For my research paper I will be explicating my support of the recent euthanasia law passed in Belgium for minors. Belgium is one of the few countries allowing medical practitioners to legally end the lives of their patients at the patients request. However, much controversy around Europe and America has arisen in response to the news that Belgium will be extending that choice to children. Out of the three European areas that legally support euthanasia, Belgium is the only one that lifts all age restrictions. A large amount of us opposing the law seem to have misconceptions about what the law actually states. I will review the requirements of euthanasia for children, which is more extensive than euthanasia for adults which will lower but not completely erase in any means chances of malpractice. Due to these very strict terms, the popular belief that this law will open the floodgates increasing child mortality rates is highly unlikely. I will be proving that this law will only affect a very small percentage of children, to the point where a rapid increase of death among children would be highly unlikely. Lastly I will be arguing that age does not matter when one is face to face with death, and whether someone be a child or adult they have the right to choose how their last moments on earth should be spent.
1. Life etc – parents reveal their anguish at not being able to help their son to die
Background: This article is about Danny Bond, a young man who for his entire life experienced excruciating pain and his parent’s emotional struggles as they watch their son in agony. Danny repeatedly requested euthanasia ever since he was 13 but due to the doctors legal inability to perform it, Danny ultimately decided to starve himself to death with the help of his parents at the age of 21
How I intend to use it: I intend to use this link as a prime example of a case where euthanasia is a completely humane practice. Danny was 13 when he first considered euthanasia and constantly requested it since. With this law in place Danny and children like him would not have to go through years of physical torture before they were old enough to die with whatever dignity they had left.
2.Belgium extends right to die to terminally ill children
Background: This link covers the main events of the passing of the law, as well as some initial parliament members reactions who were against the law. It brings up an example used as a counter argument to child euthanasia by many who oppose it. The example is of a pair of adult twins who chose euthanasia over becoming blind. This article also reviews the statistics of euthanasia in Belgium. Even though euthanasia for adults is rising rapidly, there has only been one case of euthanasia being requested by an individual under 20 between 2006 and 2012.
How I intend to use it: I will use this article to explicate the main difference between child and adult euthanasia, specifically by using the example given of the twins. I will also use the article to show how rare child euthanasia cases are mainly due to the lack of children requesting for it, supporting my point that an increase in child mortality is very unlikely.
3.Belgium Extends Euthanasia Law to Kids
Background: This article explicates the specific requirements that have to be met in order for a child to undergo euthanasia, as well as providing the percentage of Belgians who support the law. The article brings up a good counterargument to child euthanasia stating that 170 pediatricians signed a letter requesting for the law not to pass, urging that there is no urgent need for the law. It also gives the perspectives of two doctors who are not only unable to save children’s lives, but are medically incapable of easing their suffering.
How I intend to use it: I will use this article to discuss the requirements that have to be met in order for a child to undergo euthanasia (e.g. a team of doctors approval, psychologists analysis, as well as the parent’s and the child’s permission is needed.) Also, I will use the doctor’s confession about how unnerving it was for him to watch his child patients die painfully after them explicating that they understood their terminal position and only wish to be comfortable as they departed as another example where euthanasia for children can be a more humane practice then keeping them alive in agony. Additionally, I will
4. Belgium’s humane stance on dying kids
Background: This article focuses on the idea that child euthanasia’s main use might not be to euthanize children, but instead provide mental peace for those who are excruciating pain from a terminal illness. It provides data obtained in Oregon that reveals that majority patients who obtained a lethal dose of medicine prescribed by their doctors for assisted suicide don’t use the drugs. Instead most of the people who took the drugs reported to having a better peace of mind knowing that they had a choice. It also states that the Netherlands which has a similar law, has only euthanized five children in the past 12 years.
How I intend to use it: I will use the amount of children euthanized in the Netherlands to further support my point that this law will not cause a substantial spike in child related euthanization deaths. I will also use the data provided in the article to raise the idea that having an option to leave peacefully will most likely make children feel more at ease even if they do not select euthanasia.
5. Belgium becomes first country to legalize child euthanasia
Background: This link focuses on the Catholic church and their arguments against the law, from the Catholic Church’s point of view. They bring up the slippery slope debate, that allowing this law will open the floodgates to more heinous acts that will only further demoralize us. It also brings up Nazi Germany and their euthanization of disabled children, and comparing it to the law passed in Belgium.
How I intend to use it: I will compare the euthanization of children in Germany with the Belgian law and show how they are completely unrelated. I will also bring to light the ambiguity of the Catholic Church’s moral judgement, seeing as how about a year ago they used some of the same arguments against homosexuality (e.g. the slippery slope argument, allowing this will “open the door to a new type of barbarism.”)
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Requesting feedback for my sources, I want to know If I am guilty of committing the “walking into a link with what I find already decided.”
Feedback provided. —DSH
Introduction
It’s good to begin with a clear declaration of purpose: to support the new law.
The next three sentences should be combined into another clear declaration of purpose.
Despite strenuous opposition, Belgium, one of three European areas that permit euthanasia, will be the first country to correctly extend this essential human right to children.
amount/number = noncount/count
A large number of us.
I see you’re doing your best to incorporate “we” into your claims, which I appreciate. Here it puts you in a position of counting yourself among your “opponents” however. What you need to do here is say: Opponents of the law are misinformed.
For the “I will review the requirements” sentence, substitute a clear declaration of purpose: I will demonstrate that stricter requirements will eliminate the likelihood of abuse . . . .
In this sentence, it’s not the popular belief that’s unlikely: Due to these very strict terms, the popular belief that this law will open the floodgates increasing child mortality rates is highly unlikely
A matter of emphasis. Why even mention a “rapid increase of death among children” when you can easily rephrase to avoid it? I will prove that the restrictive qualifications will permit only a small number of children to even apply for approval. Or something like that.
For the last sentence, trim the population. You have a one and a someone, a child, an adult, and a they. Lastly I will argue that we all have the right to choose how our last moments on earth are spent. Child or adult, age is irrelevant.
1. FFG possessive. FFG misuses “due to.”
I would be tempted to lead with this story too, since it clearly demonstrates the fierce sincerity of its protagonist. He clearly wasn’t a casual suicide if he had the will to starve himself.
Argument proposal. I wonder if, to keep yourself honest and to add some rigor to the argument process, you’d consider trying the negative proof approach. Instead of offering good reasons to approve euthanasia, offer the common objections to it and refute them in order.
2. I don’t see how “the example of the twins” explicates the main difference between the child and adult euthanasia. Would children becoming blind making the same request be categorically different? How?
The only purpose served by proving “the unlikelihood of a rapid increase in child mortality” would be to refute a common objection, so maybe you’re adopting my proposal in advance.
The weakness of your proposition is that most likely children don’t ask for euthanasia because they know it isn’t legal. Imagine if this argument had been made in 1980: “We don’t need a gay marriage law because gay couples don’t apply to be married.”
3. This makes twice you’ve said doctors are “unable” or “incapable” of performing euthanasia, but it’s not their ability you want to highlight, it’s that they’re prohibited. Especially when you say they’re “medically incapable,” you mistake permission for ability.
FFG repeatedly for possessives. What’s with “explicating”?
Why is the pediatricians’ letter a good counterargument? Do the pediatricians think the need for adult euthanasia is urgent? Do they have less compassion for their child patients than for adult patients? Or are they worried about abuse? You can use this source that “talks about” the letter if it satisfies, but I wouldn’t trust any essay that couldn’t link to the actual letter. Anybody can say that the letter advised against passage, but that’s not nearly as important as the reasons offered.
4. This is a very nice piece of evidence. Both the Oregon argument in favor of the “unexercised option” and the Netherlands statistics about the “unexercised legal option” are powerful.
Why does so much of the material share the same objection? Is the only reason to oppose child euthanasia the fear that it will provide an option for “too many” children? Do opponents fear “too many” children will be, what? coerced? whimsical? impetuous? Examine the underlying assumption that opponents don’t trust kids to make “adult” choices.
5. I can’t begin to tell from your Background what actual arguments are made in this source, or whether it represents official church policy or somebody’s take on possible Catholic objections. From “focuses on” and “brings up” I can only guess what’s actually said.
It might be fun, rhetorically, if you can pull it off, to categorically dismiss the objections of the Catholic Church as inconsequential and predictably archaic. As if someone had asked you then to justify your dismissal, you could offer: these objections belong to pre-history, like their 20th Century condemnation of homosexuality as barbaric.
These are mostly comforting sources, Josue. Challenge yourself to find and then refute more reasonable objections; for example, that children lack the perspective needed to make irreversible decisions. Counter the reasonable objection that thousands of teens attempt suicide for reasons no more permanent than an unrequited crush and survive to regret those attempts. Find that letter from the pediatricians; they may succeed, or nearly succeed, in refuting your thesis, thereby strengthening your position either way.
When doing research on the topic I found that a commonly used counter argument to Child Euthanasia was the case of these twins. I wanted refute the validity of using the twins as an example due to how rigorous voluntary Child Euthanasia is. However if I wanted to do that, I suppose that I should have gotten an article written opposing my view, that uses the twins as a supporting argument. That would help in giving me another source that isn’t comforting.