Belgium debates euthanasia for terminally ill children

I suspect philosophical materialism is a load of nonsense.

I have a soft spot for neo-hylomorphism myself. I'm not sure that Descartes wasn't the worst numb-nut in history for introducing mind-body dualism and riding roughshod over hundreds of years of perfectly good, if complex, old-school scholasticism.

Mark S.

[Malone]

While undoubtedly, like any system of provision of care, euthanasia would be abused by a small minority of unscrupulous relatives for their own ends, that is not necessarily a reason to prohibit its supply. (To say it is is akin to saying that because there are people who will happily stay on the dole all their lives, there should be social welfare for no one.)

It may be that if euthanasia were available people would start entering into a deeper form of philosophical discourse than before, and this is something those in power do not want. After all, we live in what Ligotti termed 'the tyrannical politics of the positive', where the implicit assumption is that the show must go on at all costs and there are those with vested interests in ensuring it does, regardless of the suffering generated.

I'd also venture that if euthanasia were available, this would ease the mental burden on those who are suicidal, and may in fact make their lives more tolerable. To know that a graceful and dignified exit was available and publicly acceptable would remove the stigma of mental unhappiness that so many labour under, and the appalling prospect of having to commit suicide in utter solitude and despair, knowing there will be a mess for some unsuspecting person to deal with. It would be nice if one day Seneca's words were true:

Let us give thanks to the gods, who keep no one in this life by force.

I suppose what worries me, as if anyone is really interested, is the moral argument in favour of the idea of euthanasia coming from folk who are doubtless good-intentioned in their desire to alleviate suffering, but who would also prefer there to be fewer human beings anyway.

That's not to belittle their point of view, but it does seem a little scary ...

Perhaps I'm being unfair though. I can imagine supremely horrific circumstances in which the idea of carrying on living would be intolerable, and I can't say that I'd have the courage of my religious convictions if I were actually faced with those circumstances. Still, I imagine that being in such a state would render other considerations wholly secondary, and that, in the final analysis, this would square me with the big guy upstairs. I hope so.

Mark S.

[Malone]

I think drawing a link between the right to euthanasia and those who desire a reduction in population figures is an unprovable, and ultimately irrelevant, non sequituir.

After all, those who in anguish bring their terminally ill pet to the vet to put the creature out of its misery are not doing so from a desire to reduce the world's animal population; they are doing so in order to end the futile pain of a creature they love.

If we afford such consideration to animals, then why should we not do so (with all of the appropriate checks, precautions and safeguards in place) to each other?

[Gray House]

Quote Originally Posted by Speaking Mute

Quote Originally Posted by Gray House The only point I see here is that children or those responsible for them are not legally allowed to make some decisions. That is true, and obvious. There are many other consequential decisions that children or those responsible for them are allowed to make. I do not see how any of your examples illuminate the issue of euthanasia specifically. The true and obvious part comes from ignoring the rational behind barring children and parents from such decisions. If we do not let a child take out a loan because we know children are prone to instant gratification and have a limited understanding of credit scores etc., and we do not let adults borrow against children's credit due to too many unscrupulous possibilities, why on earth would we extend them the option of death? Quote Originally Posted by Gray House You've been arguing against children and those responsible for them making the decision (which is what the article is about). Now you're only arguing against the child making the decision. Regardless of who should be making the decision, I think there are situations in which someone should be making it rather than leaving it to nature. Euthanasia - like sex - should always be a matter of personal consent. If the child is incapable of making the decision due to an inability to understand what the decision entails, then there is no one else to make the decision for them. Pain, disability, and early death are not a justification for killing someone on their own behalf; many people accept this route even when suicide is an option.

I think you're just repeating what you've already said. And you don't address the fact that nature has even less ability to understand what the decision entails.

[Gray House]

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

I'm not sure on what basis religion is "required" in any given instance, given a materialist perspective. Perhaps its distinction in the moral and ethical sphere is that it opens up a space for an absolute stance not conditional on societal fashion. Nazis or Stalinists on the other hand, from their own viewpoint, were acting in accordance with a code they viewed as moral or ethical, i.e. relative to cultures.

I am not a moral relativist. I think there is an absolute right and wrong decision in every situation. It is just very difficult in some situations to determine what the right decision is. But I do not base this on religion or any faith-based ideas. I think ethics is the management of situations that cause suffering or positive feelings, and there is always an absolute better or worse way of managing a situation, based on distribution of suffering, the acceptance of risk beforehand, etc.

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

Life is instinctively and intrinsically sacred.

You are saying that the existence of life is instinctively and intrinsically sacred. In my view the word "sacred" carries with it too many unreasonable ideas, and I don't think instinct is anywhere close to a worthy basis for ethics. I think suffering is intrinsically bad and less suffering is intrinsically better. Death is nothing to the dead, but causes suffering in those still alive. Dying is bad because it causes fear, pain, etc.

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

If we genuinely felt it wasn't we'd all be celebrating, as a species, the Holocaust or the Holodomor in the same way we do Christmas or the Passover.

I have not heard of Holodomor, but I know the Holocaust caused a lot of suffering. I don't care at all about Christmas or Passover.

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

Each murder would be a cause for rejoicing.

Murders usually involve a lot of suffering for the victim and others connected to the victim.

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

each abortion a celebration

I don't think there's any need to celebrate it, since the woman might be distraught, but it is better than having the child.

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

each suicide a time for partying

Suicide usually involves at least mental suffering for the suicide, and others connected to the suicide.

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

since it would reduce the number of human beings who can suffer any further.

Less suffering is good, but it is not good if the lessening entails a cost that is higher than the benefit.

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

We'd also not be talking about Ligotti's marvellous works here but damning him for having wasted our time and his in writing them, since in the final analysis we're ignoring his dictum that every human purpose is futile.

I don't remember Ligotti saying that every purpose is futile, but if he does then I disagree. I think the existence of life as a whole is futile. But while life exists then the managing of ethical situations is not a futile purpose.

[Speaking Mute]

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

While undoubtedly, like any system of provision of care, euthanasia would be abused by a small minority of unscrupulous relatives for their own ends, that is not necessarily a reason to prohibit its supply. (To say it is is akin to saying that because there are people who will happily stay on the dole all their lives, there should be social welfare for no one.)

Indeed - but adults needn't be self-serving to steer the child's decision in a direction that the child wouldn't have made in their own maturity.

For another comparison, there's a similar issue brewing with trangendered individuals; if a biological male/female wants to undergo sexual reassignment, the ideal period is actually before puberty. Once treatment is started at this age, the effects will be permanent, even if the child stops mid-treatment. Many will contend that a young child already understands their gender enough to make the choice for themselves - or at least that adults can assess the situation well enough to make the determination on behalf of child. I take a rather dim view of it, for pretty much the same reasons I'm wary of child euthanasia.

[Speaking Mute]

Quote Originally Posted by mark_samuels

I suspect philosophical materialism is a load of nonsense. I have a soft spot for neo-hylomorphism myself. I'm not sure that Descartes wasn't the worst numb-nut in history for introducing mind-body dualism and riding roughshod over hundreds of years of perfectly good, if complex, old-school scholasticism. Mark S.

Materialism might be nonsense - but it's a barrel full of monkeys when it escapes the doldrums of knee-jerk atheism. Quantum Suicide is another fun one...