1. Will U.S. Kill Kids In Name Of Compassion

Background: Steve Forbes brings an important question to light. What are the moral and ethical implications of Belgium passing their child euthanasia law? Belgium’s new law is a slippery slope to a morally reprehensible Belgium. Belgium is becoming dangerously close to emulating the acts of Nazi Germany that resulted in the killings of social “undesirables” in 1939. These social “undesirables” were terminal and physically or mentally handicapped children. Soon enough Belgium and other countries following in their footsteps will begin to eliminate social “undesirables”as well. Euthanasia in Belgium has soared since past years, as it now accounts for 3% of all deaths in Belgium. If America were to emulate Belgium, their death rate would also begin to skyrocket.  The scariest outcome of all however may result in practitioners forcing and guilting children into selecting euthanasia, in order to save resources and money.

How I intend to use it: The “slippery slope” is a common argument used in many situations against socially taboo topics. However what most people don’t know is that “slippery slope” arguments are constantly frowned upon by academic societies, being viewed as logical fallacies. Firstly, Forbes makes a correlation between Nazi Germany and Belgium practitioners even though the two have nothing in common at all. His article makes wild conclusions, hence “Belgium will start killing undesirable children” and “Practitioners will start forcing children to choose euthanasia to save costs.” His first argument is supported by a poor analogy, and relies heavily on emotion instead of fact. Meanwhile his second argument claiming that malpractice would ensue, will be taken note of and refuted in the essay.

2.Life etc— parents reveal their anguish at not being able to help their son to die

Background: Danny bond was a young man who since birth, suffered from an excruciatingly painful bowel disease. This has sentenced him to a lifetime full of pain. On occasions doctors speculated that the pain he experienced could occasionally be three times as painful as childbirth. Over the years Danny’s pain grew and his tolerance lowered. At the age of 15 he voiced his thoughts about dying to escape the pain. Because of his condition Danny never had the opportunity to make friends or even leave his hospital bed. After 300 painful operations just to keep him alive, Danny finally decided at the age of 20 that he wanted to die instead of living an agonizing life. However, euthanasia was not legal in the U.K., so when Danny turned 21, he starved himself to death in order to escape his hell.

How I will use it: Danny Bond’s case won’t be used as a call for euthanasia, but instead it is simply a tool to make readers realize that the pain that terminal patients face is all too real. People claim that every pain is treatable, however that statement is simply not true. Some pain cannot be treated, and often times the treatments cause more pain than relief, as did Danny’s surgeries. Additionally, some people claim that pain is bearable no matter how excrutiating, as long as the patient is hopeful. Danny’s case shows a rare situation in where wishful thinking, simply isn’t enough.

3. When Do Kids Understand Death:

Background: The reason why we as society views children as minors, is not because of their age specifically, but because of their mentality. A child’s brain hasn’t fully developed and prohibits them from being able to think about vast concepts in a mature way. However, despite its perceived complexity, some children have the ability to understand the general concept of death. In order to understand death as adults do though, a person is required to understand three general ideas. These ideas are the nonfuctionality, irreversality, and the universality. Scientists have conducted social experiments and psychological analyses on children and discovered that in some cases children as young as three years old can understand some these concepts. Individual experiences can also affect a child’s mental development. For example a child who experiences loss at a young age may have a deeper concept of depth than other children his age. By 11 a general understanding of all the concepts is usually attained.

How I will use it: This is obviously a source that weakens (not completely eliminates) the argument that children are incapable of understanding death. Many arguments against child euthanasia claim that children cannot comprehend death, therefore cannot make an informed decision on the matter. However studies have shown evidence opposite to this claim. This isn’t to say that all children have the ability to comprehend death, however this will be used to offer the idea that some children have the ability to.

4. ‘The Slippery Slope?’ Belgium moves too extend euthanasia rights to children

Background: Belgium sets itself aside from all other countries, being the first to completely eliminate the age requirement for voluntary euthanasia. Despite public support from Belgium citizens which is around 75%, religious people and doctors throughout the world have voiced their critique on the matter. It makes sense why adults are allowed to choose euthanasia, but why do children who aren’t fully mentally matured allowed to make this decision? Counterarguments stand that many children facing terminal illnesses, are mentally maturer than their “healthy” counterparts. While religious groups of all denominations are coming together to rally against this atrocity, the scientific community is split. This practice according to many may eventually fall prey to malpractice, however their strict laws and very few cases shrink those odds. Still, if there will be so few child euthanasia cases in the first place, then what’s the practicality of it?

How I will use it: This article is strong because it represents the sides of many arguments, giving the reader a neutral introduction to both parties. Supporters of the law claim that the only opposition they face are conservative religious organizations for the most part, but almost seem to deliberately leave out the fact that a large number of practitioners around the world are also opposed to this bill. Not only will I use the link as a neutral source of argument viewpoints, but I will also be using a direct quote from a retired medical ethics professor who attests that terminal children at times can be very mature for their age, and that the frequent application of the child euthanasia laws will make malpractice difficult. However, a brilliant counterargument is raised. The counterargument asks the question, if the child euthanasia bill won’t be used often, then what’s the practicality behind using it? A great argument, yet I will use this to remind the reader that the object of this law isn’t to save money or serve a practical purpose. Instead it serves the principal of allowing children the right to die with dignity.

5. Forms of Euthanasia 

Background: There are many types of euthanasia, and specific circumstances call for different definitions. Firstly, there is passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is when a practitioner doesn’t cause a patient to die, but allows them to. While active euthanasia is when a practitioner deliberately makes an act to end a patient’s life, for example, injecting a lethal dosage of drugs into their blood stream. Passive euthanasia can be done by withdrawing or with-holding treatment. Out of euthanasia there are two main types, voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when a patient explicitly requests for it, and involuntary euthanasia is when the patient has no say in the matter. Another example can be when a patient is in a irreversible coma and legal guardians or family members decide to end his life, or take him off life support. There also happens to be indirect euthanasia where a doctor doesn’t with-hold or withdraw treatment, or actively inject them with fatal drugs. Instead, the practitioner may offer or prescribe a lethal dosage of drugs.

How I will use it: Euthanasia is a very complex issues, and key definitions need to be explicated on. This article will be used to make distinctions in my knowledge between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, and specify which type we are focusing on. Many people get voluntary and involuntary euthanasia confused, claiming that voluntarily allowing children to kill themselves will lead to a society where people are euthanized without their consent. However people don’t consider that there are many cases such as comatose patients, who have the choice made for them. However, this act isn’t only limited to comatose patients, as children are also susceptible to involuntary euthanasia as long as their legal guardian approves of it. The issue to the public is not euthanasing children, but letting them give their consent to be euthanized.

6. Belgium’s new euthanasia law doesn’t protect children from themselves

Background: Children view adults as safe havens, centripetal parts in their lives who are tasked to protect them. This new Belgian law betrays children’s trust as they are exposed to a danger that most adults overlook, and that is their (the child’s)  own selves. Belgium’s extremely liberalistic view is putting children at risk. Children don’t have the cognitive ability to comprehend death, and most importantly life. They do not know the worth that their lives may hold in the future. After becoming a quadriplegic in a devastating accident in 1967, Jodi Eareckson Tada was convinced she had no reason to live. However after years of friends and family encouragement, she found that she was able to live despite her disability. She has since become a Nobel prize winner and writer from Time.com. None of us know the potential of what our lives hold.

How I will use it: Many people seem to be forgetting that terminal children and disabled children are two completely different things.  The claim that this is just Belgium’s efforts to get rid of their “undesirables” does not fully apply, as the children affected by the new Belgium law are destined to die soon anyway. No matter how protective a parent or adult might be, they cannot protect their child from death which in this case is imminent. What is the point of trying to put something off that’s destined to happen soon, all the while causing pain and suffering for the person you are trying to protect? Can a life destined to pain and a close, excruciating death be considered a life worth living?

7. Tough questions to answer, tough questions to ask

Background: When it comes down to terminal illness prognoses, unless patients are within weeks or days of dying, doctors are inaccurate with their estimates of a patient’s life. Accurate life expectancy predictions are in many cases non existent, as many of them are unreliable. Out of 468 patients, only 20% of the predictions were accurate, meanwhile 63% of the predictions were too optimistic. In a second study, patients on average were predicted to survive for 90 days, but they only survived for 24 days. Many things can affect accuracy. However the most common reason why doctors fail to give accurate predictions are their emotional ties to their patients. Doctors on occasions may purposefully give a loner prognosis in order to motivate the patient to accomplish any things they felt that they had to before they left this earth. However they are also known for subconsciously doing the same out of pure wishful thinking, if their relationship to the patient is strong enough. According to a study in Ireland, 83% of patients want to be told the truth, however despite their want, doctors simply don’t have the means to satisfy them.

How I will use it: There are a lot of optimistic people concerning themselves with the Belgium issue. Some of these people claim that there is a chance that patients, if they chose euthanasia, may miss out on a possible cure or treatment. However, the fact of the matter is that coming onto a treatment or cure weeks before your death are highly unlikely. This article proves the inaccuracy of life expectancy prognoses. This coupled with the lengthy process drugs have to go through until the FDA approved lowers the chances of a terminally ill person stumbling on a cure. As terminally ill patients are dying weeks, sometimes months earlier than predicted, and drugs are taking on average years to get approved, it leaves a smaller time gap for doctors to stumble upon a “miracle” treatment that could potentially save their patient’s life.

8. Discussing death with children

Background: Death is a difficult concept for children to grasp, and parents should attempt to talk to their children seriously about the matter if children ask or if the subject arises. It should not be avoided, however you should cater your words to their age groups. From 0-2 children don’t understand death at all, and only feel sadness when their care (feeding etc.) is interrupted. From 2-6, children believe that death isn’t permanent, and in some cases may see it as a punishment or a cause of their thoughts. From 6-11, they begin to understand that somethings are irreversible, and demonstrate cause and effect reasoning. At 11 they begin to understand the irreversible nature of death as well as how to think  philosophically.

What I will do with it: The national geographic article was written by an author and mom, however not a scientist. Though it offers some facts, it fails to cite any credible sources. This source is my attempt to verify her statistics and facts.  Providing the reader with false information is an act I want to avoid at all costs, so verifying this centripetal piece to my argument is required. Considering that this is a government website that belongs to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, I can confidently say that her claims were correct.

9. Belgium parliament votes for child euthanasia

Background: 12 years later after Belgium first decided to support euthanasia, they made an even bolder move that makes their initial support of euthanasia seem insignificant. Belgium’s elimination of the age limit to euthanasia incites opposition from many fronts in the medical field as well as major religious groups. Many religious people claim the law  to be immoral, and some pediatricians warn that children are easily impressionable and can be taken advantage of. The requirements needed for voluntary child is that the child must be terminal and experiencing great pain with no treatment available to relieve it. The decision must also be approved by parents, a medical team, and psychologists.

How I intend to use it: In many’s people arguments against euthanasia, they leave out important factors such as the requirements needed to for children to be qualified for voluntary euthanasia. This article is great, because unlike other articles it explicitly states the medical requirements commonly left out in arguments for or against child euthanasia. These strict requirements means that only very few children will be able to be involved in voluntary euthanasia, eliminating the idea that this law will cause an influx of child deaths. Psychiatric analyses of children mean mentally unfit children or children who cannot understand death will be eliminated from the process.

10. Euthanasia Program

Background: In 1939 Nazi Germany, Phillip Bouhler, the director of Hitler’s private chancellery as well as Karl Brandt, Hitler’s personal attending physician led a group of practitioners in an effort to restore integrity to the German nation by eliminating those who were considered a “life unworthy of life.” Those lives were the physically and mentally disabled children of Germany. In October of 1939, German practitioners convinced parents across the nation to admit physically or mentally handicapped children to specially designed pediatric clinics. Unfortunately, these children were actually being slaughtered by the masses in these Nazi run “hospitals.” In following years the euthanasia program became a legitimately ridiculous problem, as it expanded to even the East occupied Germany, as SS troopers and auxiliary police (not German practitioners) began to carry out the euthanasia plan with their own hands. These troops mowed down mentally or physically disabled children in mass shootings, exterminated them in gas chambers, and in even some cases killed them while they were asleep in their own homes during midnight raids.

How I intend to use it: This correlation between Nazi Germany and the recent Belgium euthanasia case came up in many articles and arguments against child euthanasia. I was familiar with the Nazi party of course and their anti-Semitic actions, however I was unaware of their actions against physically or mentally unfit children. This article is an attempt to understand the mindset of many, as they compare Belgium practitioners to Nazis. With further research I learned that this comparison is not only inaccurate but insulting to parties involved. This link is mainly a historical reference, in an attempts by me to stay informed without jumping to conclusions.