand the finality. Human life is already devalued enough.

I'm not sure how to answer the original question but DS's mention of a dangerous path brought this article to mind. Deaf twins going blind were given enough permission in Belgium to be euthanized.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/14/deaf-belgian-twins-going-blind-euthanized/1834199/

I am not sure how this relates to a dangerous path - these were 45-year-old adult men of sound mind, born deaf, now going completely blind, making their own decision, backed by their family, and with medical assistance. Many, many adults rationally fear being both deaf and blind and the resultant loss of independence and control over one's life.

I think the dangerous path is that the law as I understood it pertained to people, not just children, that suffered from a terminal disease and were in unbearable pain. Perhaps because I have a deaf son I view deafness as neither painful or as you suggest something to fear and I certainly don't view it as something that should qualify for euthanasia even if accompanied by blindness. I agree though that we all fear what we don't know or don't understand. Yes, these were adult men who were supported by family and their doctors but I feel the slippery slope is, who decides what is too painful or too big a burden to carry? I'm fearful of spending the rest of my life in a wheel chair, but ask someone who does and I'm guessing most wouldn't support euthanizing me based on that fear. So, if I'm correct and the law is supposed to only pertain to individuals with terminal illness and who are suffering greatly then how were these men allowed to be euthanized? Should all people be afforded the right to decide how and when to end their life and should we expect them to be medically assisted should they choose to end their life for whatever reason? I don't know, but I do believe it's a dangerous path.

 

[Christina...]

Be alert to word choice.
As with the abortion debate words are cleverly selected to pull you to the author's side.
One side would use endearing terms like unborn baby or child, whereas the other side would use clinical words like embryo, blastula, or fetus which don't pull on your heart strings.
Even Pro life vs. Pro choice ... using the word Pro makes both sound so right even though they are opposite sides.

Euthanasia has such a cold sound, like something Nazis used during the Holocaust.
Death with dignity, right to die, declining life-prolonging treatment sound so merciful, even loving.
Yet, both are the same thing.

Reader beware.

Completely agree Kenny. I noticed not too long ago that the group once labeled 'pro-life' are now referred to as 'anti choice'. Word games!